How can Necromancer villains command vast armies of the dead?

[Cyclops08]

The class seems nerfed for players, but there are no spells for DMs to make a really scary foe.

Does a DM just assume the bad guy does it but you the player cannot?

if the players keep getting hints of a rising necromancer gaining in power (so they can face him later)...what would this villain be doing that the players are not?

[wombat31]

The npc big bad probably has custom magic items and or artifacts or controls several lower level necromancers who do this bidding

[Torpin]

Does a DM just assume the bad guy does it but you the player cannot?
Yes, just like npcs have kingdoms and regular armies, and players dont.

[No brains]

If spell or artifact explanations fail, maybe the necromancer did normal diplomacy with its powerful undead servants.

"That mummy lord is my friend! We fight together toward a common purpose!"

This means he can get the lord to use their cleric spells to animate more undead and build an even larger army of skeletons.

It would be a potent pyramid scheme.

[Spore]

With enough proximity, they don't really need to "control" them as in: "make sure every individual doesn't eat your party members" but you just animate them. Undead by most fluff texts are compelled to snuff out the living so the only things you need to do is:

a) animate them.

b) park them somewhere where they cannot eat YOUR face.

c) bring them onto the battlefield.

d) animate any fallen enemy soldiers.

Honestly if I were a high level necromancer, I would command my commanders (who in turn can also command undead) and nothing else. If you have non-undead minions (a sad necessity), you need to keep them in line with your vast powers. A few curses or geas spells would do the trick. Because usually just because you are a necromancer doesn't you deal exclusively in undead.

[MaxWilson]

The class seems nerfed for players, but there are no spells for DMs to make a really scary foe.

Does a DM just assume the bad guy does it but you the player cannot?

if the players keep getting hints of a rising necromancer gaining in power (so they can face him later)...what would this villain be doing that the players are not?

PCs can do it too. Use Create Undead to create super-wights (Undead Thrall bonuses) and then instead of recasting Create Undead every day, control them with high-level Mass Suggestion and Geas (wights are not immune to charm) and supplement your army of wights with Planar Binding (demons and elementals).

[MountainTiger]

5e definitely encourages accepting asymmetry between PCs and NPCs on things like this. But if you want a version that follows the rules for the PCs:

A villain necromancer doesn't necessarily need lots of minions under direct control; they can attack a village, raise the dead, and leave any minions they don't want to keep under control behind as a surprise for anyone investigating. The necromancer's rise would take the form of increasingly bold raids on isolated settlements, wearing down any local resistance physically and mentally by making them repeatedly clean up the aftermath; the eventual goal would be to create a zombie apocalypse scenario, with the zombies gaining momentum as they are never fully cleared.

[Sigreid]

I'd say you do it by getting intelligent undead to follow you as normal followers. So, figure out what they want and convince them that they get more of it with you than without.

[Cyclops08]

I was thinking more like having dealings with servants of Orcus and paying off lower planar lords for increased command abilities.

or
getting a book with Create undead commander: who at 4th level can control 30 undead troops. cast at higher levels it could be 60 or 100 controlled. the spell would give you a mindlink with your commanders to pass orders. if the necromancer dies, the undead commanders are suddenly free willed undead...

there could even be an artifact like the Necromonicon that would give the same spells...once you create undead general, the book will no longer need you.

[Sigreid]

There's always a certain percentage of wackos that would swear eternal fealty to you in exchange for the power becoming undead has. Alternately, you could convince said wackos that as the source of their undeaded-ness you can revoke the gift at any time.

[GreyBlack]

Because the plot demands it.

Okay, me being intentionally obtuse aside, your stereotypical necromancer villain is normally a Chaotic Evil villain; their goal is to end society for their own ends. Given that, why would they want to control all of the undead? Just creating the undead and then letting them go about their natural programming seems very in character for such a character. Maybe keep control of a small contingent to act as your personal guards, but you don't have to. Just make the undead and let them go bananas.

That said... a level 20 necromancer can control upwards of:

1 mummy lord
5 wights
10 ghouls
60 zombies (controlled by wights)
146 skeletons or zombies (56 of which are controlled by the mummy lord)

So that is at least a company of undead in your service. I think you're fine in terms of having an undead army.

[TheUser]

The class seems nerfed for players, but there are no spells for DMs to make a really scary foe.

Does a DM just assume the bad guy does it but you the player cannot?

if the players keep getting hints of a rising necromancer gaining in power (so they can face him later)...what would this villain be doing that the players are not?

Finger of Death is a good start. The zombies it creates don't expire and the necromancer never loses control.
Zombies also have enough strength to wear chainmail and use a shield. A level 20 Necromancer is now creating 2 permanent zombies per day. Want to use your 8th and 9th level slot and it goes up to 4. 1 month of murdering hapless civilians and you've got yourself 120 permanent zombies with 18 AC and 42 hp. I'd say a wizard would play it safe and keep their level 8 and 9 spell slots open and call it 60 zombies after a month.

Is it go time? Create Undead with an 8th level slot for 2 Wights, each of then can control 12 zombies (gotta murder more people though...)

Want a contingent of skeleton archers thrown in there? Animate Dead using a 5th level slot and keep control of 8 of them. Let's just assume we'll use up our arcane recovery and our signature spell to get off another fifth level and a third level animate dead for a total of 20 skeleton archers.

Oh yeah there's also that Mummy Lord you keep permanently with your level 14 feature.

You have a Simulacrum I assume? It also gets its own Mummy Lord too!

Ok so....84 zombies. 20 skeleton archers. 2 wights. 2 Mummy Lords and a perfect copy of yourself.

109 summons and a short rest later and all you've used up is an 8th level spell slot...

[JackPhoenix]

Zombies also have enough strength to wear chainmail and use a shield. A level 20 Necromancer is now creating 2 permanent zombies per day. Want to use your 8th and 9th level slot and it goes up to 4. 1 month of murdering hapless civilians and you've got yourself 120 permanent zombies with 18 AC and 42 hp.

Zombies may have strength to wear chainmail without being even slower than they already are, but there's absolutely nothing indicating they are proficient with it.

[Angelalex242]

I'd just go with evil artifact myself.

This EEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL artifact lets you control 1000 undead, but you have to feed it a baby every day or they all turn on you and kill you.

[MaxWilson]

A level 20 Necromancer can control 12 super-wights (65 HP, AC 18 w/ scale mail + shield, 2x d8+8 damage w/ longsword = effectively CR 5) for a year per casting of Mass Suggestion IX. It's completely plausible to have an enemy bad guy with a small army of 300 super-wights under his control, plus a Mummy Lord or Nightwalker, plus a dozen or so Nycaloths for heavy lifting, plus full spell slots as a wizard. (And of course he can use Shapechange/True Polymorph into a Shadow Dragon to convert arbitrary numbers of helpless villagers into Shadow minions, over time.)

Also Finger of Death can gradually get you an infinite number of zombies, theoretically, but in practice no one would ever bother unless they were totally insane and just liked killing people... so feel free to give your BBEG an arbitrary number of up-armored super-zombies (42 HP, AC 16 w/ chain mail, 2d6+7 damage w/ greatsword = effective CR 1) if they're patient enough and murderous enough.


Zombies may have strength to wear chainmail without being even slower than they already are, but there's absolutely nothing indicating they are proficient with it.

Even if this is true of a given set of zombies, nonproficiency penalties aren't that bad, and can be cancelled out by e.g. Darkness or Fog Cloud or by having zombies Help each other (if the DM rules they can) or attack prone targets. Besides, they're just free zombies anyway--they're primarily just meat shields for your archers and beefier summons.

[JoeJ]

All those numbers seem really small if you're trying to terrorize a major city that can easily put over 100,000 militia members on the walls, and at least 20,000 in the field in an emergency. If the entire realm is mobilized, there will be several times that many troops. And more still if other realms join in against a common enemy.

To be a credible world-shaking threat, a necromancer is going to need not hundreds of undead warriors, but hundreds of thousands.

[Unoriginal]

A wizard alone won't accomplish much, no matter which school they favor. Even if some absolutely refuse to acknowledge this fact.

That doesn't mean your BBEG has to be alone.

Also, like others have said, the limit is on the number of controlled creature, not the number of created ones.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'd just go with evil artifact myself.

This EEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL artifact lets you control 1000 undead, but you have to feed it a baby every day or they all turn on you and kill you.

"When attuned to this artifact the number of undead under the control of your Animate Dead spell is unlimited. If you fail to meet this artifacts demands, all undead under your control become hostile against you"

[Kane0]

Wights!

Alternatively, port in the Desecrate spell or similar as a ritual if you dont want to do it via item, feat or feature.

[Unoriginal]

Keep in mind that Ras Nsi managed to curse the whole jungles of Chult to make so anything that died there rose as a zombie or a skeleton. And he wasn't an epic wizard or anything.

He didn't have control over most of the undead, though, and he likely only accomplished that thanks to Yuan-ti rituals, which can rival a Wish in power. In any case, he couldn't have done it alone.

[JackPhoenix]

All those numbers seem really small if you're trying to terrorize a major city that can easily put over 100,000 militia members on the walls, and at least 20,000 in the field in an emergency. If the entire realm is mobilized, there will be several times that many troops. And more still if other realms join in against a common enemy.

To be a credible world-shaking threat, a necromancer is going to need not hundreds of undead warriors, but hundreds of thousands.

You should propably check your demographics. 100k militia members? Metropolis in D&D has 25k+ populace. That's total, including children and other people who wouldn't be able to fight even if they wanted to. 100k may be the entire combat-capable populace of medium-sized kingdom.

[JoeJ]

You should propably check your demographics. 100k militia members? Metropolis in D&D has 25k+ populace. That's total, including children and other people who wouldn't be able to fight even if they wanted to. 100k may be the entire combat-capable populace of medium-sized kingdom.

What's the population of Waterdeep? Or Calimport? Or Huzuz?

I'm not thinking about small cities, but major population centers like Constantinople, Baghdad, or Rome.

[jdolch]

All those numbers seem really small if you're trying to terrorize a major city that can easily put over 100,000 militia members on the walls, and at least 20,000 in the field in an emergency.

What? I think you are going by modern Mega-Cities like New York. Medieval Cities (as in D&D) are not nearly as Big. One of the biggest Cities in these times was Paris in France and that peaked at ~220.000 People (as a capitol). That's everybody, including Women, Children and old People. No way they can put 100.000 People on the Walls. Maybe 30.000 and that is stretching it big time. Those 30.000 are literally peasants with pitchfork and chair legs. If you mean by "Militia" People who are at least moderately trained and armed then maybe 10.000.

And again that is not an average "big" city. Most big cities (regional hubs) had 2.000 to max. 20.000 people. And then you still have the question of having a Wall to begin with. Cities are not castles.

A Medieval Army on a major Expedition had about 7.000 to 15.000 Soldiers. Just as a ballpark.

So: "No" to 100.000 Soldiers on a Wall.

[Lord Vukodlak]

What's the population of Waterdeep? Or Calimport? Or Huzuz?

I'm not thinking about small cities, but major population centers like Constantinople, Baghdad, or Rome.

Waterdeep 130,000, and Baldur's Gate 140,000, Calimport, 200,000, Huzu, 800,000 thousand.

Keep in mind that 25,000 is a HUGE population center by medieval standards. London in the 11th century was only 25,000 and was among the largest cities in the Europe at the time. Faerun also lacks gigantic sized Empires like the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire.

[Unoriginal]

Waterdeep is two millions people, in 5e. It is certainly the biggest city in the world, though.

A trade-harbor city like Port Nyanzaru, meanwhile, is more representative of the type of military presence you could usually find. I'm off the books right now, but between the city's guards and the private forces of the nobles, there is probably far less than 2000 soldiers.

[GreyBlack]

Waterdeep is two millions people, in 5e. It is certainly the biggest city in the world, though.

A trade-harbor city like Port Nyanzaru, meanwhile, is more representative of the type of military presence you could usually find. I'm off the books right now, but between the city's guards and the private forces of the nobles, there is probably far less than 2000 soldiers.

Soooooo... it's not that I'm doubting you so much as I'm curious where the 2 million number came from? I'm assuming SCAG but I haven't done a deep dive through that in a while.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Waterdeep is two millions people, in 5e. It is certainly the biggest city in the world, though.

A trade-harbor city like Port Nyanzaru, meanwhile, is more representative of the type of military presence you could usually find. I'm off the books right now, but between the city's guards and the private forces of the nobles, there is probably far less than 2000 soldiers.

Personally, I would find it absolutely immersion breaking if a single necromancer without significant divine support could threaten Waterdeep with his own personal armies. I'd expect something like the following:

1 Archmage-caliber necromancer
5-10 Necromancer-caliber necromancers
20-ish "apprentice necromancers" (capable of 3rd level spells, but not much more)
A bunch of apprentices incapable of animating dead, but capable of giving orders to intelligent undead and otherwise participating.

Using the numbers posted earlier:

1 mummy lord
5 wights
10 ghouls
60 zombies (controlled by wights)
146 skeletons or zombies (56 of which are controlled by the mummy lord)

The Necromancer-class wizards can each maintain another 3 ghouls (swapping out circle of death for create undead) and a bunch more skeletons and zombies, while the 5th-level casters concentrate on skeletons. That gives you (conservatively) another 15 ghouls plus a bunch more skeletons.

