Animate Dead on the Warlock list

[Seekergeek]

So, I've seen much consternation about this addition to the Warlock list via the variant class features UA. I'm wondering why that is - clearly I'm missing what makes this such a juicy choice. Is it the 24 hour duration on a short rest slot? Is it the ability to, then, in slightly quicker fashion get yourself an undead horde (that may work in a white room, but I'd never expect a player to actually bring the suck to a table so hard)? Having a few skeletons or zombies around is nice but it hardly seems game breaking.

[Fable Wright]

So, I've seen much consternation about this addition to the Warlock list via the variant class features UA. I'm wondering why that is - clearly I'm missing what makes this such a juicy choice. Is it the 24 hour duration on a short rest slot? Is it the ability to, then, in slightly quicker fashion get yourself an undead horde (that may work in a white room, but I'd never expect a player to actually bring the suck to a table so hard)? Having a few skeletons or zombies around is nice but it hardly seems game breaking.

Let's say you're at level 5, and an elf. You can take four short rests at night while the rest of your party is asleep.

Congratulations, you are now able to maintain an army of 16 undead at level 5, with full spell slots for the adventuring day! No cost whatsoever. Oh, Shepherd Druid wants to lay out a Bear Totem and take an immediate short rest for breakfast every day? Make that 20 undead at no cost.

Meanwhile, all the other classes with animate dead can maintain... eight? If they don't use their 3rd level slots on anything else? And again, this costs them all their third level slots for the day.

[Seekergeek]

Let's say you're at level 5, and an elf. You can take four short rests at night while the rest of your party is asleep.

Congratulations, you are now able to maintain an army of 16 undead at level 5, with full spell slots for the adventuring day! No cost whatsoever. Oh, Shepherd Druid wants to lay out a Bear Totem and take an immediate short rest for breakfast every day? Make that 20 undead at no cost.

Meanwhile, all the other classes with animate dead can maintain... eight? If they don't use their 3rd level slots on anything else? And again, this costs them all their third level slots for the day.

So it's a white room problem. I mean, unless you're a total *******.

[DrLoveMonkey]

So it's a white room problem. I mean, unless you're a total *******.

I don’t know if it’s that much of a white room problem. I have a player in DotMM right now who’s a necromancer, and they carry around an enormous sack full of bones to animate so they can keep topped up.

We have an agreement though that I’m not running combats with 4 PCs and 22 skeletons so thankfully they’re not going that far with it, but by the rules they absolutely could.

[Segev]

So it's a white room problem. I mean, unless you're a total *******.
By that logic, you can give wizards at-will Wish at level 3 and its only a white-room problem because non-**** players won’t abuse it.

[Seekergeek]

I don’t know if it’s that much of a white room problem. I have a player in DotMM right now who’s a necromancer, and they carry around an enormous sack full of bones to animate so they can keep topped up.

We have an agreement though that I’m not running combats with 4 PCs and 22 skeletons so thankfully they’re not going that far with it, but by the rules they absolutely could.

Right, that's sort of what I mean. If the player can't be trusted don't implement the UA. Honestly, though, if someone wants to 'win' dnd they'll find a way. That's a player problem regardless of the rules.

[Seekergeek]

By that logic, you can give wizards at-will Wish at level 3 and its only a white-room problem because non-**** players won’t abuse it.

I mean, that's a fairly unbalanced example but in a very broad sense that is my position, yes. Rule interactions are going to be abusable by those who wish to abuse them.

[Sparky McDibben]

Not sure how we go from 16 to 20 undead on the Bear Spirit, Fable Wright. I'm just seeing the Spirit as adding some temp hp - are you saying the additional hp make them effectively 20 undead?

