Necromancers have the toughest homonculi

[Segev]

Now, obviously, this reeks of "exploit," so it may be nixed by some DMs, but the way the homonculus spell is written, you can roll up to half your HD and add your Con modifier to each one you roll. Your hit point maximum is reduced by that amount, and your homonculus gains that amount as both current and maximum hp.

Both by the RAW, and arguably within the spirit of the class, the 12th level necromancer cannot have his maximum hp reduced, and the homonculus still gains that many hp. So there's no reason for the necromancer to ever NOT roll half his hit dice for this.

Now, it sounds like an exploit, but it is directly a result of the RAW, and the spirit of the Necromancer power is one of controlling the flow of life energy (particularly his own). So transferring somebody else's life, or sharing his own by duplicating it rather than transferring it, sounds like the kind of thing they'd do.

Still not super powerful. It's just a homonculus. But it's a very durable one without sacrificing its master's durability.

[Galithar]

As a DM I would absolutely allow this. Any time I see people shoot down something like this a little part of me dies.

A. It's not in anyway broken. A Homunculus that has half of your piddly d6 extra HP isn't going to be a tanking powerhouse.
B. DMs, if your player finds some synergy within their class features why would you want to shut it down? To make them feel like their class is just a collection of unrelated bits and bobs and that they aren't allowed to combine things? Now if that synergy violates my previous point, then feel free to stop it.

A necromancer with a 115 HP Homunculus isn't that terrifying, and that's 10 hit die rolled with a 20 Con and PERFECT rolls on the d6s... More reasonably it's going to have around 60 HP at level 20. That's with average rolls on 10d6 and a 14 con.

It's a neat synergy that I'd not thought of before but will certainly point it out if I ever have a high level Necromancy Wizard in my games.

Edit: The most "broken" this could get is a 20 Con wizard that takes their last 8 levels in Barbarian to get 8d12 hit dice and use those. 8d12 + 2d6 + 50 + 5 = an average of 114 HP. But requires one of the most pointless and weak multiclasses possible.

[Man_Over_Game]

I agree. I'd even suspect it was intentional to do that. Necromancers don't have many opportunities to reduce their maximum HP, and Homonculus was added after the Necromancer was made. I doubt it's an oversight.

[TheUser]

This is the tip of iceberg with regards to necromancer exploits. This one is so exceedingly tame by comparison most DM's would be fine with this one imho as it's clearly working within it's designed parameters.

(For clarity, go look into Inured to Undeath with Magic Jar, Shapechange or the Aid spell or tell me how much INT an Ancient White Dracolich has for Command Undead. Cheers mate!)

[Segev]

I agree; it likely was intentional, and if it wasn't, it certainly isn't broken. I just know that there are people out there who see a PC who finds a way to circumvent a cost while getting a benefit and say, "uh, no." It takes a lot to convince them that it's not broken, or that there's a hidden cost (e.g. "I took 12 levels of necromancer," which, being an opportunity cost and having other benefits, rings hollow to some folks) that makes it okay.

But my main purpose was to share this neat little interaction, so I'm glad it has brought something new to others' attention. (I noticed it last night as I was paging through my Xanathar's Guide.)

[MaxWilson]

Now, obviously, this reeks of "exploit," so it may be nixed by some DMs, but the way the homonculus spell is written, you can roll up to half your HD and add your Con modifier to each one you roll. Your hit point maximum is reduced by that amount, and your homonculus gains that amount as both current and maximum hp.

Both by the RAW, and arguably within the spirit of the class, the 12th level necromancer cannot have his maximum hp reduced, and the homonculus still gains that many hp. So there's no reason for the necromancer to ever NOT roll half his hit dice for this.

Unless you have a better use for those HD, like saving them to recover with if you get wounded, instead of spending them on your familiar every day.

[Segev]

Unless you have a better use for those HD, like saving them to recover with if you get wounded, instead of spending them on your familiar every day.

While I wouldn't argue too hard with a DM who wanted to rule that they were expended, I note that it doesn't actually say that they are. Maybe there's text in the short rest rules about how rolling them for any reason counts that I'm forgetting. But I don't actually think that the RAW would have them expended from doing this. Again, wouldn't fault a DM for ruling that they are. But I am interested in learning if there's anything that would indicate they are in the RAW themselves.

[MaxWilson]

While I wouldn't argue too hard with a DM who wanted to rule that they were expended, I note that it doesn't actually say that they are. Maybe there's text in the short rest rules about how rolling them for any reason counts that I'm forgetting. But I don't actually think that the RAW would have them expended from doing this. Again, wouldn't fault a DM for ruling that they are. But I am interested in learning if there's anything that would indicate they are in the RAW themselves.

Create Homonculus:
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 your 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 the 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 to 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.

Once they're spent, they're spent, just like during a short rest. You have to long rest to get them back.

[Segev]

Create Homonculus:
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 your 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 the 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 to 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.

Once they're spent, they're spent, just like during a short rest. You have to long rest to get them back.

Fair enough. Serves me right for missing the obvious. Thanks for clearly pointing it out!

[Galithar]

Oh God that makes it terrible. It's already a high level spell for something that is barely better then a familiar (and actually worse in some respects). Realizing that you have to SPEND a health recovery resource to make it not die when a goblin sneezes in it AND that you actually get hurt when you do it (exception for the Necromancer obviously) makes this spell in the running for my top ten most useless spells.

[Ekzanimus]

(For clarity, go look into Inured to Undeath with Magic Jar, Shapechange or the Aid spell or tell me how much INT an Ancient White Dracolich has for Command Undead. Cheers mate!)
It is slightly off-topic but can you please explain what is so synergetic with Inured to Undeath and Magic Jar?

[Galithar]

It is slightly off-topic but can you please explain what is so synergetic with Inured to Undeath and Magic Jar?

This part of the spell


Once you possess a creature's body, you control it. Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the creature

Which with a strict RAW reading means that if you magic jar into the body of a creature with a higher max hit points, even upon returning to your body your max HP cannot be reduced. Therefore you keep the HP of the target permanently.

As far as I know that's the best you can do with the combo and the availability of Humanoids with exceptionally high hit points isn't really that great. Maybe I'm missing something else.l though because I think Shapechange is far more powerful combination.

Shapechange is for less restrictive in what you can become and has access to any non-undead/non-construct of CR = to your level or lower.

So if you can manage to lay eyes on Ogremoch you can have a permanent 526 hit points. If at that point you then throw on a level 9 Aid you get up to 566.

[TheUser]

It is slightly off-topic but can you please explain what is so synergetic with Inured to Undeath and Magic Jar?

Key to all of this is that throughout the whole process "You retain the benefit of your own class features. If the target has any class levels, you can’t use any of its class features."

Magic Jar has a few design nuances to differentiate it from Wildshape or Shapechange such that when you possess a new body all your class levels still contribute to your maximum HP (it lacks the "You assume the hit points and Hit Dice of the new form" clause). If you try to extrapolate what class levels represent contributing to HP means narratively it follows; you gain experience in avoiding death during combat, this applies while you're still using a humanoid body type (Magic Jar) and doesn't when you turn into a Bear or a Ogremoch (Wildshape/Shapechange).