And that's just for the arcane support. I'd expect bunches of henchmen (living or intelligent undead), monsters sworn/coerced/bribed into service, etc.

And still, something like Waterdeep wouldn't be too worried. Unless you have someone like Szass Tam or the whole Thayan contingent of necromancers on you. Then you have a world-shaking undead threat.

[Zanthy1]

I'v done this for an NPC as a complex ritual with numerous requirements. The end goal of said ritual is the summoning of a massive undead horde of 1 million zombies/skeletons. (This was an apocalypse level ritual). However, in order to accomplish this ritual there were several key items and circumstances that were required to be met, and eventually the players found out about it and had opportunities to stunt the ritual.

I set it up where if the Necromancer accomplished every single aspect of said ritual then the 1 million would show under his command. However with each part of the ritual that was disrupted by the players I reduced the number and other factors as well. For the components/circumstances I had as either unique items (that the players could either keep or destroy) or a specific instance that was time locked (on the first full moon of the 5000th year or something). If the players kept the items then it gave me a reason to have the necromancer send constant threats to try and reacquire it.

This campaign ran a long time and by the time all my planned items/things for the ritual had been explored, the players had dealt with and neutralized more than half (though some had significantly more weight than others). So the Necromancer performed the ritual and summoned one thousand undead zombies (he also had his own undead from regular spells). The final battle started with the players organizing the militia of a border town near the ritual site for defense against the horde, followed by them facing off against the Necromancer and his personal minions.

[StoicLeaf]

I like to think of PCs vs NPCs in terms of restaurants.

PCs are the McDonalds' of the world.
They're everywhere, pretty good at what they do but are very, very standardised.

NPCs, at their very best, tend to 5 star restaurants.
You get food that is familiar to you but still somehow different and god only knows how the chef made it.

Which isn't to say that a PC can't one day become an NPC or acquire skills that makes them better than the big mac.
Interestingly enough, if you look at the XP numbers the game gives you, if your PCs are getting their adventuring days worth of XP then you can go from a level 1 schmuck to a level 20 sexy shoeless god of war in 35 days. You cannot compare some 35 day hero to some lich that has spent centuries perfecting his art.

[Amdy_vill]

The class seems nerfed for players, but there are no spells for DMs to make a really scary foe.

Does a DM just assume the bad guy does it but you the player cannot?

if the players keep getting hints of a rising necromancer gaining in power (so they can face him later)...what would this villain be doing that the players are not?

like others have said magic items and other BBEG necromancers working for them. here is some old math i found for necromancers. if you have like 20 guys with this power and they all have magic items based around undead control i can see massive armies.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?462738-Max-Army-of-Darkness-Necromancer-Math

[Unoriginal]

So, according to Tomb of Annihilation, the active garrison of Fort Nyanzaru (which guards Port Nyanzaru's harbor) is 40 Guards, 4 Veterans, and 1 Noble as commander.

Obviously that doesn't take into account the guards in town or the local rulers' personal guards, nor the highly powerful Dragonborn Sorcerer they've hired.


Soooooo... it's not that I'm doubting you so much as I'm curious where the 2 million number came from? I'm assuming SCAG but I haven't done a deep dive through that in a while.

It's from here: http://dnd.wizards.com/dungeons-and-dragons/what-is-dnd/locations/waterdeep


Personally, I would find it absolutely immersion breaking if a single necromancer without significant divine support could threaten Waterdeep with his own personal armies.

Indeed.

[The Jack]

You know, I've been thinking lately that necromancy works best as a supplement to your evil army, not as your evil army.
Like you've got 2/3 hobgoblins and associates and the rest are undead. Summoning demons are often more practical.

But anyhow
Fuedal armies are going to be a few thousand men, sometimes tens of thousands and rarely over a hundred thousand
Non-fuedal armies are often tens of thousands, going into hundreds is not uncommon.

Like, a necromancer doesn't have a serious chance without a lot of help.

1- A 17th level+ necromancer is using True Polymorph every day to turn rocks into super useful Mage characters who are 9th level casters. There might a better monster but otherwise this is the best apocalyptic army maker you'll get.

2-skeletons and zombies are often locked in wagons, dimension doors, or in secured areas of forts so that nobody has to control them but they're ready to be let out to cause carnage.

3- Wands or staves of necromancy. Similar items exist, it's just a matter of retooling.

4- Artifacts.
My favourite idea would be something that keeps lower undead under your control whilst in an aura, or which gives you a set amount of servants that replenish.


5- There's more room for spells. For example there's no spell that can get you large or non-humanoid undead on your side, but such undead certainly exist! Maybe there's some stuff there for people, but I'd recommend you don't go over the top; If an NPC can use it, players should be able to use it. Level things appropriately and for the ultra powerful stuff use obtainable things that aren't easily obtainable.
- You need a large structure shaped in a certain way.
- an item worth 10k
-some atrocious act
But for a lot of things, say you want a single large or non-humanoid undead, it shouldn't be a big departure from the normal summoning.


Recruiting casters, blackguards, vampires, death knights, arranging a claw monster...
Vampires are limited heavily by food (maybe capture a troll?), but using throwaway spawn with equipment would be incredibly effective. Easy creation of CR5 monsters before equipment? Sign me up for one. If you were somehow the vampire and the 17+ mage...

[MountainTiger]

What's the population of Waterdeep? Or Calimport? Or Huzuz?

I'm not thinking about small cities, but major population centers like Constantinople, Baghdad, or Rome.

IDK about Baghdad, but Constantinople and Rome at their peaks couldn't have locally mobilized 100,000 defenders in a reasonable amount of time because they were imperial centers with no significant institutions for mobilizing the population (indeed, the population was often seen as more of a danger than a source of potential strength). They relied on field armies keeping enemies at a distance, and both proved vulnerable to relatively small armies when directly attacked (Rome still had hundreds of thousands of inhabitants when it was sacked by an army a few tens of thousands strong in 410; Constantinople was probably around 400,000 when under 30,000 Crusaders took it in 1204). In a prolonged siege, the large populations would have been a massive liability as they were reliant on constant importation of food on a massive scale (Constantinople did survive multiple major sieges in the early middle ages, but these were in a relatively low period for its population).

[MaxWilson]

All those numbers seem really small if you're trying to terrorize a major city that can easily put over 100,000 militia members on the walls, and at least 20,000 in the field in an emergency. If the entire realm is mobilized, there will be several times that many troops. And more still if other realms join in against a common enemy.

To be a credible world-shaking threat, a necromancer is going to need not hundreds of undead warriors, but hundreds of thousands.

Or have a smaller, more feudal world where armies of hundreds of thousands of men just aren't a thing. In an industrialized society like the one you're positing, with cities of millions of people and armies of hundreds of thousands, most threats that a group of PCs could be expected to handle could also just be dealt with by a company of troops, so PCs are redundant unless they're on the wrong side of the law or something (Shadowrun 5e?).

Anyway, the point is that it's not a given such huge cities exist. If they do, sure, individual necromancers will also be outclassed, just like individual PCs.

[Unoriginal]

There's a reason why necromancers with warmongering ambitions traditionally hide in dungeons, secret cabals and other crypts to do their plots, when they're not backed up by a local tyrant.

[Bohandas]

It occurs to me thay if they just want the undead to attack then there's little need for the undead to be controlled. Just illusion upsome chickens for them to chase to wherever you actually want them.

[JoeJ]

What? I think you are going by modern Mega-Cities like New York. Medieval Cities (as in D&D) are not nearly as Big. One of the biggest Cities in these times was Paris in France and that peaked at ~220.000 People (as a capitol). That's everybody, including Women, Children and old People. No way they can put 100.000 People on the Walls. Maybe 30.000 and that is stretching it big time. Those 30.000 are literally peasants with pitchfork and chair legs. If you mean by "Militia" People who are at least moderately trained and armed then maybe 10.000.

And again that is not an average "big" city. Most big cities (regional hubs) had 2.000 to max. 20.000 people. And then you still have the question of having a Wall to begin with. Cities are not castles.

A Medieval Army on a major Expedition had about 7.000 to 15.000 Soldiers. Just as a ballpark.

So: "No" to 100.000 Soldiers on a Wall.

My world is ancient, not medieval, and I'm using the Mediterranean civilizations as a model. The city of Battersea, after which the setting is named, has a population of well over half a million, and in the event the city was attacked they would definitely be able to put 100,000 defenders on the wall. They couldn't muster an expeditionary force anywhere near that size, but to defend the city against an omnicidal enemy, when it's fight or die, absolutely

In the FR, Huzuz is much larger than Battersea, and Calimport at its height was larger still. I've seen conflicting figures for the population of Waterdeep, but some of them range up to 2,000,000.

All of which is kind of beside the point. A so-called army of several hundred zombies is not going to be a serious threat to a major city, let along an entire kingdom, even at medieval population levels. To be a world shaking threat, a necromancer would need to raise entire kingdoms of the dead, and there doesn't appear to be a way to do that.

[MaxWilson]

All of which is kind of beside the point. A so-called army of several hundred zombies is not going to be a serious threat to a major city, let along an entire kingdom, even at medieval population levels. To be a world shaking threat, a necromancer would need to raise entire kingdoms of the dead, and there doesn't appear to be a way to do that.

Demographic arguments aside, this bit here just isn't true. As mentioned previously, you can create arbitrary numbers of Shadows under your control by killing peasants with your breath weapon while Shapechanged into a Shadow Dragon (of any type); you can slow create arbitrary numbers of zombies under your control via Finger of Death; and you can create arbitrary numbers of wights/zombies/ghouls/etc. just by not attempting to keep your undead under control once you've created them.

Of these three methods, the Shadow Dragon method is the quickest. If you've got a city which for some reason contains two million people, that's potentially two million shadows you can put under your control if your evil plan works. (Nature of the evil plan TBD but surely involves herding people into confined spaces somehow where you can convert them into shadows at the rate of 300+ shadows per turn using your breath weapon.)

[Bohandas]

What? I think you are going by modern Mega-Cities like New York. Medieval Cities (as in D&D) are not nearly as Big. One of the biggest Cities in these times was Paris in France and that peaked at ~220.000 People (as a capitol). That's everybody, including Women, Children and old People. No way they can put 100.000 People on the Walls. Maybe 30.000 and that is stretching it big time. Those 30.000 are literally peasants with pitchfork and chair legs. If you mean by "Militia" People who are at least moderately trained and armed then maybe 10.000.

And again that is not an average "big" city. Most big cities (regional hubs) had 2.000 to max. 20.000 people. And then you still have the question of having a Wall to begin with. Cities are not castles.

A Medieval Army on a major Expedition had about 7.000 to 15.000 Soldiers. Just as a ballpark.

So: "No" to 100.000 Soldiers on a Wall.

Rome had over a million people living there in the third century

[Spore]

Personally, I would find it absolutely immersion breaking if a single necromancer without significant divine support could threaten Waterdeep with his own personal armies. I'd expect something like the following:

You DO realize Waterdeep is literally ruled by a Chosen of Mystra and Archmage and you worry about a necromancer attack?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Waterdeep is two millions people, in 5e. It is certainly the biggest city in the world, though..

2 mill is the territorial area not just the city. So Waterdeep as the country not the city itself.


Rome had over a million people living there in the third century
Rome doesn’t count, it a far to much of an extreeme outlier to be included. By the midevial period its population had fallen to under 30,000.

[The Jack]

It occurs to me thay if they just want the undead to attack then there's little need for the undead to be controlled. Just illusion upsome chickens for them to chase to wherever you actually want them.

I can't see this working well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You DO realize Waterdeep is literally ruled by a Chosen of Mystra and Archmage and you worry about a necromancer attack?

I think you either meant to quote someone else or misread that quote. I'm NOT worried about a necromancer attacking Waterdeep. And not even because of who's in charge. I'd feel the same way about anybody attacking it without one or more of the following:

* Significant Outsider support (ie Orcus on retainer)
* Full superpower (Thay at the height of its power) army support
* Massive internal troubles/treachery.

---------------------
To the general point: Attacking fortified cities is hard. Most accounts say you need something like 3-4x the number of attackers as defenders for an assault to succeed (without internal treachery). Sieges work, but even then you need significant manpower to do so.

And skeletons and zombies make awful soldiers. They lack all initiative and must be directed explicitly by their "owner" for each little task. They also don't play nice (if uncontrolled) with living allies. Plus, every undead has to come from a living being.

To assault a city of 100k defenders with an undead army, you have to create between 300k and 400k undead. That's a huge city of corpses. That will take decades at best (if there's no decay) and be stupidly obvious to anyone watching. The only way "world-shaking" necromancy can happen is with self-replicating undead (3e's wight apocalypse scenario). And that's just a nightmare scenario for everyone, since they're not controlled by any living being at all at that point.

[Unoriginal]

Moloch could use his at-will Animate Dead to make all the corpses of a necropolis into a wave of undead over several weeks and let them loose on the city above, if he wanted it devastated without too much investment except time.

His Eidolons are just much better in every ways, though, so there is little point to do it if he wanted the city squashed. He just need a soul to craft each of them.