Aside from that, Fable Wright is completely correct. Warlock's Pact Magic allows you to spam certain spells ad nauseam. If you're looking to include this in your game, OP, I recommend doing the following:


Talk to the other players and DM, in that order. Make sure none of the other players wants to play a necromancer, or maybe even a spore druid. You don't want to step on anyone's toes.
Make sure the DM is cool allowing UA content. Not everyone is.
Make sure you lay out to the DM what you're trying to accomplish. Do not spring this stuff on them mid-game. If you want to create an army of undead by level 5, tell them that. They should be able to tell you what you'll need to keep track of, how to run these in combat, etc.
Be flexible. Sometimes a solution agreed upon at the beginning of a campaign just isn't working. The DM may have to nerf some options.
Above all, be prepared for the world to react to you, and for you to have to do extra book-keeping. Depending on your actions, you might get whole towns, knightly orders, or religions coming after you.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Right, that's sort of what I mean. If the player can't be trusted don't implement the UA. Honestly, though, if someone wants to 'win' dnd they'll find a way. That's a player problem regardless of the rules.

It’s a bit of a balancing act. Ideally the rules should be written in such a way that if you play by them nothing breaks, which isn’t possible but it doesn’t mean you should let broken material before published anyway.

There’s also inter-class balance to think about. For example RAW Healing Spirit is such a good out of combat party heal that the party Ranger is actually a better OOC healer than the full caster life cleric. Even if they don’t use it, it really takes the wind out of your sails to know that the only reason you’re the one keeping the party topped up on HP between fights is because the ranger is allowing you to.

Likewise if you’re a necromancer and going “bwa-ha-ha, behold my undead minions!” But you know that the warlock could just get twice as many overnight and not even lose spell slots for it, it kind of sucks.

[Segev]

The bear totem thing adds 4 undead because it’s one more short rest. So the elven warlock can cast twice more and get the spell slots back.

[Seekergeek]

Likewise if you’re a necromancer and going “bwa-ha-ha, behold my undead minions!” But you know that the warlock could just get twice as many overnight and not even lose spell slots for it, it kind of sucks.

That's reasonable, and I can see accept that. I guess what I'm hearing is that while this may not pose a problem for my table the larger community experience isn't the same as mine has been.

[Spectrulus]

So, I've seen much consternation about this addition to the Warlock list via the variant class features UA. I'm wondering why that is - clearly I'm missing what makes this such a juicy choice. Is it the 24 hour duration on a short rest slot? Is it the ability to, then, in slightly quicker fashion get yourself an undead horde (that may work in a white room, but I'd never expect a player to actually bring the suck to a table so hard)? Having a few skeletons or zombies around is nice but it hardly seems game breaking.

To solve the White Room problem, players don't decide when a rest occurs, only the DM does, so each DM can solve this problem as they wish to.

It isn't a thing that can be abused, unless a DM wants it to be, in which case, it isn't abused.

[LordEntrails]

Let's say you're at level 5, and an elf. You can take four short rests at night while the rest of your party is asleep.
Not at my table you can't. That is so full of cheese I would never even bother looking up if such nonsense might be allowed by the rules at my table. Simply no chance in Hades I would allow a player to take consecutive short rests, or to use a long rest like that.

So it's a white room problem. I mean, unless you're a total *******.
Yep, or a cheese problem.

Right, that's sort of what I mean. If the player can't be trusted don't implement the UA. Honestly, though, if someone wants to 'win' dnd they'll find a way. That's a player problem regardless of the rules.
Yep, that type of cheese gives everyone gas so it's not welcome at any table I play at.

[da newt]

At first glance it feels like it needs a max limit of some sort for balance - a 1x/day or max number of minions you can control at once, just to reduce the ability to abuse this.

For the OP, your argument is sound - in a perfect world no one would ever choose to abuse this because it's not fair (in a perfect world you wouldn't need a rule outlawing murder, child abuse, theft, etc), but there is a loophole in this that probably ought to be closed / limited.

[DrLoveMonkey]

That's reasonable, and I can see accept that. I guess what I'm hearing is that while this may not pose a problem for my table the larger community experience isn't the same as mine has been.

There are MANY things which are perfectly fine for one table, but shouldn’t be published overall. Like a subclass that lets you pick and choose from every other subclass for your class features, and swap them on a short or long rest or something. That could be really interesting! But it also makes every other subclass choice a non-option and I can’t imagine there isn’t some combo out there crossing subclass abilities that isn’t broken.