So if you possess a creature like say...a CR 13 Warlord your maximum HP is surges up to 319.

The other key element is that you have never lost access to Inured to Undeath. So if the possession ends the Necromancer has 319 HP forever because their "maximum hit points cannot be reduced." and all the replacements are replacements to "your" stat block.

So yeah... RAW, Inured to Undeath is bonkers.




To digress back to the conversation, anyone thinking that spending hit dice as a necromancer is troublesome, I refer you to Grim Harvest, the feature which heals 2 HP per kill per spell level. So long as the spell deals damage on the enemy's turn (Wall of Fire, Evard's Black Tentacles, Sickening Radiance, Flaming Sphere etc. etc.) the healing gets pretty nuts. You'll probably hardly ever need to spend hit dice if you use damage spells that play around this feature.

My go-to example that I wheel out is wall of fire killing 3 enemies, that heals 24 HP which is equivalent to a free level 4 cure wounds.

[Galithar]

Key to all of this is that throughout the whole process "You retain the benefit of your own class features. If the target has any class levels, you canÂ’t use any of its class features."

Magic Jar has a few design nuances to differentiate it from Wildshape or Shapechange such that when you possess a new body all your class levels still contribute to your maximum HP (it lacks the "You assume the hit points and Hit Dice of the new form" clause). If you try to extrapolate what class levels represent contributing to HP means narratively it follows; you gain experience in avoid death during combat, this applies while you're still using a humanoid body type (Magic Jar) and doesn't when you turn into a Bear or a Ogremoch (Wildshape/Shapechange).

So if you possess a creature like say...a CR 13 Warlord your maximum HP is surges up to 319.

The other key element is that you have never lost access to Inured to Undeath. So if the possession ends the Necromancer has 319 HP forever because their "maximum hit points cannot be reduced." and all the replacements are replacements to "your" stat block.

So yeah... RAW, Inured to Undeath is bonkers.




To digress back to the conversation, anyone thinking that spending hit dice as a necromancer is troublesome, I refer you to Grim Harvest, the feature which heals 2 HP per kill per spell level. So long as the spell deals damage on the enemy's turn (Wall of Fire, Evard's Black Tentacles, Sickening Radiance, Flaming Sphere etc. etc.) the healing gets pretty nuts. You'll probably hardly ever need to spend hit dice if you use damage spells that play around this feature.

My go-to example that I wheel out is wall of fire killing 3 enemies, that heals 24 HP which is equivalent to a free level 4 cure wounds.


Ah that's what I was missing. Now I see why Majic Jar works better for this, and Shapechange doesn't. Thanks!


Edit: It's also awesome that you answered everything in my post even though I know we were writing them at the same time! Lol

[TheUser]

Ah that's what I was missing. Now I see why Majic Jar works better for this, and Shapechange doesn't. Thanks!


Edit: It's also awesome that you answered everything in my post even though I know we were writing them at the same time! Lol

Shapechange is actually much better because you have access to much higher HP forms.

Ogremoch at level 20 is 526 HP which cannot be replicated by Magic Jar
It just also happens to come online a full 9 levels after Magic Jar...

[JackPhoenix]

Max HP reduction is a what some monster attacks (like wight's Life Drain) and other abilities (like the homunculus) do.

Basically, that "RAW reading" depends on treating abilities that don't say they reduce your maximum HP as if they did.

[Chronos]

By that argument, Aid would be a permanent increase to everyone, not just to necromancers.

[Segev]

By that argument, Aid would be a permanent increase to everyone, not just to necromancers.

Not really. The argument centers on a concept that there's a difference between "reducing maximum hp" and "repealing a bonus to maximum hp."

[MaxWilson]

By that argument, Aid would be a permanent increase to everyone, not just to necromancers.

I'd think Magic Jar would be a better example. Aid at least says your maximum HP is increased "for the duration", whereas Magic Jar just says you acquire the victim's statistics, with no explicit clause saying when you lose them. (Sane DMs, if course, know that you're only supposed to have their stats while in their body, but a rules lawyer who would argue for keeping HP might well argue for keeping e.g. immunity to normal weapons and increased Str/Con as well. In for a penny, in for a pound.)

[TheUser]

Max HP reduction is a what some monster attacks (like wight's Life Drain) and other abilities (like the homunculus) do.

Basically, that "RAW reading" depends on treating abilities that don't say they reduce your maximum HP as if they did.

No Jack it's treating the word "reduced" to mean what it means; taking a bigger number and making it a smaller number. If you have Y hitpoints and Y=X+20 hp from the Aid spell then taking away the +20 "reduces" the value of Y. If Y can't be reduced then you can't get rid of the +20.

It's RAW vs RAI....And who's to say this is not the intent? A necromancer grasping onto whatever life force they can obtain and holding onto it sounds pretty cannon. A necromancer wizard with mastery over life as well as death.

[MaxWilson]

No Jack it's treating the word "reduced" to mean what it means; taking a bigger number and making it a smaller number. If you have Y hitpoints and Y=X+20 hp from the Aid spell then taking away the +20 "reduces" the value of Y. If Y can't be reduced then you can't get rid of the +20.

Therefore by RAW by this interpretation, Necromancers are immortal because even killing them does not reduce their max HP to zero, and they will regain positive HP as soon as they short rest.


It's RAW vs RAI....And who's to say this is not the intent? A necromancer grasping onto whatever life force they can obtain and holding onto it sounds pretty cannon. A necromancer wizard with mastery over life as well as death.

And who's to say immortal necromancers aren't the intent? An evil wizard immune to death because his life is hidden elsewhere is a trope as old as folklore.

[TheUser]

Therefore by RAW by this interpretation, Necromancers are immortal because even killing them does not reduce their max HP to zero, and they will regain positive HP as soon as they short rest.



And who's to say immortal necromancers aren't the intent? An evil wizard immune to death because his life is hidden elsewhere is a trope as old as folklore.

Being deliberately obtuse to win an argument?

Death doesn't reduce max hp nor is it contingent on reducing max HP. Feel free to dredge up a relevant RAW quote to prove me wrong.

[MaxWilson]

Being deliberately obtuse to win an argument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[TheUser]

Max, until you can prove RAW that dying is contingent on reducing maximum hitpoints saying that Inured to Undeath makes you functionally immortal isn't accurate.

I'm more than happy to eat my words if you can pull up RAW that says otherwise...

[MaxWilson]

Max, until you can prove RAW that dying is contingent on reducing maximum hitpoints saying that Inured to Undeath makes you functionally immortal isn't accurate.

You've insisted that a Necromancer's inability to have his max HP reduced is absolute, and furthermore that the revocation of a bonus to HP is also prevented. (There is no RAW support for this interpretation of "reduced", it's just an equivalence which you've insisted on.) You've even claimed that effects which let you temporarily use some other form's stats, like Shapechange, also are prevented from ending w/rt HP, because you count that as a reduction to maximum HP as well.