[JoeJ]

Of these three methods, the Shadow Dragon method is the quickest. If you've got a city which for some reason contains two million people, that's potentially two million shadows you can put under your control if your evil plan works. (Nature of the evil plan TBD but surely involves herding people into confined spaces somehow where you can convert them into shadows at the rate of 300+ shadows per turn using your breath weapon.)

So the best necromancy spell in the game is True Polymorph?

But if you somehow can up with a plan that will let you attack a city that size, all by yourself, in dragon form, without being slaughtered, what do you need the undead army for?

[TheUser]

Of these three methods, the Shadow Dragon method is the quickest. If you've got a city which for some reason contains two million people, that's potentially two million shadows you can put under your control if your evil plan works. (Nature of the evil plan TBD but surely involves herding people into confined spaces somehow where you can convert them into shadows at the rate of 300+ shadows per turn using your breath weapon.)

I think you have to remain as a Shadow Dragon to retain control.

The feature for their breath weapon says:
A humanoid reduced to 0 hit points by this damage dies, and an undead shadow rises from its corpse and acts immediately after the dragon in the initiative count. The shadow is under the dragon’s control.

Controlling those shadows might just be a byproduct of being a Shadow Dragon. So the true polymorph might have to become permanent in order to retain control.

[MaxWilson]

So the best necromancy spell in the game is True Polymorph?

But if you somehow can up with a plan that will let you attack a city that size, all by yourself, in dragon form, without being slaughtered, what do you need the undead army for?

Seems to me the you need the undead to get the ball rolling and herd everybody into groups large enough to be worth breathing on/converting.

Anyway, you're changing the subject. It's possible, QED.


I think you have to remain as a Shadow Dragon to retain control.

The feature for their breath weapon says:
A humanoid reduced to 0 hit points by this damage dies, and an undead shadow rises from its corpse and acts immediately after the dragon in the initiative count. The shadow is under the dragon’s control.

Controlling those shadows might just be a byproduct of being a Shadow Dragon. So the true polymorph might have to become permanent in order to retain control.

That's plausible. If the DM shares that interpretation, the necromancer might need to set up a few Glyphs of Dispel Magic to turn back into a human afterwards. (Or make their Simulacrum do it. Or drop to 0 HP and get healed, or die and let their Clone activate.)

[JoeJ]

Seems to me the you need the undead to get the ball rolling and herd everybody into groups large enough to be worth breathing on/converting.

Anyway, you're changing the subject. It's possible, QED.

That sounds like you saying that in order to get an undead army you have to start with an undead army. We're still talking about attacking a major city, right? Because I really don't see how that's going to get you a massive army if you don't already have a massive army to attack the city with.

[Bohandas]

Just buy a bunch of beef


Rome doesn’t count, it a far to much of an extreeme outlier to be included. By the midevial period its population had fallen to under 30,000.

Beijing had a population of one million in the 14th century (plus another 2 million in the outlaying regions)

[Bohandas]

EDIT: Double post

[Tanarii]

Create a self-replicated plague that turns its victims into fast-attack zombies?

[MaxWilson]

That sounds like you saying that in order to get an undead army you have to start with an undead army.

No. You said having an undead army was redundant. I pointed out that you could want to bootstrap.


We're still talking about attacking a major city, right?

It's probably not where I would start. I'd probably eat a town of 1000, use those shadows to eat a large city of 10,000, and then work my way up to the hypothetical city of millions after that.


Because I really don't see how that's going to get you a massive army if you don't already have a massive army to attack the city with.

Really?

[MountainTiger]

The Shadow Dragon plan seems pretty good; Shadows are pretty nasty for ordinary people to deal with and the polymorph gives a lot of mobility and disguises the necromance. Hit villages and travelers, either to build up an army of shadows under your command or to infest the countryside with fast, stealthy, damage resistant, self-replicating undead (or some of each, it seems like in any case the second generation and beyond shadows aren't under the dragon's control).

As a bonus, the survivors get to learn who was evil by who doesn't rise as a shadow.

[Sigreid]

You know, I've been thinking lately that necromancy works best as a supplement to your evil army, not as your evil army.
Like you've got 2/3 hobgoblins and associates and the rest are undead. Summoning demons are often more practical.

But anyhow
Fuedal armies are going to be a few thousand men, sometimes tens of thousands and rarely over a hundred thousand
Non-fuedal armies are often tens of thousands, going into hundreds is not uncommon.

Like, a necromancer doesn't have a serious chance without a lot of help.

1- A 17th level+ necromancer is using True Polymorph every day to turn rocks into super useful Mage characters who are 9th level casters. There might a better monster but otherwise this is the best apocalyptic army maker you'll get.

2-skeletons and zombies are often locked in wagons, dimension doors, or in secured areas of forts so that nobody has to control them but they're ready to be let out to cause carnage.

3- Wands or staves of necromancy. Similar items exist, it's just a matter of retooling.

4- Artifacts.
My favourite idea would be something that keeps lower undead under your control whilst in an aura, or which gives you a set amount of servants that replenish.


5- There's more room for spells. For example there's no spell that can get you large or non-humanoid undead on your side, but such undead certainly exist! Maybe there's some stuff there for people, but I'd recommend you don't go over the top; If an NPC can use it, players should be able to use it. Level things appropriately and for the ultra powerful stuff use obtainable things that aren't easily obtainable.
- You need a large structure shaped in a certain way.
- an item worth 10k
-some atrocious act
But for a lot of things, say you want a single large or non-humanoid undead, it shouldn't be a big departure from the normal summoning.


Recruiting casters, blackguards, vampires, death knights, arranging a claw monster...
Vampires are limited heavily by food (maybe capture a troll?), but using throwaway spawn with equipment would be incredibly effective. Easy creation of CR5 monsters before equipment? Sign me up for one. If you were somehow the vampire and the 17+ mage...

The real question when you are going to try to destroy a superior force is not "how do I destroy their army?" it's "how do I destroy their army's food and water supplies?" An army, however well trained, can only fight for a few weeks when all the food is gone and a few days if all their water is spoiled.

[Bohandas]

The real question when you are going to try to destroy a superior force is not "how do I destroy their army?" it's "how do I destroy their army's food and water supplies?" An army, however well trained, can only fight for a few weeks when all the food is gone and a few days if all their water is spoiled.

So then once the dark lord is established the army of the dead becomes really quite ideal

[The Jack]

So the best necromancy spell in the game is True Polymorph?
The best spell in the game is True Polymorph.


The real question when you are going to try to destroy a superior force is not "how do I destroy their army?" it's "how do I destroy their army's food and water supplies?" An army, however well trained, can only fight for a few weeks when all the food is gone and a few days if all their water is spoiled.

Less so.
Undead don't make for good guerilla fighters. Mummies, Ghouls, Skeletons and zombies don't have the brains for it. Wights aren't so plentiful and don't have the capability to lead lesser undead . Mages and Vampire spawn work and are fairly disposable but you need the relevant infrastructural work for that, and at that point you can just win head on battles.



I'm of the opinion that if you can cast True Polymorph you've won the game of life. Go turn stone into fabulous riches and craft yourself a cult of wonderful supporters. Once a day you're a god. It's not as quick as wish but it's a whole lot easier on you.

At that point I don't know why you'd want to end the world with undead; Maybe you think you could make the land better if you cleared everything off of it. But every day you can make yourself at least a Mage; a 9th level wizard, who loves you his/her creator, and who can easily learn animate dead (and may learn create undead given two levels if you think npcs can do that. I wonder if you can just make CR9 mages, but the CR6 character's adequate.)

Every day you can make a mage who loves you and they can control 26 skeletons if they go all out. (though making mages for non-necromancy purposes is just smarter).

You can thus get a controlled undead army of 9490 lead by 365 mages if you spent the year making cr6 mages. Of course, this isn't realistic as you'd want these people to cast other spells and there's a good list of other things you might want to polymorph into your undead army (Sword wraith comanders, revenants, Bodaks, Deathlock masterminds, Young green dracoliches, white shadow dragons, helmed horrors... Plus if you're liberal and think you can make 'any race' undead, or you are/you trust your local vampire, you could create assassins, champions, wereboars... )

Still, a high-point of 9490 skeletons in a year is really, really good even if it's not the realistic number. You can challenge a duchy with those kind of numbers, and if you spend more years prepping you can have amazing numbers fit to challenge medieval kingdoms. More to the point; It's a lot easier for you to replenish numbers than any enemy, and undead fight to the last man whilst humans route.

[Willie the Duck]

The class seems nerfed for players, but there are no spells for DMs to make a really scary foe.

Does a DM just assume the bad guy does it but you the player cannot?

if the players keep getting hints of a rising necromancer gaining in power (so they can face him later)...what would this villain be doing that the players are not?

Overall, it doesn't seem overly concerning that the game rules don't make a straightforward path for the PCs to conquer the world. 5e, in general, has done a decent job of telegraphing that it is designed to facilitate PCs doing the kind of things the designers thought players would want their characters to do (go into dungeons or timeclocked adventures, defeat opponents, repeat). Whether that's a good thing or bad, they're fairly consistent and I'd say this isn't even a glaring problem with the model (how things bust when you disrupt the rest schedule being much more of a concern, in my book). The game could be designed to facilitate PCs doing anything an NPC could be expected to want to do (including take over the world). They tried that with 3e, and people named the consequences the Tippyverse and complained about it/mocked it incessantly.

[Chronos]

It's one thing to have a militia of 100,000. It's another thing to have an actual effective fighting force. An army of untrained 0th-level militia is going to see over half of them compelled to flee by the first decent fear effect they face, followed by most of the rest panicking at seeing their numbers thin so suddenly and dramatically and fleeing nonmagically. You'll get a few pockets of resistance surrounding those trained fighters who were able to hold together the morale of their troops, and then it starts looking a lot more like a standard D&D fight.

[Dr. Cliché]

Oh yeah there's also that Mummy Lord you keep permanently with your level 14 feature.

I love how people say this like it's an automatic thing.

Assuming the Necromancer can even find a Mummy Lord, he get's *one* chance to control it. The Mummy Lord has +8 on his Cha save and Advantage. And if he succeeds, then he's immune to the effect forever.

Honestly, assuming that a Necromancer managed to find and mind-control a Mummy Lord seems significantly less plausible than just using DM-Fiat to increase the number of undead he can control.

[Unoriginal]

I love how people say this like it's an automatic thing.

Assuming the Necromancer can even find a Mummy Lord, he get's *one* chance to control it. The Mummy Lord has +8 on his Cha save and Advantage. And if he succeeds, then he's immune to the effect forever.

Honestly, assuming that a Necromancer managed to find and mind-control a Mummy Lord seems significantly less plausible than just using DM-Fiat to increase the number of undead he can control.

One requires the BBEG accomplishing a potentially possible but very difficult feat of mastery, the other requires the DM to say "meh, they just can do it".

I don't think plausibility is in question here.

Though yes, of course people always act as if the wizards can accomplish whatever they want automatically. Shoving half a dozen demiliches in a Demiplane? Pfiuu, of course, chances of failures are for other people.

[MaxWilson]

As a bonus, the survivors get to learn who was evil by who doesn't rise as a shadow.

It's interesting that evil people can only be turned into shadows by shadow dragons, and not by other shadows.


At that point I don't know why you'd want to end the world with undead; Maybe you think you could make the land better if you cleared everything off of it. But every day you can make yourself at least a Mage; a 9th level wizard, who loves you his/her creator, and who can easily learn animate dead (and may learn create undead given two levels if you think npcs can do that. I wonder if you can just make CR9 mages, but the CR6 character's adequate.)

Every day you can make a mage who loves you and they can control 26 skeletons if they go all out. (though making mages for non-necromancy purposes is just smarter).

I question this bit in bold. It's not required by RAW and it seems fairly unlikely from a roleplaying perspective, especially if you're creating large numbers of these hypothetical mages. (I don't think "9th level wizard" is a valid "kind" of creature anyway per True Polymorph spell text, but that's another debate, and anyway you could always create Young Silver Dragons or something instead.)


I love how people say this like it's an automatic thing.

Assuming the Necromancer can even find a Mummy Lord, he get's *one* chance to control it. The Mummy Lord has +8 on his Cha save and Advantage. And if he succeeds, then he's immune to the effect forever.

Honestly, assuming that a Necromancer managed to find and mind-control a Mummy Lord seems significantly less plausible than just using DM-Fiat to increase the number of undead he can control.

Finding the Mummy Lord is the hard part (unless you create it via True Polymorph on a beholder or something). Then you hit it with Bestow Curse (penalty to Cha saves) and Feeblemind it before attempting to take permanent control. Now it's got +0 to Cha saves and advantage+disadvantage = nothing, so if you have DC 19 that's a 90% chance of failing the save. If you've got someone to cast Bane or use Bend Luck you can increase the chance further. This is old news--everybody's known about proper Mummy Lord-binding procedures for years (here's a post from 2015: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468239-Necromancer-Command-Undead) even if it's rarely relevant in actual play. But this is a theorycrafting thread so it's totally fair to assume you'll have a pretty decent minion of some kind: a vampire spawn, a zombie beholder (created via Negative Energy Flood), a ghost or banshee, a Nightwalker, or a Mummy Lord.