Thankfully the reverse of “if you don’t like a rule, ignore it.” is “if you have a cool idea, use it.” and that’s also true. Maybe you want a fighter to have the ability to animate any humanoid killed by them in combat, and maintain permanent control over them. Totally broken effect to publish in general, but great for a specific game.

[Doug Lampert]

Let's say you're at level 5, and an elf. You can take four short rests at night while the rest of your party is asleep.

Congratulations, you are now able to maintain an army of 16 undead at level 5, with full spell slots for the adventuring day! No cost whatsoever. Oh, Shepherd Druid wants to lay out a Bear Totem and take an immediate short rest for breakfast every day? Make that 20 undead at no cost.

Meanwhile, all the other classes with animate dead can maintain... eight? If they don't use their 3rd level slots on anything else? And again, this costs them all their third level slots for the day.

Why only 16 or 20? If you're maintaining an existing army then it's 4 per slot, and you get 2 slots per short rest. So 32 or 40. Or am I missing something?

[Fable Wright]

Not sure how we go from 16 to 20 undead on the Bear Spirit, Fable Wright. I'm just seeing the Spirit as adding some temp hp - are you saying the additional hp make them effectively 20 undead?

Ah, no, my miscommunication. Bear Spirit is a reason for a non Warlock to advocate taking a short rest right after a long one, thus adding another window for casting.

Also I somehow completely forgot that Warlocks get two slots on a short rest. Derp. They go from 32 to 40 undead maintained overnight. Again, at no cost.

[MaxWilson]

So, I've seen much consternation about this addition to the Warlock list via the variant class features UA. I'm wondering why that is - clearly I'm missing what makes this such a juicy choice. Is it the 24 hour duration on a short rest slot? Is it the ability to, then, in slightly quicker fashion get yourself an undead horde (that may work in a white room, but I'd never expect a player to actually bring the suck to a table so hard)? Having a few skeletons or zombies around is nice but it hardly seems game breaking.

I am not sure but I think it's the accessibility issue. Even today by RAW it's possible to get skeletons on a short rest (Warlock 2/Divine Soul 5 can maintain 4 skeletons on 2.5 hours of rest, and obviously a dedicated Necromancer 6/Warlock 5 can spam huge numbers of skeletons). But it is somewhat harder to access so it has less impact on the game. Making it something every warlock can do with minimal build investment might be a bit much, in the same way that giving a bog-standard Moon Druid (or any druid) the same ridiculous healing capabilities (via Healing Spirit) hitherto reserved for high-level Paladins and Lore Bards was a bit much, even if you outlaw the clearly-unintended cheesey heal-multiple-PCs-multiple-times-per-round-via-readied-actions healing multiplier.

As an individual DM, can you ban Healing Spirit? Yes you can. But 5E's design would be healthier if that spell had never been published in Xanathar's. I think there are similar concerns about Animate Dead: it's not the most-broken thing in 5E, but it's yet another broken thing and the best time to avoid that mistake is before it happens.

[Sparky McDibben]

So I totally get the conversations about how broken spells ought not be allowed, etc. Those concerns aren't that big of a deal to me, but I know that some people prize game balance. So I'm not trying to address those concerns.

What I do want to say is that if you're a DM whose worried about this as an exploit, you should know you have plenty of options.

First off, limit their access to intact corpses. If after every fight the warlock wants to spam this and then take a rest, roll 1d4-1. That's how many useful undead they can create. Maybe the other corpses are in literal pieces - the warlock got a little too happy with that eldritch blast. They can always create un-useful undead, like skeletons that have no arms, etc., but that's your call. They just hit a cemetery? Well, that cemetery definitely has a night watch on it (I mean, this is a land with freaking necromancers - why wouldn't it?). And that night watch might go on patrol, or generally make life difficult for the PCs as they try to animate some dead. If the PCs just kill the night watch? That's murder; have the village react appropriately (torches, pitchforks, etc). Alternatively, as the presence of an undead horde becomes more widely known, people start cremating their dead, rendering the availability of corpses dramatically lower.