Normally a dead creature is subject to the limitation "A creature that has died can’t regain Hit Points until magic such as the Revivify spell has restored it to life", and it would be absurd to claim that this constitutes an effective reduction in max HP and that this rule therefore does not apply to Necromancers--but it would not be more absurd than the claims you're already making. You've claimed in your defense that your interpretation of Magic Jar/etc. yields results which can be interpreted as refusal to give up life force, which is in keeping with the thematic spirit of necromancy--well, likewise immortality is in keeping with the thematic spirit of necromancy. But immortality through this means is obviously not the intent of Inured to Undeath.

Edit: Another implication of your interpretation of "reduced" is that because Greater Restoration can end "any reduction to one of the target's ability scores", casting Greater Restoration after a True Polymorph could permanently increase your Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha back to whatever levels they were during the True Polymorph (Pit Fiend Str 26, Con 24, Int 22, Cha 24). Obviously that's an absurdity. That's not what "reduction" means in 5E.

A context-free, expansive and absolute interpretation of "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" leads to absurdity. QED.

[JackPhoenix]

It's RAW vs RAI....And who's to say this is not the intent? A necromancer grasping onto whatever life force they can obtain and holding onto it sounds pretty cannon. A necromancer wizard with mastery over life as well as death.

Speaking of "mastery over life", necromancer with Inured to Undeath (which should tell you what the intent of the ability is: make the necromancer more resistant to attacks from undead creatures, even if you ignore the description itself outright saying so. And transforming himself is not in any way "obtaining life force", no matter what cannon you're shooting in the process) is the worst wizard at using Life Transference. Its healing depends on the necrotic damage the caster takes, and necromancers are resistant to necrotic damage.

[col_impact]

Speaking of "mastery over life", necromancer with Inured to Undeath (which should tell you what the intent of the ability is: make the necromancer more resistant to attacks from undead creatures, even if you ignore the description itself outright saying so. And transforming himself is not in any way "obtaining life force", no matter what cannon you're shooting in the process) is the worst wizard at using Life Transference. Its healing depends on the necrotic damage the caster takes, and necromancers are resistant to necrotic damage.

3-6 levels of Shepherd Druid really unlocks a lot of potential for the Necromancer.

[JackPhoenix]

3-6 levels of Shepherd Druid really unlocks a lot of potential for the Necromancer.

How? Unicorn spirit's healing (of 3 hp) and bear spirit's 8 THP is not worth losing 3 wizard levels, and Mighty Summons has zero synergy with necromancer.

[stoutstien]

How? Unicorn spirit's healing (of 3 hp) and bear spirit's 8 THP is not worth losing 3 wizard levels, and Mighty Summons has zero synergy with necromancer.

Not alot, but those THP do work on undead minions and the unicorn spirit allows you to heal them as well. Not worth the dip alone but you get some other goodies as well.

[JackPhoenix]

Not alot, but those THP do work on undead minions and the unicorn spirit allows you to heal them as well. Not worth the dip alone but you get some other goodies as well.

You can pick Inspiring Leader. Even if you dump Cha, that's still 7-19 THP per short rest at levels where having 3 levels of druid on a wizard with undead minions (who'll have 3 HP more for pure necromancer) can be relevant, and Healer gives 9.5 or 10.5 hp per short rest back to skeletons and zombies, respectively, with some minor gold cost attached. Though both have opportunity cost of a feat, necromancer isn't very MAD, so you can afford it, if you really want to. You'll have one extra ASI compared to the multiclasses wizard too, so that's nice.

[Greywander]

Create Homonculus:
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 your 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 the 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 to 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.
How does the bolded section here interact with the Necromancer ability?

Using the "specific beats general" rule, this seems to supersede Inured to Death. Inured to Death prevents max HP reduction in general, while this is a specific case of max HP reduction that specifically calls out not being preventable.

[col_impact]

Not alot, but those THP do work on undead minions and the unicorn spirit allows you to heal them as well. Not worth the dip alone but you get some other goodies as well.

Unlocks Staff of the Woodlands. Awakened minions. Unlock Pass Without Trace for your minions. Wall of Thorns.

Speak with Animals. Magic Stone. Goodberries. Lots of Hazard spells for Battlefied Control.

Castle up with you Skeleton Archers with Spike Growth, control the combat lanes with Plant Growth. Move men into position with Conjure Animals (Giant Owls).

Druid Scrolls.

[JackPhoenix]

How does the bolded section here interact with the Necromancer ability?

Using the "specific beats general" rule, this seems to supersede Inured to Death. Inured to Death prevents max HP reduction in general, while this is a specific case of max HP reduction that specifically calls out not being preventable.

Well, if you'll read that as if that reduction has to happen for the homunculus to get the extra hp (which makes about as much sense as deciding that shapechanging reduces your max HP), then necromancer can't use that part of the spell at all.

[Segev]

How does the bolded section here interact with the Necromancer ability?

Using the "specific beats general" rule, this seems to supersede Inured to Death. Inured to Death prevents max HP reduction in general, while this is a specific case of max HP reduction that specifically calls out not being preventable.


Well, if you'll read that as if that reduction has to happen for the homunculus to get the extra hp (which makes about as much sense as deciding that shapechanging reduces your max HP), then necromancer can't use that part of the spell at all.
The reduction of the master’s max hp is separate from the homonculus’s increased hp. It does not say the homonculus gains the same number the master loses. It says it gets the number rolled with the expended hit dice.

Since the necromancer never loses the max hp in the first place, the clause about not regaining them is irrelevant.

It’s like telling a human his left arm will never grow back when his left arm is still attached to his body and working just fine.

[MaxWilson]

How does the bolded section here interact with the Necromancer ability?

Using the "specific beats general" rule, this seems to supersede Inured to Death. Inured to Death prevents max HP reduction in general, while this is a specific case of max HP reduction that specifically calls out not being preventable.

Ask your DM. "Specific beats general" is a meta-rule which just leads to Internet arguments over which rule is the most specific.

Personally I'm fine with either interpretation, although on consideration I admit that "necromancers can't take advantage of this clause at all unless they voluntarily waive Inured To Undeath" makes the most logical sense. As DM I'd probably lean towards that one now that someone has brought it to my attention, not because of RAW but because of game logic: the rule is clearly trying to represent transferring part of your life force to your homonculus, which is a zero-sum activity. But if my players preferred the other interpretation it wouldn't bother me to go with it.

Frankly it doesn't really matter anyway, because HP are the least important part of a homonculus.

P.S. The ultimate wizard achievement: having your Homonculus solo a Tarrasque.

[Greywander]

Well, if you'll read that as if that reduction has to happen for the homunculus to get the extra hp (which makes about as much sense as deciding that shapechanging reduces your max HP), then necromancer can't use that part of the spell at all.
Is there a reason this couldn't be one of the few ways that a necromancer could have their max HP reduced? Why declare that they can't just use it? Inured to Death doesn't prevent them from using features or abilities that reduce their max HP, all it does is prevent the max HP reduction from affecting them. In this specific case, however, it could be interpreted that the max HP reduction can't be prevented, and therefore affects necromancers the same as any other wizard.