[Segev]

Perhaps your Necromancer villain has found a way to empower lieutenants with arcane might, and they serve him out of loyalty and fear he can take it away? They need not know that Warlock Pacts - even with an Undead Patron - can't be rescinded by the Patron. Load them up with the animate dead spell and have them spend hours each day casting and recasting it to maintain control over your minions.

At a smaller scale, a Fiend-pact Warlock working for Orcus (for thematic reasons) can have a fairly large platoon of undead minions.

Interestingly, I don't think the Necromancer class feature that enhances undead you create expires if they leave your control, so if you herd them into position and order them to attack your target of choice, they probably won't stop trying just because they left your control, as long as it's in line with their Evil and anti-life natures.

There are also magic items. I think you have to go up to Rare to get 3rd level spells, but you could add a few extra castings of animate dead to your repertoire that way. Go up a little higher for something that casts finger of death a few times per day, and you might really be getting somewhere.

[The Jack]

It's interesting that evil people can only be turned into shadows by shadow dragons, and not by other shadows.



I question this bit in bold. It's not required by RAW and it seems fairly unlikely from a roleplaying perspective, especially if you're creating large numbers of these hypothetical mages. (I don't think "9th level wizard" is a valid "kind" of creature anyway per True Polymorph spell text, but that's another debate, and anyway you could always create Young Silver Dragons or something instead.)

True polymorph alows for any kind of creature. The Mage creature's statblock is a CR6 9th level caster using the wizard list. Any alignment, any race.
True polymorph object-creations are well disposed towards you and continue to be so provided you treat them well. Given that you've literally made them out of clay, that they have no experience of the world, and the Mage being 'any alignment' which suggests you can choose, you're likely to have a huge amount of success with the brainwashing of your creation. 'I created you, I can unmake you, I have high hopes for you, you owe it to me to do as I command, you have nowhere else to go' or whatever you want to spin. They come out with whatever knowledge they need to fit the stat block, they don't have a history or memories of being a pile of dirt; you can mold them easily.

Now, we can argue over if making up CR9 mages who're maybe 13th or 15th level casters is legitimate, or if we can apply what could be an undead template instead of race on creation, but making what's in the manuals isn't a grey area. Presumably, we could also choose their spell list from creation.


Now, what they'd be like if you made them with TP and then turned them Vampire or Were for a power boost... that's a conundrum, but I'm confident you're going to win over whatever you've true polymorphed if you choose it's alignment and filled it in with whatever doctrine you wanted. Your only risk is if you accidentally transformed the wrong thing and you've found yourself trying to sell yourself as an evil god to what was once a good paladin who'd been a stone for the past thousand years.

[Willie the Duck]

True polymorph object-creations are well disposed towards you and continue to be so provided you treat them well. Given that you've literally made them out of clay, that they have no experience of the world, and the Mage being 'any alignment' which suggests you can choose, you're likely to have a huge amount of success with the brainwashing of your creation. 'I created you, I can unmake you, I have high hopes for you, you owe it to me to do as I command, you have nowhere else to go' or whatever you want to spin. They come out with whatever knowledge they need to fit the stat block, they don't have a history or memories of being a pile of dirt; you can mold them easily.

Generally agree. However, this is quickly getting into the same space as the warlord who has amassed an army the old fashioned way -- which is to say, an NPC can do it off-screen and will do so as the needs/judgment of the DM demand, and if the PC trying to do the same actually does all the hard work and gets it to come out correctly (including any wrenches in the works the DM determines to reasonably occur), then by all counts they deserve to get this army.


making what's in the manuals isn't a grey area. Presumably, we could also choose their spell list from creation.
I wouldn't assume this at all. Just thinking of the 6-12 DMs I know IRL and have a decent bead on their playstyle and rulings, I'd think only 4-5 of them would rule that to be the case.

[JackPhoenix]

True polymorph alows for any kind of creature. The Mage creature's statblock is a CR6 9th level caster using the wizard list. Any alignment, any race.
True polymorph object-creations are well disposed towards you and continue to be so provided you treat them well. Given that you've literally made them out of clay, that they have no experience of the world, and the Mage being 'any alignment' which suggests you can choose, you're likely to have a huge amount of success with the brainwashing of your creation. 'I created you, I can unmake you, I have high hopes for you, you owe it to me to do as I command, you have nowhere else to go' or whatever you want to spin. They come out with whatever knowledge they need to fit the stat block, they don't have a history or memories of being a pile of dirt; you can mold them easily.

Now, we can argue over if making up CR9 mages who're maybe 13th or 15th level casters is legitimate, or if we can apply what could be an undead template instead of race on creation, but making what's in the manuals isn't a grey area. Presumably, we could also choose their spell list from creation.


Now, what they'd be like if you made them with TP and then turned them Vampire or Were for a power boost... that's a conundrum, but I'm confident you're going to win over whatever you've true polymorphed if you choose it's alignment and filled it in with whatever doctrine you wanted. Your only risk is if you accidentally transformed the wrong thing and you've found yourself trying to sell yourself as an evil god to what was once a good paladin who'd been a stone for the past thousand years.

"Human" is a creature. Mage is specific character with (not really) class levels.

[The Jack]

"Human" is a creature. Mage is specific character with (not really) class levels.

In the context of DnD, 'Creature' is whatever's in the monster manual. An 'archmage' is a kind of creature, an 'assassin' is a valid creature. An 'adult blue dragon' is a valid creature.


Read up on the spellcasting trait for monsters. It's fine. Sure, the mage won't get a wizard's special traits, but they do get the same spellcasting feature, and they get proficiency with whatever's necessary to get that to work.

[JoeJ]

Every day you can make a mage who loves you and they can control 26 skeletons if they go all out. (though making mages for non-necromancy purposes is just smarter).

"Might remain friendly to you, depending on how you have treated it" doesn't default to "loves you," much less wants to stick around and follow your orders rather than leading its own life. Nothing in the spell description says that you get to choose the creature's ideal, bond, flaw, or even alignment (where the MM doesn't specify it); I would rule that those traits are determined randomly, but YMMV.

[TheUser]

So in my research into high level necromancers (because I am playing a level 17 one shot shortly) I've uncovered a real gem.

Specifically Inured to Undeath is yielding some intense RAW phenomenon:
INURED TO UNDEATH
Beginning at 10th level, you have resistance to necrotic
damage, and your hit point maximum can't be reduced.
You have spent so much time dealing with undead and
the forces that animate them that you have become
inured to some of their worst effects.

1) create homunculus is easy to maximize as a necromancer - you roll half your hit dice in bonus hp for the homunculus but lose none of the max hp. The amount of HP that the homunculus gains is based on the dice rolled and not on the hp lost.


Casting Time: 1 hour

Range: Touch

Components: V, S, M (clay, ash, and mandrake root, all of which the spell consumes, and a jewel-encrusted dagger worth at least 1,000 gp)

Duration: Instantaneous

While speaking an intricate incantation, you cut yourself with a jewel-encrusted dagger, taking 2d4 piercing damage that can’t be reduced in any way. You then drip your blood on the spell’s other components and touch them, transforming them into a special construct called a homunculus.

The statistics of the homunculus are in the Monster Manual. It is you faithful companion, and it dies if you die. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can spend up to half your Hit Dice if the homunculus is on the same plane of existence as you. When you do so, roll each die and add your Constitution modifier to it. Your hit point maximum is reduced by that total, and the homunculus’s hit point maximum and current hit points are both increased by it. This process can reduce you to no lower than 1 hit point, and the change to your and the homunculus’s hit points ends when you finish your next long rest. The reduction your hit point maximum can’t be removed by any means before then, except by the homunculus’s death.

You can have only one homunculus at a time. If you cast this spell while your homunculus lives, the spell fails.

2) Simulacrum's of the Necromancer have full hp! - Normally, a simulacrum is a perfect copy of the target but with half the maximum HP. Except you have a specific ability which stops you from losing max HP, the simulacrum retains this feature and hence cannot have it's max HP reduced to half (This one I'm not certain where specific beats general because both are specific....). RAI it's definitely not intentional since the feature is about resisting having your essence drained but it's a funny thought nonetheless.


7th-level illusion

Casting Time: 12 hours

Range: Touch

Components: V, S, M (snow or ice in quantities sufficient to made a life-size copy of the duplicated creature; some hair, fingernail clippings, or other piece of that creature’s body placed inside the snow or ice; and powdered ruby worth 1,500 gp, sprinkled over the duplicate and consumed by the spell)

Duration: Until dispelled

You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or humanoid that is within range for the entire casting time of the spell. The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has half the creature’s hit point maximum and is formed without any equipment. Otherwise, the illusion uses all the statistics of the creature it duplicates, except that it is a construct.

The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat. The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful, so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots.

If the simulacrum is damaged, you can repair it in an alchemical laboratory, using rare herbs and minerals worth 100gp per hit point it regains. The simulacrum lasts until it drops to 0 hit points, at which point it reverts to snow and melts instantly.

If you cast this spell again, any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed.

3) The Aid Spell. Not infinitely stackable but once your HP max has gone up it's not coming back down. Essentially you can gain 40 max HP if someone has a 9th level Aid to throw your way. If you get the wish spell it can go as high as 35 (since you can mimic a level 8 Aid for free).


4) But my absolute favorite is Shapechange! So the whole point of Shapechange is that you keep your class features, alignment, personality yadayadayada. So at level 17 when you get the spell you transform into the highest HP creature you can; a Dragon Turtle, with it's 341 HP, and since you retain access to Inured to Undeath the entire time you're now sitting at 341 HP even after you revert back to your humanoid form.


9th-level transmutation

Casting Time: 1 action

Range: Self

Components: V, S, M (a jade circlet worth at least 1,500 gp, which you must place on your head before you cast the spell)

Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour

You assume the form of a different creature for the duration. The new form can be of any creature with a challenge rating equal to your level or lower. The creature can’t be a construct or an undead, and you must have seen the sort of creature at least once. You transform into an average example of that creature, one without any class levels or the Spellcasting trait.

Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the chosen creature, though you retain your alignment and Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma scores. You also retain all of your skill and saving throw proficiencies, in addition to gaining those of the creature. If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus listed in its statistics is higher than yours, use the creature’s bonus in place of yours. You can’t use any legendary actions or lair actions of the new form.

You assume the hit points and Hit Dice of the new form. When you revert to your normal form, you return to the number of hit points you had before you transformed. If you revert as a result of dropping to 0 hit points, any excess damage carries over to your normal form. As long as the excess damage doesn’t reduce your normal form to 0 hit points, you aren’t knocked unconscious.

You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them, provided that your new form is physically capable of doing so. You can’t use any special senses you have (for example, darkvision) unless your new form also has that sense. You can only speak if the creature can normally speak.

When you transform, you choose whether your equipment falls to the ground, merges into the new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal. The DM determines whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size. Your equipment doesn’t change shape or size to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge into your new form. Equipment that merges has no effect in that state.

During this spell’s duration, you can use your action to assume a different form following the same restrictions and rules for the original form, with one exception: if your new form has more hit points than your current one, you hit points remain at their current value.

If you go by RAW on all of these you've got a ~60 hp homunculus (depending) a 376 HP simulacrum and you yourself are sitting at 376 HP by level 17.

Forget having an army....you're your own army now.

[The Jack]

"Might remain friendly to you, depending on how you have treated it" doesn't default to "loves you," much less wants to stick around and follow your orders rather than leading its own life. Nothing in the spell description says that you get to choose the creature's ideal, bond, flaw, or even alignment (where the MM doesn't specify it); I would rule that those traits are determined randomly, but YMMV.

You're thinking small.

The Mage is any alignment, but It's also any race. You wouldn't randomize race or gender so why would you randomize alignment? (If you do randomize alignment, A hob is a pretty safe bet)

In the first hour, your creation is friendly towards you, it's first contact with anyone as a sentient being. You can take advantage and fill it's head with as much as you like; It's disposed towards you and any information you can give it. You're the parent of what you made. you gave it life. You can indoctrinate your creation using normal persuasive meansYou've got advantages that real world cult leaders couldn't dream of.

Maybe You can't chose the ideal, bond or flaw; but what you've made hasn't been around long enough to have developed an ideal, bond or flaw. It's a blank canvas, filled with only the knowledge required for it's fundamental construction: The dragon knows how to fly, the warrior knows how to sword, and the mage comes pre-loaded with four languages and a spell list; but there's no memories of learning flight, the sword, or four languages and a spell list, because it hasn't happened; They've been objects all their life. All they have is skills and a creator they were born liking. Maybe a dragon's different, but a humanoid'd be easy to mold.

RAW, True polymorph is radical. RAI True polymorph is radical. Anything less than my worst-case is house ruling.

[JoeJ]

You're thinking small.

The Mage is any alignment, but It's also any race. You wouldn't randomize race or gender so why would you randomize alignment? (If you do randomize alignment, A hob is a pretty safe bet)

Of course I would. And the fact that race is not specified in the MM is a pretty darn good indication that RAI you can't polymorph anything into one of the sample NPCs in the MM at all.


In the first hour, your creation is friendly towards you, it's first contact with anyone as a sentient being. You can take advantage and fill it's head with as much as you like; It's disposed towards you and any information you can give it. You're the parent of what you made. you gave it life. You can indoctrinate your creation using normal persuasive meansYou've got advantages that real world cult leaders couldn't dream of.