Secondly, you can enforce resting discipline. You better have a rope trick or something around that will keep you safe from wandering monsters, because each time you rest you risk random encounters (this is different from "each time you rest you get a random encounter.") Don't overdo this - that leads to five-minute adventuring days and a bunker mentality from the PCs, but a few monsters interrupting the short rest will make your players re-think the wisdom of taking too many. You may want to telegraph to the players and the characters when a rest is "risky" versus "safe," but that's up to your taste.

Thirdly, there's the patron. Is a Celestial, or a Fey, likely to approve of this behavior? I would suggest not. Even if they've a Fiend patron, you can make players get creeped out by this - what if every so often they raise an undead, and it turns to them and whispers, "Another chit on the scales of your soul, mortal," or something even creepier, like, "You have to sleep sometime..." The point is, they're damning themselves further each time they do this.

Fourthly, there's the worldbuilding aspects. Give clerics in your setting ways of detecting masses of undead. What would a religious order do with this information? Maybe they scout out the party and quietly pass the matter on to civil authorities to be dealt with. Maybe there's special ecclesiastical authority that allows clerics to act where incidents involving undead are concerned. I mean, maybe you start throwing NPC knights, priests, etc. at the party as random encounters. Alternatively, if there are clerics to Vecna or Nerull around, maybe they regard the warlock as an upstart, and try to humble them. This could involve challenging them to swear their allegiance to [evil deity of eeeeeeeviiiiil], taking control of the warlock's undead and turning them on the warlock, or simply showing up and vaporizing the undead (to be used either as a first or last resort, depending on the relationship you have with the warlock player).

Fifthly, you can use them spamming a spell to turn it around on them. Give them an extra undead once or twice per summoning. These undead will seem to be under the warlock's control, right up to the point when the warlock rests, and it tries to smother the warlock with its pillow, whispering, "Nerull sends his regards..." Furthermore, after you've done this once, make it impossible for the warlock to know which of the undead they've created isn't actually under their control. So they start over? Do they risk getting stabbed in the back?

Finally, there's the rest of the party. If you've got a paladin or a life cleric, they're going to be horrified by this practice, and will only condone it in dire circumstances. Use this sparely, especially if the party is suffering the fallout of the previous effects.

Like I said, you've got plenty of options in-story for how to deal with someone cheesing a spell.

[sophontteks]

To solve the White Room problem, players don't decide when a rest occurs, only the DM does, so each DM can solve this problem as they wish to.

It isn't a thing that can be abused, unless a DM wants it to be, in which case, it isn't abused.
Does the DM tell them when they can eat and go outside too?:smallbiggrin:

The players are always in full control of what their characters do. The DM is there to decide the outcome of their decisions. If they want to rest in the middle of a dragons lair, they can certainly try.

There is a reason this spell is not on the warlock's list. When the players are pushed, they will use the tools at their disposal. When the DM then puts limits on their tools, the players will feel cheated.

The solution, rather then eliminating the freedom players have to use short rests at their choosing (which is the primary benefit short rest classes have over long rest characters) is to not allow something so easily abused in the first place.

Sadly, the UAs are mostly garbage. They have some cool ideas but there just wasn't enough actual testing for their use in games.

[stoutstien]

Just limit total zombies or skeletons to equal caster modifier.

[Doug Lampert]

Just limit total zombies or skeletons to equal caster modifier.

Too harsh, even with a 20 casting stat, I can maintain more than that with a single level 4th level slot, and a warlock at high level doesn't HAVE any slots as low as level 4.

A better limit IMAO would be something like 2 spell slots worth, total. If you declare that the creating spell counts against the 2 slot limit, then 2 level 5 slots allows 13 undead.

Alternately, casting modifier+proficiency modifier would be a plausible limit.

But yes, a rules limit on long duration minions would be a good thing and should have been built into the system (if minion/cohort rules were built in, then you open up a lot of additional character concepts).

[stoutstien]

Too harsh, even with a 20 casting stat, I can maintain more than that with a single level 4th level slot, and a warlock at high level doesn't HAVE any slots as low as level 4.

A better limit IMAO would be something like 2 spell slots worth, total. If you declare that the creating spell counts against the 2 slot limit, then 2 level 5 slots allows 13 undead.

Alternately, casting modifier+proficiency modifier would be a plausible limit.