I'm not saying it should be this way, I just thought this seemed at least as valid an interpretation as allowing necromancers to transfer HP to their homonculus without any reduction to max HP. It does say that the max HP reduction can't be removed by any means, which is probably referring to spells such as Greater Restoration, but could also include any effect that prevents max HP reduction in the first place.

In other words, Inured to Death prevents max HP reduction in general.
The Humonculus spell prevents anything in general that prevents max HP reduction.
In other words, A prevents X, but B prevents preventing X.

[col_impact]

Ask your DM. "Specific beats general" is a meta-rule which just leads to Internet arguments over which rule is the most specific.

Personally I'm fine with either interpretation, although on consideration I admit that "necromancers can't take advantage of this clause at all unless they voluntarily waive Inured To Undeath" makes the most logical sense. As DM I'd probably lean towards that one now that someone has brought it to my attention, not because of RAW but because of game logic: the rule is clearly trying to represent transferring part of your life force to your homonculus, which is a zero-sum activity. But if my players preferred the other interpretation it wouldn't bother me to go with it.

Frankly it doesn't really matter anyway, because HP are the least important part of a homonculus.

P.S. The ultimate wizard achievement: having your Homonculus solo a Tarrasque.

Yup. Book of Jonah style maneuver can get you there.

[stoutstien]

You can pick Inspiring Leader. Even if you dump Cha, that's still 7-19 THP per short rest at levels where having 3 levels of druid on a wizard with undead minions (who'll have 3 HP more for pure necromancer) can be relevant, and Healer gives 9.5 or 10.5 hp per short rest back to skeletons and zombies, respectively, with some minor gold cost attached. Though both have opportunity cost of a feat, necromancer isn't very MAD, so you can afford it, if you really want to. You'll have one extra ASI compared to the multiclasses wizard too, so that's nice.
Both work. 13 Cha vs 13 Wis is a wash and personally the Necro druid is something I'd playm

[Segev]

Frankly, the idea that a necromancer draws the life energy from nowhere or from somewhere else doesn’t bother me. And, as has been stated, while they’re nice, hit points are not the main draw of a homonculus.

[TheUser]

You've insisted that a Necromancer's inability to have his max HP reduced is absolute, and furthermore that the revocation of a bonus to HP is also prevented. (There is no RAW support for this interpretation of "reduced", it's just an equivalence which you've insisted on.) You've even claimed that effects which let you temporarily use some other form's stats, like Shapechange, also are prevented from ending w/rt HP, because you count that as a reduction to maximum HP as well.

Normally a dead creature is subject to the limitation "A creature that has died can’t regain Hit Points until magic such as the Revivify spell has restored it to life", and it would be absurd to claim that this constitutes an effective reduction in max HP and that this rule therefore does not apply to Necromancers--but it would not be more absurd than the claims you're already making. You've claimed in your defense that your interpretation of Magic Jar/etc. yields results which can be interpreted as refusal to give up life force, which is in keeping with the thematic spirit of necromancy--well, likewise immortality is in keeping with the thematic spirit of necromancy. But immortality through this means is obviously not the intent of Inured to Undeath.

Edit: Another implication of your interpretation of "reduced" is that because Greater Restoration can end "any reduction to one of the target's ability scores", casting Greater Restoration after a True Polymorph could permanently increase your Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha back to whatever levels they were during the True Polymorph (Pit Fiend Str 26, Con 24, Int 22, Cha 24). Obviously that's an absurdity. That's not what "reduction" means in 5E.

A context-free, expansive and absolute interpretation of "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" leads to absurdity. QED.


Wow Max...this is something special.

So my interpretation, which is based on words used in the rule is the same as an interpretation that has nothing to do with anything, let alone the words used in the rule? Nice false equivalency... you might think you're arguing well here but when you employ such extreme levels of straw manning and hyperbole you only damage your own credibility.

As an aside, -all- wizards are functionally immortal at level 15+ (clone spell) and can choose to never die in combat at level 11 (contingency to trigger when an attack, spell or ability is made that would reduce you to 0 hp or otherwise remove agency from your character -> cast Otilluke's Resillient sphere, gives you space to cast dimension door).

Your Greater Restoration example doesn't work either.

Greater Restoration explicitly outlines removing an effect which reduces maximum hitpoints. If there is no effect causing a reduction of maximum hitpoints (but rather the lack of an effect as we've been discussing) then this RAW ruling doesn't work.

Here let's frame it in a way that makes sense to you. If you were getting a big pay bonus to your salary one year and then the bonus is removed the next year, has your salary been reduced? (special shout out to Ludic for this one)


You can pick Inspiring Leader. Even if you dump Cha, that's still 7-19 THP per short rest at levels where having 3 levels of druid on a wizard with undead minions (who'll have 3 HP more for pure necromancer) can be relevant, and Healer gives 9.5 or 10.5 hp per short rest back to skeletons and zombies, respectively, with some minor gold cost attached. Though both have opportunity cost of a feat, necromancer isn't very MAD, so you can afford it, if you really want to. You'll have one extra ASI compared to the multiclasses wizard too, so that's nice.

You can't Inspiriing Leader minions created with Animate Dead because they aren't "friendly" towards you (a requirement of the feat). Conjure animals for instance outlines that the creatures you summon are friendly to you, animate dead does not.



How does the bolded section here interact with the Necromancer ability?

Using the "specific beats general" rule, this seems to supersede Inured to Death. Inured to Death prevents max HP reduction in general, while this is a specific case of max HP reduction that specifically calls out not being preventable.



The reduction your hit point maximum can’t be removed by any means before then, except by the homunculus’s death.

It says the reduction can't be removed, not prevented. In this case, specific beats general isn't even being brought up because Inured to Undeath prevents the reduction, it does not remove it.

[MaxWilson]

If there is no effect causing a reduction of maximum hitpoints (but rather the lack of an effect as we've been discussing) then this RAW ruling doesn't work.

You're so very close to the truth. It doesn't work because the absence of an increase (lack of effect) is not the same thing as a reduction (effect).

[Galithar]

You're so very close to the truth. It doesn't work because the absence of an increase (lack of effect) is not the same thing as a reduction (effect).

I feel you're trying to stretch RAW into RAI. When you Magic Jar into something you assume that creatures stats. This increases your HP. Now the intent of the rules would line up with what you're saying, but what is written is that NOTHING can reduce your max hit points. Going back to your body would change your hit points from a higher number to a lower one. Inured to Undeath prevents this from ever happening.

RAW it works. RAI? No way I'd ever allow it at my table and I would make sure any player who chose the Necromancer school knew that from level 1 (or whatever level we started at) and had the option of rebuilding.

[Segev]

Thing is, you're stretching the RAW to make those be your max hp. They're not. You are borrowing something else's statistics. When you stop borrowing them, you have yours. This doesn't reduce your max hp; it restores it. You can actually tell when something is reducing max hp in 5e very easily: it says it is. I'm not going to say it's a keyword, because 5e mostly lacks those, but I will say it's a signal phrase, and that attempting to stretch the definition to things that are very clearly not intended - because if we're honest, RAI is very clear, here - is not "a strict reading of the RAW," but rather a mental exercise to justify a wonky reading of the RAW to get a wonky result.