Maybe You can't chose the ideal, bond or flaw; but what you've made hasn't been around long enough to have developed an ideal, bond or flaw. It's a blank canvas, filled with only the knowledge required for it's fundamental construction: The dragon knows how to fly, the warrior knows how to sword, and the mage comes pre-loaded with four languages and a spell list; but there's no memories of learning flight, the sword, or four languages and a spell list, because it hasn't happened; They've been objects all their life. All they have is skills and a creator they were born liking. Maybe a dragon's different, but a humanoid'd be easy to mold.

RAW, True polymorph is radical. RAI True polymorph is radical. Anything less than my worst-case is house ruling.

So it sounds like your argument is that the actual text in the PHB can be disregarded in favor of handwaving some kind of indoctrination that is nowhere even hinted at, let alone spelled out, in the rules, and anything else is a house rule. Is that correct? Or is there a rule I'm overlooking for making a newly created person love you? (Also, a "blank slate" that can speak and understand even one language doesn't seem like something that's possible. If somebody understands the world well enough to represent it in language, they understand it well enough to already have opinions about it.)

edit: And another thing; I just looked at the Mage statblock, and it doesn't have any spells for creating undead. Nos does it have a spellbook; the only way it can change it's list of spells prepared appears to be through DM fiat.

[The Jack]

Of course I would. And the fact that race is not specified in the MM is a pretty darn good indication that RAI you can't polymorph anything into one of the sample NPCs in the MM at all.

(


If you turn a creature into another kind of creature, the new form can be any kind you choose whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target’s (or its level, if the target doesn’t have a challenge rating). The target’s game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the new form.

So, Assuming this holds true for objects:
You can choose the race. You can choose the gender. You can choose the alignment. You can choose the CR6 mage complete with ability scores, four languages and a 9th level wizard spellcasting trait.


So it sounds like your argument is that the actual text in the PHB can be disregarded in favor of handwaving some kind of indoctrination that is nowhere even hinted at, let alone spelled out, in the rules, and anything else is a house rule. Is that correct? Or is there a rule I'm overlooking for making a newly created person love you?
Or, y'know, I just have an understanding of how people work. The rules don't explicitly state that people dislike being tortured, or that humans poop, or that smiling shows happiness. Roll-play wise, the TP caster is going to have an easier time playing cults. You don't need to make a rule for that. Basic knowledge of how indoctrination can work and common sense should be reason enough


Also, a "blank slate" that can speak and understand even one language doesn't seem like something that's possible. If somebody understands the world well enough to represent it in language, they understand it well enough to already have opinions about it.
Or, they could just have an objective understanding of the language, free of sociolect and with only agreed upon definitions. Plus people don't look at everything they know at once (obviously) that's why people can be so inconsistent. Language comes to you when you need it.


It's a ninth level spell dude and we're discussing how an NPC could use it. You're really going knee jerk on this one. All good reasoning suggests it'd be an amazing tool for an army.


EDIT


edit: And another thing; I just looked at the Mage statblock, and it doesn't have any spells for creating undead. Nos does it have a spellbook; the only way it can change it's list of spells prepared appears to be through DM fiat.
:smalleek:



The monster has a list of Spells known or prepared from a specific class. The list might also include Spells from a feature in that class, such as the Divine Domain feature of the Cleric or the Druid Circle feature of the druid. The monster is considered a member of that class when attuning to or using a magic item that requires membership in the class or access to its spell list.
....
You can change the Spells that a monster knows or has prepared, replacing any spell on its spell list with a spell of the same level and from the same class list. If you do so, you might cause the monster to be a greater or lesser threat than suggested by its challenge rating.

Yeah, I think you're just scrambling for excuses now. Come up with something real.

[MaxWilson]

If you go by RAW on all of these you've got a ~60 hp homunculus (depending) a 376 HP simulacrum and you yourself are sitting at 376 HP by level 17.

Forget having an army....you're your own army now.

I don't buy any of those interpretations except for Create Homunculus, but nevertheless thank you for posting. That interpretation of Aid/Shapechange is thoroughly amusing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would consider any attempt to use true polymorph to cherry pick the creature's abilities (beyond exactly and only what's listed in the stat block) to be shenanigans and outright forbid it. You get exactly and only what's in a printed stat block. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything unspecified there is chosen at random by the DM. And if you press, you're getting restricted to only non-NPC stat blocks or asked to leave the table. Also, the NPC wizards do not come with a spellbook. Whatever spells they have prepared are the only ones they can use until and unless they create a spell book and write spells into it. Which, by the way, they don't have the features for. And it says the DM can reassign spells known or prepared, and says that may modify the CR. So that's a no for player modification.

Also, how are you brainwashing these people? You can't reliably make DC 20 Charisma checks as a wizard, and even that only gets "will make some sacrifices for you" not "is your loyal slave." And any other method will take years, during which time they have no compulsion to stay. And you can't exactly do this on a mass scale either.

But anyway, arguing about RAW when it comes to NPC behavior is beyond silly. NPCs and worldbuilding are not restricted to RAW whatsoever--they use whatever mechanics you as the DM want them to. And the game is way better off for that.

[The Jack]

Anything unspecified there is chosen at random by the DM. And if you press, you're getting restricted to only non-NPC stat blocks or asked to leave the table.
Number one, that's terror.
Number two, that's terror.

So I can very specifically get a githyanki knight or a hobgoblin warlord but a hobgoblin champion is percentile time?
I agree with 'cherry pick abilities' (though languages... that's something a caster could specify)
I understand allignment. I don't agree with it: at least 'norm for the race' (or neutral given the lack of nurture) is infinitely better than 'lol random'.
But race and gender aught to be the caster's option. Perhaps size and age (though I understand a charisma score necessitates that you can't just make everyone beautiful)



Also, the NPC wizards do not come with a spellbook. Whatever spells they have prepared are the only ones they can use until and unless they create a spell book and write spells into it.
This is fair enough. But in the grand scheme of a 17th level caster making 9th level casters, it's not a big hurdle.
Maybe the creator could give the created a look at their own spell book. Not a huge deal regardless.



Also, how are you brainwashing these people? You can't reliably make DC 20 Charisma checks as a wizard, and even that only gets "will make some sacrifices for you" not "is your loyal slave." And any other method will take years, during which time they have no compulsion to stay. And you can't exactly do this on a mass scale either.


They come with as you've said 'nothing more, nothing less'.
They don't have anything to go against what you've said. There's no opposing opinion to contend with. You can teach them a point of view that'll remain unchallenged, and you can reinforce that when you make subsequent mages.

Tell the first one she's super important and special, and that she should help guide the next few. Tell the next one how he's vital, and show the previous mage how you've made him, to cement reverence. After a few, you reveal some of your plans. Then you make more. You establish a hierarchy; the first dozen or so feel special and rewarded by having people beneath them, whilst you appear more venerable as the next hundred get second hand accounts from the first dozen (who're invested in your success, as the hierarchy benefits them...).

That's brainwashing. It's not a simple charisma trick, it's a methodology. You give people a vested interest in following you and surround them with like-minded people who reinforce your position and their beliefs. They don't have much of an alternative; They don't have an easy escape. Everyone they know is with you, they can't trust organizing a rebellion because they assume everyone is with you...

[MaxWilson]

They come with as you've said 'nothing more, nothing less'.
They don't have anything to go against what you've said. There's no opposing opinion to contend with. You can teach them a point of view that'll remain unchallenged, and you can reinforce that when you make subsequent mages.

If only it were so... :)

Parents everywhere are both laughing and crying at this statement. There's no reason they shouldn't listen to you--and yet.

[JoeJ]

Army of the Dead
9th-leve necromancy
Casting Time: 3 days
Range: 500 miles
Components: V, S, M (20 small children, who must be killed during casting)
Duration: Until dispelled

This spell can only be cast when the planets are in the correct astrological alignment, something that occurs only once every 500 years. Choose an area roughly the size of an average kingdom. The bodies of all deceased humanoids in that area are imbued with a foul semblance of life, rising as various types of undead. Eighty percent of the undead created by this spell are skeletons, ten percent are ghouls, and the remainder are ghasts, wights, and mummies (choose randomly for each). Until the spell ends, any humanoid slain by an undead created by this spell rises as an undead of the same type twenty-four hours later.

The undead created by this spell are friendly to you and obey your commands, including those created as a result of being slain by undead that are under your control. As an action on your turn you can can give a command to any or all undead created by this spell of your choice that can hear you (the same command).

The spell ends if you die or leave the plane, or if you choose to end it as an action. A successful Dispel Magic cast on one of the undead created by this spell will end your control of that creature, but does not end the spell. A Dispel Magic targeting this spell's area of effect has no effect. Once the spell ends, any remaining undead become uncontrolled.

[Tanarii]

A successful Dispel Magic cast on one of the undead created by this spell will end your control of that creature, but does not end the spell.
This line needs to explicitly call out that you cannot target the area of the spell either, the targeted kingdom. Otherwise any and all casters of Dispel Magic in the affected kingdom will be casting it constantly until one dispels it. And they'd become aware of it pretty quickly, since the entire kingdom would radiate necromantic magic to Detect Magic spells.

[JoeJ]

This line needs to explicitly call out that you cannot target the area of the spell either, the targeted kingdom. Otherwise any and all casters of Dispel Magic in the affected kingdom will be casting it constantly until one dispels it. And they'd become aware of it pretty quickly, since the entire kingdom would radiate necromantic magic to Detect Magic spells.

Okay, I made that change. Good catch.

[Unoriginal]

How about just accepting that 5e isn't built around *anyone* being easily capable of creating vast armies?

[The Jack]

If only it were so... :)

Parents everywhere are both laughing and crying at this statement. There's no reason they shouldn't listen to you--and yet.

You're making adults tho.

[Willie the Duck]

You're making adults tho.

As you stated:

people can be so inconsistent.

Also:

Yeah, I think you're just scrambling for excuses now. Come up with something real.
blue added because I'm being silly
More seriously, what we seem to have arrived at is a high-powered wizard creating an army of powerful creatures/casters by using beyond-expert levels of management skill, social control, individual and group psychology, situational awareness, and leadership. This guy could take over the world the old fashioned way, the spells and summoned/controlled/created creatures are just window dressing.

[Unoriginal]

More seriously, what we seem to have arrived at is a high-powered wizard creating an army of powerful creatures/casters by using beyond-expert levels of management skill, social control, individual and group psychology, situational awareness, and leadership. This guy could take over the world the old fashioned way, the spells and summoned/controlled/created creatures are just window dressing.

Eh, it's just your typical Schrödinger Wizard, capable of everything by the grace of the Whiteroom and Fiat Luxury.

About as plausible, interesting and rooted in the rules as the Sorcerer King.


I gotta find a better name for it, though, Schrödinger certainly doesn't deserve this indignity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh, it's just your typical Schrödinger Wizard, capable of everything by the grace of the Whiteroom and Fiat Luxury.

About as plausible, interesting and rooted in the rules as the Sorcerer King.


I gotta find a better name for it, though, Schrödinger certainly doesn't deserve this indignity.

Yeah. It seems people have this vested interest in the following distinction:

Magic (and magic users) can do anything it's not prohibited from doing. Anything that vaguely fits (or can be weaseled into fitting) the text must be allowed.

Non-magic can only do things it's explicitly allowed to do. DMs should find reasons to deny anything that doesn't fit the most restrictive, pessimistic reading of the text.

This attitude is then used to "prove" that magic is more powerful, when it's entirely by assumption.

The odd part is that that's exactly backwards. Spells (and magic) do only exactly what they say, anything else is not allowed. "Skills" (non-magic generally) can do anything it's not forbidden from doing.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah. It seems people have this vested interest in the following distinction:

Magic (and magic users) can do anything it's not prohibited from doing. Anything that vaguely fits (or can be weaseled into fitting) the text must be allowed.

Non-magic can only do things it's explicitly allowed to do. DMs should find reasons to deny anything that doesn't fit the most restrictive, pessimistic reading of the text.

This attitude is then used to "prove" that magic is more powerful, when it's entirely by assumption.

Don't forget that casters also always have the right spells prepared (often thanks to Almighty Planning) and enough spell slots to do anything regardless of circumstances. Plus no one can work to counter them as they prepare.

And like this thread demonstrates, wizards are also better than anyone at manipulating large groups of people into doing their bidding.




The odd part is that that's exactly backwards. Spells (and magic) do only exactly what they say, anything else is not allowed. "Skills" (non-magic generally) can do anything it's not forbidden from doing.

Whaaaaat? Accepting that spells have limits? Outrageous!

[Willie the Duck]

Eh, it's just your typical Schrödinger Wizard, capable of everything by the grace of the Whiteroom and Fiat Luxury.
About as plausible, interesting and rooted in the rules as the Sorcerer King.

Well yes and no, since my general point is that the magic/being a wizard part of the equation is quickly becoming the least relevant bit. It is just creating a recruitment pool of valuable employees, the wizard who pulls this of could do the exact same thing without casting a spell, since they are apparently the world's greatest tactician, strategist, leader, and societal manipulator (side note: nice to see an internet discussion where non-STEM skills get the due they deserve. Kind of a rarity, I find)



I gotta find a better name for it, though, Schrödinger certainly doesn't deserve this indignity.