But yes, a rules limit on long duration minions would be a good thing and should have been built into the system (if minion/cohort rules were built in, then you open up a lot of additional character concepts).

Aye. Mod +proficiency would be a solid rule.

[Fable Wright]

Like I said, you've got plenty of options in-story for how to deal with someone cheesing a spell.

So to be clear:

You handle the problems caused by spell abuse by punishing the player for using it in game, as opposed to just saying "it's broken, you can't use it"? Your approach seems more likely to cause friction between players and the DM, for ultimately the same end result of "it's not in the Warlock's toolbox anymore".

[Segev]

Alternatively, you could just buff - if not every caster, then at least the Necromancer - so that the non-Warlocks who're supposed to be good with minionmancy have it better, still.

Maybe Necromancers, in addition to giving their minions the Necromancer's proviciency bonus to attack and damage, also add their proficiency bonus (or that plus their Int mod) to the number of skeletons and zombies that animate dead creates, and twice that to how many it maintains.

[Warlush]

I don't give not 1 {Scrubbed} As a DM I've put Animate Dead on the Warlock spell list at my table for a while now. And I give it to Undying Warlocks as an extra spell known for free at 6th level in addition to the other level 6 feature.

It has been fun. Pretty much all around good times.

I mean, this game is supposed to be fun right?

[Segev]

I don't give not 1 {Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}. As a DM I've put Animate Dead on the Warlock spell list at my table for a while now. And I give it to Undying Warlocks as an extra spell known for free at 6th level in addition to the other level 6 feature.

It has been fun. Pretty much all around good times.

I mean, this game is supposed to be fun right?

Absolutely. My only complaint would be as somebody playing a Necromancer at your table. Why is my Necromancer worse at having an army of undead than that Warlock? I'd try to negotiate for a way to make my armies bigger. After all, the game is supposed to be fun!

[Kane0]

Easy way to nip it in the bud: any character can only benefit from two short rests between long rests.

Ive always thought animate dead would have been a good spell invocation. Better than Bane at any rate.

[Segev]

Easy way to nip it in the bud: any character can only benefit from two short rests between long rests.

Ive always thought animate dead would have been a good spell invocation. Better than Bane at any rate.

It's one of the few that actually has a reason to be made a "cast a spell once per day" invocation. A lot of the ones like that make me squint and ask, "Why?" Why are they even bothering to offer these spells once per day, and making them count as casting a spell? That's just nonsense. It's insulting. They're just not that powerful.

Animate dead at least has a good reason why that might be a needed restriction. So I could see making it an Invocation that lets you cast it once per day using a Warlock spell slot. That'd actually work pretty well.

[Warlush]

Absolutely. My only complaint would be as somebody playing a Necromancer at your table. Why is my Necromancer worse at having an army of undead than that Warlock? I'd try to negotiate for a way to make my armies bigger. After all, the game is supposed to be fun!

I absolutely agree! That's a very valid point I didn't consider.

[Protolisk]

So to be clear:

You handle the problems caused by spell abuse by punishing the player for using it in game, as opposed to just saying "it's broken, you can't use it"? Your approach seems more likely to cause friction between players and the DM, for ultimately the same end result of "it's not in the Warlock's toolbox anymore".

If a character abused the sheer power of Fireball by using it as a threat for a variety of NPCs, intimidating shop keepers and the like, would it not be logical for the world to react to the threat?

Then, if a mage was quite literally raising an army of the dead, should there not be any story implications of this?

I think the original ideas listed make perfect sense. The actions of a character should have context, not be analyzed in a white room. With the given suggestions, it shows the context of their actions, and how the story can be affected. It's almost as if the player is playing the role of a necromancer raising a horde of zombies, and the world is reacting in kind.

Simply thinking that a character has easy access to a dozen bodies, and that there is no story or logistical impact to having the bone swarm, is not giving good credit to a game about playing a role of a character. This is true for the original Necromancer wizard, and the ability to have even more as a Warlock (which some may say is the easier path to power than study) should bring more dire consequences.