[Galithar]

Thing is, you're stretching the RAW to make those be your max hp. They're not. You are borrowing something else's statistics. When you stop borrowing them, you have yours. This doesn't reduce your max hp; it restores it. You can actually tell when something is reducing max hp in 5e very easily: it says it is. I'm not going to say it's a keyword, because 5e mostly lacks those, but I will say it's a signal phrase, and that attempting to stretch the definition to things that are very clearly not intended - because if we're honest, RAI is very clear, here - is not "a strict reading of the RAW," but rather a mental exercise to justify a wonky reading of the RAW to get a wonky result.

No, I'm not stretching in the slightest. I'm stating what the rule says explicitly. You are attempting to obfuscate the written rules with its intent. For the record as I've repeatedly said, I would not ever rule this by the strict RAW, but that doesn't change what it is. When "Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the creature..." I am doing exactly that. Replacing the max hit points of the caster with the creature that was targeted. Inured to Undeath says that this number cannot be reduced, period. That is the RAW. You may not agree with it. Neither do I. But saying that it isn't intended doesn't mean it isn't written.

I agree that it's good to not say it's a keyword because they don't exist in 5e. That means the RAW go by common English. In the common English if my hit point max is at 100 and anything at all would cause that number to be less then 100 then it's a reduction. This reduction would be prevented by Inured to Undeath.

There are other wonky things that happen from Inured to Undeath by strict RAW. Reading extremely strictly you can get unlimited hit points with Aid. It takes a DM ruling to say that you are still "under the effects of the spell" after it's duration ends to keep you from constantly casting Aid every 8 hours to slowly increment you hitpoint maximum up.

Basically because of the simple manner in which the rules are written Inured to Undeath needs a lot of DM rulings to turn it into a reasonable ability. Luckily most players will come to the table thinking reasonably to begin with and you probably won't deal with these arguments at an actual table unless you have a munchkin.

[MaxWilson]

When "Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the creature..." I am doing exactly that. Replacing the max hit points of the caster with the creature that was targeted.

So... where does it explicitly say that you ever get your own statistics back?

Rules As Written is not a compliment, but let's at least reserve it for the rule as it was written, in the minds of those who wrote it. It's not for deliberate twisting of words. If I claim that I can use Greater Restoration to end a "reduction to one of the target's Ability Scores" which I suffer by virtue of a Shapechange ending, that's not taking refuge in RAW vs. RAI, it's outright twisting the words to say something RAW never says.

Here's a rule of thumb: if you hypothetically read a given rule ABC to one of the authors of the PHB, say Mike Mearls, and then shared your conclusion XYZ, if Mike Mearls could be expected to perhaps shrug in embarrassment and say "Yeah, technically that's true but feel free to change it," that's RAW. If Mike Mearls could be expected to look surprised and ask where you got that idea, that isn't RAW, it's just munchkin rules-lawyering.

RAW but probably not RAI: CR 1/4 constrictor snakes (Large) can restrain Ancient Dragons (Gargantuan) on a successful melee hit. Embarrassing but technically legal.

Not RAW or RAI: interpreting "reduction" in ability scores/HP/etc. to apply to removal of a bonus, and using abilities which obviate reductions as justification for keeping the bonus even after the effects which would give you the bonus are no longer applicable.

[Galithar]

So... where does it explicitly say that you ever get your own statistics back?

Rules As Written is not a compliment, but let's at least reserve it for the rule as it was written, in the minds of those who wrote it. It's not for deliberate twisting of words. If I claim that I can use Greater Restoration to end a "reduction to one of the target's Ability Scores" which I suffer by virtue of a Shapechange ending, that's not taking refuge in RAW vs. RAI, it's outright twisting the words to say something RAW never says.

Here's a rule of thumb: if you hypothetically read a given rule ABC to one of the authors of the PHB, say Mike Mearls, and then shared your conclusion XYZ, if Mike Mearls could be expected to perhaps shrug in embarrassment and say "Yeah, technically that's true but feel free to change it," that's RAW. If Mike Mearls could be expected to look surprised and ask where you got that idea, that isn't RAW, it's just munchkin rules-lawyering.

RAW but probably not RAI: CR 1/4 constrictor snakes (Large) can restrain Ancient Dragons (Gargantuan) on a successful melee hit. Embarrassing but technically legal.

Not RAW or RAI: interpreting "reduction" in ability scores/HP/etc. to apply to removal of a bonus, and using abilities which obviate reductions as justification for keeping the bonus even after the effects which would give you the bonus are no longer applicable.

The difference between Inured to Undeath and Greater Restoration is that one is restoring a number to it's maximum value and the other is preventing a number for being reduced. When Magic Jar ends (the spell I'm basing this on because I feel Shapechange has wording that makes it more "interesting" and have no desire to get into dissecting it's wording) When Magic Jar ends and your stats return to normal, so does their maximum. There isn't a reduction because you are at YOUR max. However if Greater Restoration has a clause that said "and prevents them being reduced in anyway for X time frame" and you reverted from magic jar in that time RAW you would keep the increase in score. Preventing a reduction and restoring a reduction are not equal.

Also RAW a Constrictor Snake can grapple only up to a Huge creature. It is large and the rules that explain grappling say that you can only grapple a creature one size larger than you. If the Constrictor Snake stat block simply said it were restrained then your point would be valid. The Grappling rule wouldn't apply in that case, but since it does the grapple is limited to normal grapple rules.

And once again I'm not arguing with you that this is how it's intended to be ruled, but nothing changes the fact that this is what the rules say. Also Mike Mearls personal reaction to a rule has no bearing on RAW whatsoever. It is a good indicator of RAI, sure, but not RAW.

[MaxWilson]

The difference between Inured to Undeath and Greater Restoration is that one is restoring a number to it's maximum value and the other is preventing a number for being reduced.

Hold on. Greater Restoration doesn't say anything about a maximum value. It just says it ends a reduction.


When Magic Jar ends (the spell I'm basing this on because I feel Shapechange has wording that makes it more "interesting" and have no desire to get into dissecting it's wording) When Magic Jar ends and your stats return to normal

Unlike Fly/Longstrider/etc., Magic Jar says nothing about assuming stats only while the spell lasts. It just says "Once you possess a creature's body, you control it. Your game Statistics are replaced by the Statistics of the creature..." Not "while you possess", "once you possess."


so does their maximum. There isn't a reduction because you are at YOUR max.

Now I'm confused--are you conceding that this isn't after all a reduction, even according to RAW? Then Inured to Undeath cannot apply.


Also RAW a Constrictor Snake can grapple only up to a Huge creature. It is large and the rules that explain grappling say that you can only grapple a creature one size larger than you.

You're referring to the Athletics-based grappling rules in the combat chapter. A constrictor snake doesn't use those rules, it grapples on an attack roll. Nothing about the grappled condition itself, which the snake relies on, requires the target to be of a certain size.