Schrödinger's legacy is already as undignified as it plausibly could be -- he's most well known for a sub-field of physics he considered madness. It took almost a century, but at least he has the last laugh, what with Heisenberg now being confused with the dad from Malcom in the Middle making blue rock candy meth.:smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

And like this thread demonstrates, wizards are also better than anyone at manipulating large groups of people into doing their bidding.


Even if, like the stereotypical wizard, they took CHA as a dump stat.

But Willie the Duck's point is also true. Like 3e WBL-mancy, you're not really depending on class features here. Someone that powerful and smart can just do things the regular way, with probably less effort, less cost, and much less obvious evil (which tends to get your long-term plans disrupted by pesky do-gooder adventurers).

[The Jack]

I'm trrying to be as objective as possible.
The wording of true polymorph isn't the best, but:


"If you turn a creature into another kind of creature, the new form can be any kind you choose"
Wizard "I create a male human mage"
DM "Sorry, you can only pick a base human or a randomized mage'

Convince me that's rules as intended or written. Because it clearly isn't. Look, maybe you'd be justified if the wizard said 'I want an attractive, gay, communist CR9 version of the mage with a big charisma modifier, dark skin, emerald eyes and a big set of shoulders.' but picking the basics...

'any language' is sensibly a choice for the wizard, lest he create two mages that have common,giant, draconic,sylvian and gith, elven, aboleth and grick.


"Some creatures can have any alignment. In other words, you choose the monster’s alignment." Now that's for the DM but in the context that the DM's making these things.
Surely if you're making the creature, you're choosing the alignment. Looking at creature-creature transformations for context: "the new form can be any kind you choose" and "It retains its alignment and personality."
So either the wizard's choosing, or you're going with what the rock has; unaligned. You're not going to develop a concept of good and evil if you've only been sentient for a day and you don't have some kind of magical bias as a result of your new form.

"and the creature has no memory of time spent in this form, after the spell ends and it returns to its normal form."
If we apply this in reverse, the creature has no memory of the time spent before it was transformed. It's largely a blank state.



Yeah. It seems people have this vested interest in the following distinction
What if I were to tell you that you're incredibly wrong, I don't have this viewpoint, and that you really shouldn't disregard what people are saying under the assumption that they belong to a group that they don't.



More seriously, what we seem to have arrived at is a high-powered wizard creating an army of powerful creatures/casters by using beyond-expert levels of management skill, social control, individual and group psychology, situational awareness, and leadership. This guy could take over the world the old fashioned way, the spells and summoned/controlled/created creatures are just window dressing.

This isn't beyond expert, but yes the character could take over the world the old fashioned way provided enough luck.
Look, give me a seventeenth level casting trait, a hatred for the world and a fascination with corpses and I could do it :D

A 17th level caster is going to an exceptional individual. A wizard would be Exceptionally intellegent, a bard would be exceptionally charismatic. Learning how cults entrap members is a simple thing, being able to perform high level spells is a multiplier. For such a character, it'd hardly be worse than being a game master!!

Find a secluded but rich and comfortable place, make one person a day pre-loaded with skills, socially condition them into what you want them to be.



Look, You've gotta be nuts to wanna do the whole Undead Legion thing when you're so rediculously competent and magic can make you a billionare. But this thread is for the undead-legion thing.

[MaxWilson]

"If you turn a creature into another kind of creature, the new form can be any kind you choose"
Wizard "I create a male human mage"
DM "Sorry, you can only pick a base human or a randomized mage'

DM: "Sorry, mages aren't a kind of creature. I can give you a human if you like? Or you can pick a kind of creature, like Glabrezus or Flameskulls, who are naturally mages."


What if I were to tell you that you're incredibly wrong, I don't have this viewpoint, and that you really shouldn't disregard what people are saying under the assumption that they belong to a group that they don't.

FWIW, I agree with you here. PhoenixPhyre is clearly off-base in their assumptions about you.

[Willie the Duck]

Convince me that's rules as intended or written. Because it clearly isn't. Look, maybe you'd be justified if the wizard said 'I want an attractive, gay, communist CR9 version of the mage with a big charisma modifier, dark skin, emerald eyes and a big set of shoulders.' but picking the basics...


I don't think 'clearly' falls any given way (neither for nor against anyone's position). There is enough room for interpretation within the spell language for reasonable DMs to disagree. Assuming the scope of our conversation includes campaigns outside those we personally are going to DM, we have no say in how the DM is going to rule*. I would certainly never make a build or world-conquest strategy predicated on this interpretation of the spell wording winning the day.
*yes, of course, we never do, but we can still distinguish between a DM making an obvious houserule, a DM making an unsupported ruling, and a DM making a supportable ruling we personally might disagree with, and I think this case is an instance of the later.


What if I were to tell you that you're incredibly wrong, I don't have this viewpoint, and that you really shouldn't disregard what people are saying under the assumption that they belong to a group that they don't.

FWIW, I read his comment as moving the topic of conversation towards a more general discussion on white-roomed wizard discussions, and was not specific to you. I for one have seen a lot of discussions where the open-endedness of magic is blown way out of proportion. To my knowledge, I have not seen you in those discussions.

[JackPhoenix]

I gotta find a better name for it, though, Schrödinger certainly doesn't deserve this indignity.

Wizard school of bovine excrement? It generally happens to wizards more than other spellcasters, anyway.


DM: "Sorry, mages aren't a kind of creature. I can give you a human if you like? Or you can pick a kind of creature, like Glabrezus or Flameskulls, who are naturally mages."

Yeah, this. "Kind of creature", not "specific individual". There's nothing supporting the idea you can use TP to create infinite copies of king of Somewhere, as long he's CR<10. There's a spell 2 levels lower for that.. Or that you can create any PC build (PCs are creatures, after all), as long as its calculated CR would be 9 or less and force the DM to do the math to calculate the CR.

[The Jack]

DM: "Sorry, mages aren't a kind of creature. I can give you a human if you like? Or you can pick a kind of creature, like Glabrezus or Flameskulls, who are naturally mages."


.

Flameskulls are spellcasters in the same way the Mage is. They prep spells.

So, if we go by this interpretation, everything's a commoner; you can try make a githyanki knight and a flameskull, but the gith won't know how swords work and the flameskulls can only attack with fire rays as they'd lack the spell list.

Thing is you're supposed to get the ability scores and proficiencies of whatever you've transformed into

"The target's game Statistics, including mental Ability Scores, are replaced by the Statistics of the new form" (except alignment and personality)
So you get everything. Be it spellcasting trait or x3 multi attack. The statistics are the whole package.

let's look at shapechange which specifies that"You transform into an average example of that creature, one without any class levels or the Spellcasting trait."
True Polymorph doesn't have this. Therefore it doesn't do this.

[druid91]

Animate a with using create undead. Animate several zombies with animate Dead. Have the Wight fight the zombies in gladiatorial combat until he gains levels. Teach him Necromancy. Continue until your Wight can conjure a Wight. Rinse repeat. Eventually you build an elaborate series of controls allowing you to command ludicrous numbers of the undead.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, this. "Kind of creature", not "specific individual". There's nothing supporting the idea you can use TP to create infinite copies of king of Somewhere, as long he's CR<10. There's a spell 2 levels lower for that.. Or that you can create any PC build (PCs are creatures, after all), as long as its calculated CR would be 9 or less and force the DM to do the math to calculate the CR.

I'm of the camp that says that NPC stat blocks come in two varieties.

The "Average individual" ones found in the main part of the various books. These are valid targets for things like [true] polymorph, shapechange, etc. They include everything relevant for play, and frequently don't vary except in trivial ways.

"Character template" ones are found in the NPC appendix. For these ones, variation is normal and these are a starting point. This is especially true for spells. In my games, these are not valid targets for spells that alter form. You can't shapechange into an archmage. You can't true polymorph a rock into a 3rd level human fighter. You can shapechange or true polymorph into an average individual of the given form. Even if you relax this, they come without any equipment or prepared spells. So true polymorphing a mage would require them to learn, scribe, and prepare all the spells, paying the cost in time and cash.

As a note: named NPCs for adventures use customized stat blocks that differ from the NPC ones, often in significant ways. For example, Acererak (from ToA) is not just a lich stat block. Aerisi Kalinoth (from <spoilers>) is not a mage stat block--she has extra features (including legendary resistances), different spells, and different equipment. Plus different stats. Most minor, un-named NPCs use the straight stat blocks, but I'm not aware of any of these that both have spell-casting and aren't custom.

As a note: none of this is dependent on RAW. RAW is meaningless outside of white-room discussions. All real games use DM discretion. Arguments of "but RAW says" (or worse, "RAW doesn't say") is a sign that you're trying to weaponize rules and has no part in 5e or in any game I want to run or play in.

[JackPhoenix]

So, if we go by this interpretation, everything's a commoner; you can try make a githyanki knight and a flameskull, but the gith won't know how swords work and the flameskulls can only attack with fire rays as they'd lack the spell list.

Githyanki would indeed be a commoner. No gith is born a knight, it's the result of training. He could just as easily train to be a gish, a mage or a dungsweeper. Being a "knight" is not a inherent part of every gith.
Flameskull is a flameskull. There's no "flameskull commoner" that has to learn the intricacies of not-wizardy to gain spell list. Basic flameskull statblock represents what every single flameskull can do. There may be some kind exceptional "flameskull wizard" that learned more powerful magic after it was created, but it was still created with the same basic abilities every other flameskull has, not the skills it learned later.


I'm of the camp that says that NPC stat blocks come in two varieties.

The "Average individual" ones found in the main part of the various books. These are valid targets for things like [true] polymorph, shapechange, etc. They include everything relevant for play, and frequently don't vary except in trivial ways.

"Character template" ones are found in the NPC appendix. For these ones, variation is normal and these are a starting point. This is especially true for spells. In my games, these are not valid targets for spells that alter form. You can't shapechange into an archmage. You can't true polymorph a rock into a 3rd level human fighter. You can shapechange or true polymorph into an average individual of the given form. Even if you relax this, they come without any equipment or prepared spells. So true polymorphing a mage would require them to learn, scribe, and prepare all the spells, paying the cost in time and cash.

I generally agree and would rule the same way, with one exception: there are "character templates" (let's go with your term) outside the NPC appendix. A githyanki may be a knight (Githyanki Knight from Githyanki MM entry, not Knight from NPC appendix... not that he can't be either), gish or supreme commander... or he could be non-combatant commoner. Or a mage. Or whatever.


As a note: named NPCs for adventures use customized stat blocks that differ from the NPC ones, often in significant ways. For example, Acererak (from ToA) is not just a lich stat block. Aerisi Kalinoth (from <spoilers>) is not a mage stat block--she has extra features (including legendary resistances), different spells, and different equipment. Plus different stats. Most minor, un-named NPCs use the straight stat blocks, but I'm not aware of any of these that both have spell-casting and aren't custom.

Eh, there are multiple examples of named NPCs using standard stat blocks. Patrina from CoS comes to mind: she's a NE elf archmage, with no changes to the stat block.

[JoeJ]

Convince me that's rules as intended or written. Because it clearly isn't. Look, maybe you'd be justified if the wizard said 'I want an attractive, gay, communist CR9 version of the mage with a big charisma modifier, dark skin, emerald eyes and a big set of shoulders.'

Wait. Why do think this limitation would be justified?

What about a male dwarf 3rd level oath of the ancients paladin/4th level archfey patron warlock with dueling fighting style and pact of the chain, spelling out the specific ability scores, skill and tool proficiencies, languages, spells, cantrips and invocations known? (I'm not going to calculate the CR of this creature. It's probably less than 9, so for the sake of argument just assume that it is.) If NPCs found in the MM count as creatures, shouldn't NPCs built using PC rules count too?

[druid91]

Wait. Why do think this limitation would be justified?

What about a male dwarf 3rd level oath of the ancients paladin/4th level archfey patron warlock with dueling fighting style and pact of the chain, spelling out the specific ability scores, skill and tool proficiencies, languages, spells, cantrips and invocations known? (I'm not going to calculate the CR of this creature. It's probably less than 9, so for the sake of argument just assume that it is.) If NPCs found in the MM count as creatures, shouldn't NPCs built using PC rules count too?

NPCs using the monster manual rules are monsters. They don't have character classes.

GMPCs built with standard chargen lack CR. Though they count as their level in CR for XP and the purposes of some spells.

[JackPhoenix]

NPCs using the monster manual rules are monsters. They don't have character classes.

GMPCs built with standard chargen lack CR. Though they count as their level in CR for XP and the purposes of some spells.

Every NPC has CR, character class or not. You'll have to calculate it if you're making custom creture, but it doesn't matter what method you use to come up with the stats. They do not "count as their level in CR". Some spells use CR or level in order to avoid the need to make the calculations for PCs (and to re-calculate CR constantly), but CR =/= level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

NPCs using the monster manual rules are monsters. They don't have character classes.

GMPCs built with standard chargen lack CR. Though they count as their level in CR for XP and the purposes of some spells.

All NPCs have CR, no matter how built. CF DMG 282-283. And CR = level is always wrong. For simple NPCs (beatsticks), CR ~ somewhere between level/2 and 2/3*level. Except at level 1, CR < level by quite a bit.