[Monster Manuel]

The main objection I have to Warlocks with Animate Dead is that the spell was balanced around the opportunity cost of losing those spell slots in order to maintain the army, and giving the spell to Warlocks who refresh those spell slots after a short rest eliminates that opportunity cost. It's a flat-out better spell for the Warlock who just picked it up than it is for the subclass that's built around casting it.

Throw it on the spell list of an Undying Patron warlock? Or some other necro-focused patron? Sure, that's fun. The necromancer's zombies are tougher, but the Undead Warlock can make more, it doesn't feel as un-earned if the patron is supposed to like zombies. Just, don't put it on the main list.

Seconding the notion that it fits better as in Invocation, not a Spell. Let it count as having been cast at a higher level, as an invocation. But then you don't get the short-rest casting that makes it problematic.

Another solution that I really like? Make a Lesser Animate Dead spell, that only lets you animate or maintain control over one minion. Put that one on the Warlock list. Kind of crappy for a Necromancer wizard to waste a slot on one zombie, but for a Warlock who can refresh that slot over and over again? A little better.

[XmonkTad]

Fourthly, there's the worldbuilding aspects. Give clerics in your setting ways of detecting masses of undead. What would a religious order do with this information? Maybe they scout out the party and quietly pass the matter on to civil authorities to be dealt with. Maybe there's special ecclesiastical authority that allows clerics to act where incidents involving undead are concerned. I mean, maybe you start throwing NPC knights, priests, etc. at the party as random encounters. Alternatively, if there are clerics to Vecna or Nerull around, maybe they regard the warlock as an upstart, and try to humble them. This could involve challenging them to swear their allegiance to [evil deity of eeeeeeeviiiiil], taking control of the warlock's undead and turning them on the warlock, or simply showing up and vaporizing the undead (to be used either as a first or last resort, depending on the relationship you have with the warlock player).
...

Finally, there's the rest of the party. If you've got a paladin or a life cleric, they're going to be horrified by this practice, and will only condone it in dire circumstances. Use this sparely, especially if the party is suffering the fallout of the previous effects.

I love these suggestions. I really like the idea that if a character is being sufficiently evil with a spell that used to have the Evil tag should be find their alignment slipping and their allies balking. Most mechanical abuses should be handled either by NPCs abusing the same effect, or by there being consequences to acting too big for your britches.
It is worth noting that while Animate Dead hasn't really been on the warlock's spell list, MC warlocks have had this since the beginning. A sorclock gets this trick just fine. Can't say I've ever seen a sorclock necormancer before.

[jaappleton]

If you use the Ravnica background, Golgari, its added to the Warlock list.

[Sparky McDibben]

So to be clear:

You handle the problems caused by spell abuse by punishing the player for using it in game, as opposed to just saying "it's broken, you can't use it"? Your approach seems more likely to cause friction between players and the DM, for ultimately the same end result of "it's not in the Warlock's toolbox anymore".

I think I understand your point here, Fable Wright, so let me speak to it for a minute. I think you're trying to talk to Grod's Law - "Don't balance broken mechanics by making them annoying to use."

I think you can divide up my responses between "narrative" and "mechanical." Mechanical responses include limitations on corpses and resting discipline. I personally don't see that any different as requiring a player to actually go get a gem-encrusted bowl for heroes feast, needing diamonds for the various resurrection spells, or making resurrection non-automatic, but I would bring them up before the game starts with the player who wanted to use them. Just like I would do with a druid player who wanted to know what wild shapes they knew, and how long it took them to learn. I'm not trying to nerf your cool spell, warlock, but I don't want to run 40 friggin' zombies. Ditto conjurers. I'm not here to squash a player's fun, but I am here to make sure that tension remains viable and the game remains fun for all the players at the table.

If this becomes an emergent problem - neither of us saw this coming and the player feels like they're exploiting the game - I'd pull them aside and talk to them. If they were resistant to the idea of mechanical responses, I'd simply remind them that the game world will react. I'd continue reminding them of that every time they did something that would cause a reaction: "You can definitely go ahead and raise that zombie, but the townsfolk will have a strongly negative reaction to that behavior."

As for the narrative responses, Protolisk said everything I wanted to, so I'll content myself with seconding their response. Thanks!