The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an Attack roll: a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you succeed, you subject the target to the Grappled condition (see Conditions ). The condition specifies the things that end it, and you can release the target whenever you like (no action required).

The constrictor snake doesn't grapple via this means, which is fortunate because it would utterly fail the "one free hand" requirement.


If the Constrictor Snake stat block simply said it were restrained then your point would be valid. The Grappling rule wouldn't apply in that case, but since it does the grapple is limited to normal grapple rules.

Not applicable.


And once again I'm not arguing with you that this is how it's intended to be ruled, but nothing changes the fact that this is what the rules say. Also Mike Mearls personal reaction to a rule has no bearing on RAW whatsoever. It is a good indicator of RAI, sure, but not RAW.

RAI is something else entirely, like when they realized belatedly that they had written stupid rules for darkness and managed to make darkness work backwards. That was not intended and they eventually fixed it in errata.

But at least we seem to agree that twisting words for a PC's advantage is uncool behavior that a DM should not put up with. That's something we have in common at least, whether we call it "RAW" or "RAI" or something else.

[Galithar]

There is a reduction when Magic Jar ends. There is NOT a reduction AFTER it ends. 100 becoming 75 is a reduction. But AFTER the reduction takes place it leaves your numbers at your PERSONAL maximum. Greater Restoration restores this. It's the difference of preventing an effect and reversing an effect. They aren't always the same thing. Preventing a reduction happens any time ANYTHING would lower that number. Restoring a reduction can only increase you to your maximum. Greater Restoration has to have an effect to end. It can't restore your 12 Str to the Magic Jar creatures 22 Str because YOUR strength is only 12. As soon as you leave the body it stops altering your statistics. Inured to Undeath "works" because it is effect WHILE you are possessing the other creature. Which means when it ends it has a 'lock' on your hit point maximum from the other form and prevents it from going down. It's wonky, it's broken, it's stupid. Yes. But it is still what the rules say. I strongly advocate that any DM needs to make a ruling towards the intent of these abilities and not how they are written. Putting them into a level of legalese that would prevent this would go against 5e's principle of simplicity, and therefore a DM should use their brain and do exactly what you are saying.

And for the last time I'm not advocating for this, simply.pointing out what the rules say. I'm not going to continue arguing though because you clearly don't see it. And honestly, that's fine, there is no need to keep going until you understand what I'm saying. What you are saying is the intent of the abilities and how it should be run. Which I've said from the beginning and I'm not really trying to convince you that this is right. Just that when you take the words at face value (aka RAW) this is the outcome.

Edit: fix a typo

[Satori01]

“If you were getting a big pay bonus to your salary one year and then the bonus is removed the next year, has your salary been reduce? “

No, your salary has not been reduced. A bonus to one’s pay is separate from one’s salary. The old saying in Baseball is “ If you are not cheating, then you are not trying”.

Buddy, I think you are trying too hard.😂

[Galithar]

“If you were getting a big pay bonus to your salary one year and then the bonus is removed the next year, has your salary been reduce? “

No, your salary has not been reduced. A bonus to one’s pay is separate from one’s salary. The old saying in Baseball is “ If you are not cheating, then you are not trying”.

Buddy, I think you are trying too hard.😂

Bad metaphor.

The actual comparison would be "Did you make less money this year?" Yes. You absolutely did. If you had a contract that said "You may never make less money than you did the previous year" that would be the equivalent of Inured to Undeath and your company would owe you the amount of the previous years bonus. A bonus would be better represented by temp HP though. You have it now, but it goes away at the end of the year (after a rest). It isn't protected by a contract that prevents your salary from being decreased, but still adds to the total money you make in a year.

Edit: It also doesn't take much effort to read the rules and apply them word for word. It's the failing of RAW vs RAI though. You get weird interactions and things don't always do exactly what they were meant to because there are so many moving parts and components in a TTRPG.

[Satori01]

Bad metaphor. .

What metaphor? I was responding to the EXACT wording of the post, as you are advocating. A pay Bonus is Different from one’s salary, by definition.

The example I quoted, was poorly phrased, for the point you wanted to make, obviously.

Textual analysis does not solely depend on an individual word’s meaning, but on the holistic interaction of all of the clauses.

Most DMs are going to rule that a creature’s HP maximum, that has been Magic Jar’d, are only “yours” as long as you inhabit the body, NOT IN PERPETUITY.

If you find, a permissive DM....hell, let’s be honest....If you find a SUCKER, that lets you do this...bully for you!

Hopefully, it is a high powered game, set to 11, and you need any boost just to survive. Otherwise you are going crazy with super cheesy, cheese wiz(ard).

It is still not RAW, but a tortured explanation, based off a fanciful interpretation of a single word.

No Offense intended, those are just my thoughts. This “rules reading” is not going to fly at my table, or in the game, of any DM, I know.

[Galithar]

Ummm... The metaphor that was basically half of your post comparing a persons salary and the games rules.

Either way if you've read all of my posts I've said repeatedly that I wouldn't allow this. It's a strict RAW reading that causes all sorts of wonkiness. Amy DM that didn't rule against this would be crazy in my opinion, but I also just played a game with a DM that allowed a Bugbear's Morningstar to be a 2d8 weapon even though its stat block explicitly says it's from a feature, not the weapon, even after it was pointed out to them. Some DMs allow crazy things either because they made a ruling that way once, or another DM they played with did.

And again you can say "Nuh uh" as many times as you want. It's not a tortured reading, it's a LITERAL reading. And it IS what the rules say. But again if you want to continue arguing just go back and read my posts from when I started with MaxWilson :smalltongue: I have no new arguments to make and no desire to continue in circles. Either way I hope you never play with a super strict RAW rules lawyer, I play the part on the forums sometimes but I'm not that way at the table. They aren't any fun and can bring a fun game to a grinding halt over something like this.

[TheUser]

Galithar, you're a champ. I was ready to completely bow out of this thread but you've pretty much nailed it and stepped up to argue for something you don't agree with RAI but know to be true RAW and it has given me a great deal of respect for you.

I think that we, as a community, are going to find people who dig in their heels and focus on -who- is right and not -what- is right and recognize when that is the case and just point it out. I admire your ability to see something you don't like and acknowledge that this is actually what it is and then defend it.

I have tried to be as close to RAW as I could in my games because the notion that every player should have universal expectations going into a table after reading the rules seemed paramount.

But some rules are just broken by RAW (most recently sculpt spells was the straw that broke the camel's back for me, it is such a simple slip up that hasn't been addressed after all these years and it demomstrates WotC aren't just fallible but pretty incompetent). Not adhering to RAW is something this edition actually promotes because of how much of a cluster cuss it has proven to be in the past but also because this particular edition is rife with the need for oversight.

I would note that there are still many hurdles for a player with 300+ hp to overcome. Especially a player where 95% of their abilities derive from having a functional mouth but that is a discussion for another time.