If an NPC has exclusively class levels and should get an equal share of XP, then they count as another adventurer.

Otherwise, there are no specific rules as to how to count an ally NPC in the party for encounter balance.

[JoeJ]

NPCs using the monster manual rules are monsters. They don't have character classes.

GMPCs built with standard chargen lack CR. Though they count as their level in CR for XP and the purposes of some spells.

Everything that can be fought has a CR. If it's not already in the stat block (a DM created custom monster, for example), the DMG has rules to calculate it.

And True Polymorph doesn't say you can turn an object into a monster, it says object into creature. Any argument that the NPCs in the MM count as creatures for this purpose should also apply to NPCs created according to the rules in the PHB.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Everything that can be fought has a CR. If it's not already in the stat block (a DM created custom monster, for example), the DMG has rules to calculate it.

And True Polymorph doesn't say you can turn an object into a monster, it says object into creature. Any argument that the NPCs in the MM count as creatures for this purpose should also apply to NPCs created according to the rules in the PHB.

But a specific NPC is an individual, and you can't true polymorph into a specific individual (at least by any sane reading). So you get the average creature of that form. Any other way lies madness.

[druid91]

Everything that can be fought has a CR. If it's not already in the stat block (a DM created custom monster, for example), the DMG has rules to calculate it.

And True Polymorph doesn't say you can turn an object into a monster, it says object into creature. Any argument that the NPCs in the MM count as creatures for this purpose should also apply to NPCs created according to the rules in the PHB.

Monster = Any Creature that is not the player characters.

Also, we are talking about True Polymorph here. Transmuting people into Archmages is far from the most broken use of that spell.

Personally, I'd be more concerned with using it to turn an earthworm into a mountain.

[JackPhoenix]

Personally, I'd be more concerned with using it to turn an earthworm into a mountain.

Well, if you can find mountain-sized earthworm....

[The Jack]

Wait. Why do think this limitation would be justified?

What about a male dwarf 3rd level oath of the ancients paladin/4th level archfey patron warlock with dueling fighting style and pact of the chain, spelling out the specific ability scores, skill and tool proficiencies, languages, spells, cantrips and invocations known? (I'm not going to calculate the CR of this creature. It's probably less than 9, so for the sake of argument just assume that it is.) If NPCs found in the MM count as creatures, shouldn't NPCs built using PC rules count too?

It isn't, but I wouldn't want to put the DM through that if I'm planing to make an army.

[druid91]

Well, if you can find mountain-sized earthworm....

Size is irrelevant. You turn any creature into any object. A DM could houserule size limitations but that's clearly not an issue the spell has given it can turn medium sized humanoids into collosal dragons.

[JoeJ]

But a specific NPC is an individual, and you can't true polymorph into a specific individual (at least by any sane reading). So you get the average creature of that form. Any other way lies madness.

I agree with that, and I wouldn't allow TP to create any of the NPCs in the back of the MM. It just seems to me that those who think the NPCs are valid for TP should be able to make the same argument for NPCs created using the PHB.


Monster = Any Creature that is not the player characters.

Also, we are talking about True Polymorph here. Transmuting people into Archmages is far from the most broken use of that spell.

Personally, I'd be more concerned with using it to turn an earthworm into a mountain.

I don't know that you could convince me that a mountain is one object.

[druid91]

I agree with that, and I wouldn't allow TP to create any of the NPCs in the back of the MM. It just seems to me that those who think the NPCs are valid for TP should be able to make the same argument for NPCs created using the PHB.



I don't know that you could convince me that a mountain is one object.

An iron ball 50 miles in diameter then. It really doesn't matter. This kind of kneejerk quibbling is beside the point. Either the spell is being used to abuse the game or it's not.

If it is, that's an OOC issue. If it's not, then it shouldn't be something that concerns you.

[MaxWilson]

Size is irrelevant. You turn any creature into any object. A DM could houserule size limitations but that's clearly not an issue the spell has given it can turn medium sized humanoids into collosal dragons.

Not since the latest PHB errata.


[New] True Polymorph (p. 283).
This spell can’t affect a target that has 0 hit points.

In the second sentence, “the creature into an object” is now “the creature into a nonmagical object.”

In the “Creature into Object” subsection (p. 284), the following text is appended to the first sentence: “, as long as the object’s size is no larger than the creature’s size.”

[Cyclops08]

Well, this got sidetracked...

Question: How about magic items that allow a low level mage or cleric to control 30 undead...mid levels to control 60 and undead, and 10+ levels to control 120 undead?

How about a spell planted by Orcus that allows a first level (maybe 3rd) mage to summon a skeleton for 8 hours. The spell is really a trap as it slowly corrupts the mage and turns his alignment evil. The skeleton comes with a sword and serves faithfully and disappears after the spell expires. In fact it is not truly a skeleton, it is a fiendish spirit taking the form just like a familiar might use.

[druid91]

Not since the latest PHB errata.

And much like the Starwars Saga Edition Errata, the people who will use that rule update will be a fairly small portion of the overall group that is 'people who play 5e.'

Unless WotC is gonna ship everyone who bought a PHB a new one every time they release a rules Errata years after releasing the book, they are effectively just houserules.

The book was released half a decade ago and been in print that whole time. That's FIVE years of customers, including most if not all of the core fans.

You're going to get a trickle of people with the new books and new rules. But most aren't going to use them.

[TheUser]

Well, this got sidetracked...

Question: How about magic items that allow a low level mage or cleric to control 30 undead...mid levels to control 60 and undead, and 10+ levels to control 120 undead?

How about a spell planted by Orcus that allows a first level (maybe 3rd) mage to summon a skeleton for 8 hours. The spell is really a trap as it slowly corrupts the mage and turns his alignment evil. The skeleton comes with a sword and serves faithfully and disappears after the spell expires. In fact it is not truly a skeleton, it is a fiendish spirit taking the form just like a familiar might use.

A much better way to allow for this:
Larloch's Amulet of Necromancy. (requires attunement)
Your arcane recovery feature is no longer limited in the number of times it can be used in a day but only when used to recover Necromancy Spells. After being attuned to this Amulet for 30 days your Alignment changes to Evil with the same Law/Neutral/Chaotic modifier (Lawful Good becomes Lawful Evil).

In this way you now have an item specifically for a Necromancer Wizard to make use of best and it's got that corruption aspect to it.

[JackPhoenix]

And much like the Starwars Saga Edition Errata, the people who will use that rule update will be a fairly small portion of the overall group that is 'people who play 5e.'

Unless WotC is gonna ship everyone who bought a PHB a new one every time they release a rules Errata years after releasing the book, they are effectively just houserules.

The book was released half a decade ago and been in print that whole time. That's FIVE years of customers, including most if not all of the core fans.

You're going to get a trickle of people with the new books and new rules. But most aren't going to use them.

That's the problem of those people, not of the rules. SRD is updated with the new errata, D&D Beyond and other platforms are updated with those errata, the errata is freely available on WotC's site, newer printings of the books already include it, and the changes are binding in AL. It's not houserules, and nothing stops anyone from checking if there are any changes to the rules every time WotC announces new version of the errata. Especially when those people clearly have access to the internet.

[Imbalance]

...what would this villain be doing that the players are not?

Breaking the rules.

[druid91]

That's the problem of those people, not of the rules. SRD is updated with the new errata, D&D Beyond and other platforms are updated with those errata, the errata is freely available on WotC's site, newer printings of the books already include it, and the changes are binding in AL. It's not houserules, and nothing stops anyone from checking if there are any changes to the rules every time WotC announces new version of the errata. Especially when those people clearly have access to the internet.

And the SRD is not a play document. The SRD is a cut down version of the rules used by third parties to develop adventures and other content for 5e.

Adventurers League is and always has been a heavily houseruled game. That the House is owned by WotC doesn't change that.

The Errata being freely available doesn't change that it's poor behavior on WotCs part to change actual rules in Errata. Or are we somehow under the impression that everyone has access to the internet? Or that everyone can, or wants to play with a PDF open.

We bought the book because it contains 'The Essential rules for character creation' in D&D fifth edition.

If those rules are not contained within that book, then the premise, and advertising, upon which we gave WotC our money is a lie.

Also, as to the actual subject, you don't need to break the rules, to get a massive undead horde. Just some work.

[Segev]

The Errata being freely available doesn't change that it's poor behavior on WotCs part to change actual rules in Errata.

Er...are you saying it's bad form to have errata, then? Because I'm not sure what they should be doing instead to avoid "bad form" by your standards, here.

[Willie the Duck]

And the SRD is not a play document. The SRD is a cut down version of the rules used by third parties to develop adventures and other content for 5e.

Adventurers League is and always has been a heavily houseruled game. That the House is owned by WotC doesn't change that.

I think we could spend another 100 pages going over different interpretations of what the SRD 'is,' what the term 'house rules' means, or what various things are 'for.' It is not a completely pointless exercise, but if we were to do so, and ever came to any kind of agreement on any of them, we'd then have to have another 100 page debate over exactly what we'd actually shown or what point we've actually made.

Is it frankly true that a whole bunch (probably majority) of the people who play 5e do not go checking the errata documents for updated rules? Absolutely. You are in no way wrong about that. OTOH, most of those people also probably don't care what the official game rules state about whether you can polymorph an earthworm into a mountain, or any of the other minutia we are hammering on in this thread here. The people who care about the official stance on any given issue is the target audience for the these documents.


The Errata being freely available doesn't change that it's poor behavior on WotCs part to change actual rules in Errata. Or are we somehow under the impression that everyone has access to the internet? Or that everyone can, or wants to play with a PDF open.

I know I just stated that it's fairly pointless to dive too deep into the well of what things are 'for,' but, honest question, what is the point of an errata if you aren't changing actual rules? You are replacing the erroneous (and we can go back and forth over who should call things in-error) rule text with the corrected rules text. Why do erratum exist if not for this role?

Regardless, If your position stands, I feel that leaves WotC in an impossible position if they do find something to be in error. I know in the heyday of 3e, various rules clarifications* were put in the FAQ at various times, and that too was deemed not-good-enough by various members of the customer base (declaring that 'rules changes must go in the errata, the FAQ has no authority to change rules!').
*such as, despite the shield-bash rules only covering what to do if you have a weapon in hand and want to shield-bash as an off-hand extra attack, you can shield-bash as a primary attack if you've been disarmed or the like.


We bought the book because it contains 'The Essential rules for character creation' in D&D fifth edition.

If those rules are not contained within that book, then the premise, and advertising, upon which we gave WotC our money is a lie.
If that's the way you see it, I guess that's how you see it.

[JackPhoenix]

everyone can, or wants to play with a PDF open.

Well, there's this thing called printer... or a pen, if you don't have access to the former... that allows you to transcribe those errata to written form. You can then put that written text inside your book.

Unbelievable, I know.


If those rules are not contained within that book, then the premise, and advertising, upon which we gave WotC our money is a lie.

They *are* contained within "that book". Older books won't update to correct the errors printed in them due to nature of the medium, but nobody has ever claimed that.

[druid91]

Well, there's this thing called printer... or a pen, if you don't have access to the former... that allows you to transcribe those errata to written form. You can then put that written text inside your book.

Unbelievable, I know.



They *are* contained within "that book". Older books won't update to correct the errors printed in them due to nature of the medium, but nobody has ever claimed that.

In which case they should give everyone who previously purchased the book a free copy of the book, with updated rules with every new Errata.

As they don't do that... *Shrug*

Also, Errata is for errors. Not clear rule changes. It's for correcting things like the infamous 3d20 damage whip. Or a misspelled word. The substantive content should remain the same, and should they decide it's worth fixing, it should be made into something akin to a PHB 2, rather than vomiting out a PDF and expecting me to treat it like it is the rules.

[JoeJ]

Also, Errata is for errors. Not clear rule changes. It's for correcting things like the infamous 3d20 damage whip. Or a misspelled word.

You mean like a sentence that was accidentally left out?

[druid91]

You mean like a sentence that was accidentally left out?

Only if they feel like sending a new book to all previous customers who purchased that book.

Substantive changes = New Book. Because otherwise WotC has robbed everyone who purchased the book beforehand.

[Willie the Duck]

In which case they should give everyone who previously purchased the book a free copy of the book, with updated rules with every new Errata.

As they don't do that... *Shrug*

I think that's the best summation of your position and frankly the shrug part best summates how the rest of us should take your comments in general. You do not provide for WotC an avenue for meeting your expectations that falls within the boundaries of realistic expectation. They aren't going to be sending out new copies to people. That's not feasible or realistic, much less financially prudent (at least given my estimation of how many people are both exceedingly considered with the official position on rules and dissatisfied with the updates coming in digital form). You're not going to be satisfied, and quite frankly, I think WotC could and should be accepting of that.


Also, Errata is for errors. Not clear rule changes.

Again, we can go round and round on what qualifies as an error. If they believe that a lack of specific wording has caused unintended consequences, it certainly falls within a more giving reading of the word error, and perhaps not in the most confined. Some will consider what they have done reasonable, others might not.

As you say, *Shrug*.

[JoeJ]

Only if they feel like sending a new book to all previous customers who purchased that book.

When, in the entire history of publishing, has a new printing of a hard cover book with errata included been given out free to purchasers of an earlier print run?