Necromancers as a subclass, look like they are designed to break the game. Undead Thralls is busted AF and trivializes most of tier 2. Command Undead can lead to a pet Mummy Lord or Ancient White Dracolich and then the Wizard class itself just gets ridiculous by tier 3 anyway as Simulacrum, Contingency and Clone come online. Having this character have 300 hp doesn't suddenly break them for me. They already have 20 skeleton archers at their disposal and the ability to possess a creature to temporarily get 300+ hp; is it so awful that it becomes permanent? That's why this game is great because at the end of the day the DM is going to either embrace this or shoot it down. Do you think a character with this much power ruins the fun of other players? If so, quash it.

[micahaphone]

It's a rare day when I totally agree with Max Wilson, but I'm so glad for everything he's posted.



They already have 20 skeleton archers at their disposal and the ability to possess a creature to temporarily get 300+ hp; is it so awful that it becomes permanent? That's why this game is great because at the end of the day the DM is going to either embrace this or shoot it down. Do you think a character with this much power ruins the fun of other players? If so, quash it.

It is so awful to argue a fiddly RAW in order to get yourself an a massive hp boost. "Yes, this is a touch over an average level 20 barbarian's hp, I should get this boost." That does hurt the fun of other players. If I was DMing for an evocation wizard and a necromancer, would you tell your evoker that for level 10 they get +5 damage to most spells, and the necromancer suddenly becomes the tankiest character in existince?

That's clearly not RAI, I would shoot it down at my table. Does anyone honestly think it's intended in 5E that your wizard should be able to get infinite HP through different castings of Aid?

I get that it might be your table's preference to rules lawyer your way into every benefit possible, but that sounds like pure misery for me and my play style.


RAW, there's no rules about using the bathroom in 5E. If I came to your table insisting that my character never has to relieve himself (I'm loosely basing this on the movie "The Interview"), would you allow it? Or does that conflict too much with verisimilitude? I find the idea of a player character going from d6 hit die to tankier than all frontline classes also hurts verisimilitude.

I find it ridiculous to insist upon tightly sticking to RAW when the intention is clear. Yes, spell sculpting has a poor wording, but thankfully for this edition WotC assumed that we are able to clearly see what is intended. I came to 5E from Pathfinder, and the "rulings not rules" mindset that comes from an assumption of "people want to play this game with friends and enjoy themselves, not getting bogged down in rule interpretations" is a breath of fresh air. We are intelligent readers, we don't need rules to cover every edge case and interaction.

[Segev]

I could very easily keep arguing the interpretations of the RAW surrounding Innured to Undeath, but this probably isn't really the thread for it. I think we all can agree roughly on the RAI, and even if we can't, we agree that it's going to take a DM's call to determine how it works at any given table. Whether or not Innured to Undeath lets you increase your maximum hp in your own body when you cast magic jar is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is about Innured to Undeath letting necromancers give the maximum possible amount of hp to their homonculi for no cost other than potential healing (rather than the usual cost of actually having fewer hp).

Earlier, it was stated that hp are the least important aspect of homonculi, and I sort-of agree. They're not combat monsters (despite a weak sleep-bite). But they are scouts, especially for adventuring parties. And they have a greater range than familiars (unless you've got a particular Invocation and the Pact of the Chain). Higher hp are quite valuable on scouts. Scouts will, eventually, be detected. Or they'll trip traps. Or they'll just get caught in an AoE (possibly when with the party rather than scouting). Having the hp to not-die from that is immensely important.

An open question - unless it says in the spell and I missed it - is what happens if they're damaged and the next day rolls around. Does the damage continue to subtract from their maximum hp, or does the damage evaporate with the still-excess hp, more like how temp hp worked in 3e? (How does that work with aid, for that matter? Aid might provide us guidance here.) I would hope the latter, because otherwise the homonculus will die just from the day dawning if it's taken more than its un-augmented max hp in damage.

[MaxWilson]

Earlier, it was stated that hp are the least important aspect of homonculi, and I sort-of agree. They're not combat monsters (despite a weak sleep-bite). But they are scouts, especially for adventuring parties. And they have a greater range than familiars (unless you've got a particular Invocation and the Pact of the Chain). Higher hp are quite valuable on scouts. Scouts will, eventually, be detected. Or they'll trip traps. Or they'll just get caught in an AoE (possibly when with the party rather than scouting). Having the hp to not-die from that is immensely important.

An open question - unless it says in the spell and I missed it - is what happens if they're damaged and the next day rolls around. Does the damage continue to subtract from their maximum hp, or does the damage evaporate with the still-excess hp, more like how temp hp worked in 3e? (How does that work with aid, for that matter? Aid might provide us guidance here.) I would hope the latter, because otherwise the homonculus will die just from the day dawning if it's taken more than its un-augmented max hp in damage.

Homonculi, like familiars, can get temp HP from other sources like Inspiring Leader and Aid. It's not perfect but it's enough to shrug off incidental hits. Moreover, I would characterize homonculi as less scouts than ambassadors. A familiar or Arcane Eye can scout as well as a homonculus can, but only a homonculus can operate intelligently at extended range. For me, a homonculus is the thing you have take over your office for you and book appointments when you're out on an adventure. A familiar can't do that job. Or a homonculus is the representative a powerful Diviner sends along with a group of heroes to warn them of upcoming dangers (i.e. apply Portent, which I think is trying to roughly model foreknowledge of the future), and possibly to enable a quick Teleport rescue in case of absolute emergency.

I count damage accumulated, not HP, so for my games if the wizard takes a long rest and chooses this time *not* to share HD with his damaged homonculus, it can die (if it didn't rest while he was resting). But if he does then it won't, unless he rolls lower on the HP dice than the damage that's already been taken. If a player had a problem with that I wouldn't mind doing it the other way for the homonculus but that is the way that best fits how I think of HP: measure of how much punishment your body/life force can take before dying.

[JackPhoenix]

An open question - unless it says in the spell and I missed it - is what happens if they're damaged and the next day rolls around. Does the damage continue to subtract from their maximum hp, or does the damage evaporate with the still-excess hp, more like how temp hp worked in 3e? (How does that work with aid, for that matter? Aid might provide us guidance here.) I would hope the latter, because otherwise the homonculus will die just from the day dawning if it's taken more than its un-augmented max hp in damage.

Homunculus, like any other creature, will heal to full after a long rest. So any damage it took before that is irrelevant.

[Segev]

Homonculi, like familiars, can get temp HP from other sources like Inspiring Leader and Aid. It's not perfect but it's enough to shrug off incidental hits. Moreover, I would characterize homonculi as less scouts than ambassadors. A familiar or Arcane Eye can scout as well as a homonculus can, but only a homonculus can operate intelligently at extended range. For me, a homonculus is the thing you have take over your office for you and book appointments when you're out on an adventure. A familiar can't do that job. Or a homonculus is the representative a powerful Diviner sends along with a group of heroes to warn them of upcoming dangers (i.e. apply Portent, which I think is trying to roughly model foreknowledge of the future), and possibly to enable a quick Teleport rescue in case of absolute emergency.

I count damage accumulated, not HP, so for my games if the wizard takes a long rest and chooses this time *not* to share HD with his damaged homonculus, it can die (if it didn't rest while he was resting). But if he does then it won't, unless he rolls lower on the HP dice than the damage that's already been taken. If a player had a problem with that I wouldn't mind doing it the other way for the homonculus but that is the way that best fits how I think of HP: measure of how much punishment your body/life force can take before dying.