[druid91]

Indeed. That's exactly the situation. Largely because I'm not exceedingly concerned about wizards of the coasts official stance on the rules, and neither am I particularly concerned with their having a 'reasonable' means of creating substantive rules changes in Errata releases, because the practice is toxic and unhealthy for the community. It takes the common ground of the ruleset and makes it unauthoritative.

If they want to make substantive changes, a new supplement should be released that updates the content. Why? Because then we don't have this confusion of 'But my book says this, and their book says that, let's stop the game to go look up the errata.'

You have a clear 'this is is the first iteration of rules. This new book updates those rules to fix percieved flaws.' which A.) Allows players to decide if they liked the rules the old way and whether or not to keep them. And B.) Maintains the common ground of the ruleset not casting hundreds of players into a situation where they have to repurchase a thing they have already purchased or else do work that WotC should have done to begin with, if they ever realize there is a flaw at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Indeed. That's exactly the situation. Largely because I'm not exceedingly concerned about wizards of the coasts official stance on the rules, and neither am I particularly concerned with their having a 'reasonable' means of creating substantive rules changes in Errata releases, because the practice is toxic and unhealthy for the community. It takes the common ground of the ruleset and makes it unauthoritative.

If they want to make substantive changes, a new supplement should be released that updates the content. Why? Because then we don't have this confusion of 'But my book says this, and their book says that, let's stop the game to go look up the errata.'

You have a clear 'this is is the first iteration of rules. This new book updates those rules to fix percieved flaws.' which A.) Allows players to decide if they liked the rules the old way and whether or not to keep them. And B.) Maintains the common ground of the ruleset not casting hundreds of players into a situation where they have to repurchase a thing they have already purchased or else do work that WotC should have done to begin with, if they ever realize there is a flaw at all.

Wait. The bold is already exactly what exists. Errata have a long and well-known place in publishing. How does "we reprinted the PHB and now you have to buy book X if you want the fixes" (your model) beat "here are fixes for free" (the current one)? Not to mention they have no way of knowing who has bought books, so they couldn't send anyone free copies if they wanted to.

[druid91]

Wait. The bold is already exactly what exists. Errata have a long and well-known place in publishing. How does "we reprinted the PHB and now you have to buy book X if you want the fixes" (your model) beat "here are fixes for free" (the current one)? Not to mention they have no way of knowing who has bought books, so they couldn't send anyone free copies if they wanted to.

Errata has a place in non-fiction publishing. Where it is important that the information conveyed is accurate. The information in rulebooks has no external truth it needs to reflect.

As such, to release Errata is good for no purpose save either spelling corrections/typos, or rules updates. If the latter, then it's a substantive rules change and you have robbed the playerbase who purchased the earlier print run, as they cannot use their book for the purpose to which it was marketed as to be used for.

Because, it maintains the authority of the rules, so we don't get situations like this. Where the vast majority of players probably won't ever know that the rules have changed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Errata has a place in non-fiction publishing. Where it is important that the information conveyed is accurate. The information in rulebooks has no external truth it needs to reflect.

As such, to release Errata is good for no purpose save either spelling corrections/typos, or rules updates. If the latter, then it's a substantive rules change and you have robbed the playerbase who purchased the earlier print run, as they cannot use their book for the purpose to which it was marketed as to be used for.

Because, it maintains the authority of the rules, so we don't get situations like this. Where the vast majority of players probably won't ever know that the rules have changed.

The rules have no authority to undermine. And they don't claim any authority. They claim to be suggestions for DMs/tables to implement or not as they choose. The DM has primacy over rules, including errata. I, personally, don't care for errata during play, because I don't reference rules during play. I make a ruling (or request that the DM make a ruling) and go with it. That's how it's supposed to be. If you're arguing over rules during play, you're already in the wrong no matter what the rules actually say.

And anyway, rule-books are non-fiction (specifically reference non-fiction). And who's to say that this wasn't an error of omission? They intended to have that in there originally, but failed?

Edit: and I have lots of fiction books that include substantive changes between editions. The one that comes to mind is Feist's Magician sequence (Magician: Apprentice and Magician: Master). The combined edition includes whole scenes that were removed and removes others, plus lots of wording changes. Shakespeare's works vary from edition to edition in rather substantive ways. So errata is everywhere.

[JoeJ]

Maintains the common ground of the ruleset not casting hundreds of players into a situation where they have to repurchase a thing they have already purchased or else do work that WotC should have done to begin with, if they ever realize there is a flaw at all.

Instead of buying a new book, there is also the option of printing out the (free pdf) errata and taping it inside the cover.

Seriously, in the history of publishing has there ever been a case of a publisher giving purchasers of a hard cover book a free new copy because of errata?

[druid91]

Instead of buying a new book, there is also the option of printing out the (free pdf) errata and taping it inside the cover.

Seriously, in the history of publishing has there ever been a case of a publisher giving purchasers of a hard cover book a free new copy because of errata?

And I should have to spend more money to get what new customers get free because...?

In the history of pirates when have pirates ever stopped pillaging other boats and instead thrown them picnics?

Something being not commonly done, doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Unoriginal]

And I should have to spend more money to get what new customers get free because...?

You're not spending more money. They are giving the errata for free.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And I should have to spend more money to get what new customers get free because...?

In the history of pirates when have pirates ever stopped pillaging other boats and instead thrown them picnics?

Something being not commonly done, doesn't mean it's wrong.

As @Unoriginal says, it's free.

Not only that, but if something is never done, saying that it's the only moral way to go is rather suspect. Not only that, but it's something that cannot be done. The publisher has no idea who buys the book, as they're not the retailer. And many people have written in, modified, or otherwise changed their books and so would find a new copy to be an inferior good.

[druid91]

You're not spending more money. They are giving the errata for free.

Printing isn't free. My time isn't free. The portion of my data cap I spend to get their PDF isn't free. The computer I use to get it wasn't free. Because surprising as it may be, there are people without computers in this day and age still.

In the end it's a matter of principle. And I'm more or less content with my current stance of 'There are just multiple conflicting official rulesets. It's up to the DM to decide which is right.'

[Willie the Duck]

Edit: and I have lots of fiction books that include substantive changes between editions. The one that comes to mind is Feist's Magician sequence (Magician: Apprentice and Magician: Master). The combined edition includes whole scenes that were removed and removes others, plus lots of wording changes. Shakespeare's works vary from edition to edition in rather substantive ways. So errata is everywhere.

Don't forget Judy Blume editing her young adult novels to reflect changes in how young adults experience puberty. I know that gets a think piece every once in a while. Or translations, of course.


Printing isn't free. My time isn't free. The portion of my data cap I spend to get their PDF isn't free. The computer I use to get it wasn't free. Because surprising as it may be, there are people without computers in this day and age still.

I don't think anyone is surprised by this.


In the end it's a matter of principle. And I'm more or less content with my current stance of 'There are just multiple conflicting official rulesets. It's up to the DM to decide which is right.'

Then you are already sitting pretty. I don't think you're doing a great job of providing a convincing argument for anyone else to agree with your stated principle. That WotC shouldn't make an updated product for the benefit of future purchasers, lest an earlier adopter of their product might be made to see their purchase as lesser in comparison is not a moral principle people regularly use anywhere else in their lives (heaven help the automobile industry if that standard ever became the norm). But as you say, you are content, and more power to you for that.

[TheUser]

Printing isn't free. My time isn't free. The portion of my data cap I spend to get their PDF isn't free. The computer I use to get it wasn't free. Because surprising as it may be, there are people without computers in this day and age still.

In the end it's a matter of principle. And I'm more or less content with my current stance of 'There are just multiple conflicting official rulesets. It's up to the DM to decide which is right.'

That's frankly a terrible mindset reminiscent of digging in one's heels to get their way.

The developers have made it publicly available (if you have a cellphone that connects with free wifi somewhere) a d update it regularly when inconsistencies or troublesome interactions crop up.

The only reason someone would find that mindset remotely acceptable would be in hopes of heightening the experience of the player. More often than not errata is a clarification of RAI vs RAW and the devs think that the new wording makes for a more balanced player experience.

[The Jack]

PDFs are the future.


On topic;
If we assume TP doesn't work for making creatures with a spellcasting trait
-We could then still have the caster make absurd riches to fund magic item and artifact obtainment.
-You could indoctrinate people into following you and have them learn magic (I imagine NPCs can go up levels through study, not murder, but that's your prerogative) , OR you could turn these surbsurvient people into vampires if you're a vampire yourself, which is a huge power boost.

Otherwise there's no way to get vast armies. Strong armies? Sure. but not vast. A single wizard can't do it alone with the rules given.


An undead wizard could make a lot of uncontrolled undead, but they'd be defeated quick on the field.

[druid91]

I mean again, what's stopping you from having your Wights fight animated zombies until they gain levels? From there you just keep mobbing them with increasingly difficult fights until they reach a level where they can contribute appreciably to your undead horde.

Rinse Repeat and you have the Dark Lord/Lady and their [insert suitably spooky number here.] Generals of Death.

[Imbalance]

I have a new theory. The necromancer bought one legit reanimation scroll, and has built an army by demanding a free replacement every time the scroll-maker updated the spell's wording. Consequently, there are some unintended variations in many of his minions due to early errors or entire phrases having been added to more recent scrolls, but the evil worldwide takeover commences without a hitch.

[JackPhoenix]

Printing isn't free. My time isn't free. The portion of my data cap I spend to get their PDF isn't free. The computer I use to get it wasn't free. Because surprising as it may be, there are people without computers in this day and age still.

In the end it's a matter of principle. And I'm more or less content with my current stance of 'There are just multiple conflicting official rulesets. It's up to the DM to decide which is right.'

You obviously have enough time and money to sit at the computer, complaining about the errata's existence on a forum. I think you can judge what does that make you look like.


I mean again, what's stopping you from having your Wights fight animated zombies until they gain levels? From there you just keep mobbing them with increasingly difficult fights until they reach a level where they can contribute appreciably to your undead horde.

Rinse Repeat and you have the Dark Lord/Lady and their [insert suitably spooky number here.] Generals of Death.

The fact NPCs don't level up the way PCs do?

[druid91]

You obviously have enough time and money to sit at the computer, complaining about the errata's existence on a forum. I think you can judge what does that make you look like.

And? The fact that I can isn't the point. If I felt like it I could simply get a Binder and write out the rules like an old school monk illuminating the text as I went.

I should not have to.

Also, that plot would be amusing in a comedic game.

[JoeJ]

I mean again, what's stopping you from having your Wights fight animated zombies until they gain levels? From there you just keep mobbing them with increasingly difficult fights until they reach a level where they can contribute appreciably to your undead horde.

Rinse Repeat and you have the Dark Lord/Lady and their [insert suitably spooky number here.] Generals of Death.

Wights don't have levels, and fighting doesn't make them more powerful.

[druid91]

Wights don't have levels, and fighting doesn't make them more powerful.

Can you give me any rules source that says this is true? Even including Errata?

[Doug Lampert]

Don't forget that casters also always have the right spells prepared (often thanks to Almighty Planning) and enough spell slots to do anything regardless of circumstances. Plus no one can work to counter them as they prepare.

Actually, they always have the right spell prepared thanks to the fact that a 5th edition level 20 wizard can have a ridiculous number of spells prepared. Given signature spell, 20 int, and level 20 you have 27 spells prepared and 44 in your spellbook assuming you have only those you got from the class (you can add another permanently prepared spell with a feat, but probably not worth it).

You can also prepare a list with a largely disjoint collection of utility spells for the day you wish your simulacrum into existence. One of the two of you will almost certainly have the right spell prepared unless it's ridiculously situational or you expected to be able to cast it as a ritual at need.

Now, how they all have Foresight up 24/7 when it only lasts 8 hours and can only be cast once per day and they're also casting wish, true polymorph, and shapeshift and maybe even have Meteor Swarm available all the time, that part sort of escapes me. So I definitely agree with you on the slots thing.

[JoeJ]

Can you give me any rules source that says this is true? Even including Errata?

Yep. The Wight entry in the MM (p. 300) does not give them a level, and does not say that they can gain in power by fighting.

[druid91]

Yep. The Wight entry in the MM (p. 300) does not give them a level, and does not say that they can gain in power by fighting.

It also doesn't say it can take opportunity attacks, use bonus actions, make the dash action, or interact with objects.

In any case, a thought just occurred to me. The wording of Animate Dead is that you can create Skeletons and Zombies, but that the DM will give you the statistics for that creature. The plain old ordinary skeleton and zombie statistics are in the PHB. So why would it say that?

Unless of course you were meant to be able to bargain with your DM to make special undead, or for the DM to be able to nerf undead because you're summoning too many at once.

So, you just bargain with the DM for 'Undead Commanders' who can marshal free undead beneath them.

[Unoriginal]

Otherwise there's no way to get vast armies. Strong armies? Sure. but not vast. A single wizard can't do it alone with the rules given.

Indeed. That's the answer.

[JoeJ]

It also doesn't say it can take opportunity attacks, use bonus actions, make the dash action, or interact with objects.

"When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player's Handbook." (MM p. 10)

All creatures can take the actions listed in the PHB. No creatures can take bonus actions unless something specifically says that they can.