Right, the homonculus can full-heal with a long rest, too, so that does make that work out just fine.


I like the ideas for an NPC using it to interact with people. Maybe a homonculus is the right tool for a weird NPC encounter I want to pull off in my Tomb of Annihilation game.

In Omu, an easy-to-find location is a months-old camp site of an adventuring party known as the Company of the Yellow Banner. The only thing of major note there is a note they left for a missing party member, phrased such that it's clear they expected Rue to catch up with them soon.

A combination of things that amuse me has me wanting to have Rue be petrified somewhere in Omu, having arrived after the party vanished, and gotten caught by...something. I'm debating what. Possibly a beholder. Possibly there are cockatrices running around that I will need to introduce as threats to lend some foreshadowing. Maybe something else.

In any event, the Petrified condition forbids taking actions, and makes you unaware of your surroundings. Interestingly, it doesn't prevent you from experiencing other things. It doesn't render you unconscious. So any of the variant familiar bond familiars that share their senses with their master without needing the master to spend an action can still share senses with their petrified master. I was thinking a Gazer, and making Rue a Warlock with a beholder Patron (Great Old One).Has the weird question of whether a Pact of the Chain should be overwritten by a variant familiar, or obviated entirely by a variant familiar bonding with a Pact of the Tome or something Warlock. I might house-rule some interactions with the find familiar spell and variant familiars.

But a homonculus works as well. Doesn't need to be a Warlock, then, either. Having a homonculus means the homonculus can share what it senses with Rue without Rue needing to take an action. Telepathic communication is also not an action. And while Petrified characters cannot speak, if Rue is a GoO Warlock, the Awakened Mind feature would still permit thought projection. The homonculus can hear the responses on Rue's behalf.

Not quite sure where to place Rue's statue, nor the exact details of the cause of petrification. Debating whether to keep Rue a GoO Warlock now that homonculus has entered the picture. Would need an excuse why a sub-level-6, let alone not-yet-level-11, character HAS a homonculus, but that's easy enough to DM fiat some favor owed or treasure found that let Rue get someone else to make it.

[Satori01]

Either way I hope you never play with a super strict RAW rules lawyer,

LOL, no I play with players that are lawyers in real life. A legal argument that has as it’s crux, an UNUSAL interpretation of a single word. An argument without support of precedent, or legislative intent....that type of argument prevails only if the presiding Magistrate WANTs it to....and is an Activist Judge.

If a Necromancer is transmogrified into a toad...Inured to Undeath applies. The Wiz keeps their HP max...which is very different than a toad’s HP max.

Keep in mind, the Wizard’s EFFECTIVE HP changes to the toad’s. Healing Magic would be required to bring effective HP to the Wizard’s Maximum HP total.

This is RAW.

While in the form of a 500 HP monstrosity, Inured to Undeath applies.

Once out of the body that 500 HP Maximum, is no longer YOUR’s.

That Monstrosity is not your agent, you have no innate nor contractual possessive rights over the Monstosity’s Hit Point Maximum.

In your Body, your Hit Point Maximum is what is on your character sheet.

If you rent an apartment, it is not YOUR’s after the lease ends. Which is essentially what you are claiming. It is a spurious claim.

Are you also going to claim the Aid spell also permanently increases a person’s HP Max that has a feature like Inured to Undeath?

I hope the post did not come off as rude, but the argument is flawed.

[Galithar]

LOL, no I play with players that are lawyers in real life. A legal argument that has as it’s crux, an UNUSAL interpretation of a single word. An argument without support of precedent, or legislative intent....that type of argument prevails only if the presiding Magistrate WANTs it to....and is an Activist Judge.

If a Necromancer is transmogrified into a toad...Inured to Undeath applies. The Wiz keeps their HP max...which is very different than a toad’s HP max.

Keep in mind, the Wizard’s EFFECTIVE HP changes to the toad’s. Healing Magic would be required to bring effective HP to the Wizard’s Maximum HP total.

This is RAW.

While in the form of a 500 HP monstrosity, Inured to Undeath applies.

Once out of the body that 500 HP Maximum, is no longer YOUR’s.

That Monstrosity is not your agent, you have no innate nor contractual possessive rights over the Monstosity’s Hit Point Maximum.

In your Body, your Hit Point Maximum is what is on your character sheet.

If you rent an apartment, it is not YOUR’s after the lease ends. Which is essentially what you are claiming. It is a spurious claim.

Are you also going to claim the Aid spell also permanently increases a person’s HP Max that has a feature like Inured to Undeath?

I hope the post did not come off as rude, but the argument is flawed.

I'm not going in circles on this again. It does come off as arrogant and rude, but that's okay I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, it's just what text communication can do.

And yes. Aid DOES provide a permanent increase to a Necromancers maximum hit points and if you'd actually read all of my posts in this thread you would know that I had already said as much.

Edit: Real law has nothing to do with rules lawyers. If you play with lawyers and judges that's good for you, but completely and utterly irrelevant.

[MaxWilson]

Edit: Real law has nothing to do with rules lawyers. If you play with lawyers and judges that's good for you, but completely and utterly irrelevant.

They both involve attempting to persuade others to adopt your way of seeing things...

[Galithar]

They both involve attempting to persuade others to adopt your way of seeing things...

Not quite, but I see your comparison. If I were an actual lawyer myself I would be highly offended by the comparison of someone that is arguing the rules of a game to the years of law school required to be a lawyer though. In my mind that's tantamount to comparing the game Operation to a surgeon. They're both trying to "save their patient"

Which by the way the concept of obeying the letter of the law (RAW) and the spirit of the law (RAI) is something that is often in question in legal cases. Not in every case, but in enough that you CAN draw similarities. I don't wish to get into a debate on the similarities of real law to a game because the ways they are similar are far fewer than the ways they are different.

I've made my arguments already and once again the thread is resorting to misdirection and obfuscation. Your belief is your belief and I don't care to change it as I'm never going to be in the same game as you. I enjoyed the circular argumentation, but won't be responding any further in this thread.

[Greywander]

If a Necromancer is transmogrified into a toad...Inured to Undeath applies. The Wiz keeps their HP max...which is very different than a toad’s HP max.
Are you sure? My interpretation of something like this is that your stats are being replaced with that of the toad. Your max HP hasn't actually changed, it's just that you aren't using your HP, but the toad's. For something like the Polymorph spell, once the toad's HP are exhausted, you revert back to wizard form, which uses your own HP.


And yes. Aid DOES provide a permanent increase to a Necromancers maximum hit points
I'm going to disagree with this, but this might be getting down to an argument of semantics.

Inured to Undeath prevents any reduction in max HP.
Aid gives a bonus to max HP.
When Aid expires, your max HP are not being reduced, the bonus is simply no longer being applied. Thus, Inured to Undeath doesn't have any effect.

Now, there might be a valid interpretation where Aid does provide a permanent increase to a necromancer's max HP. However, this would allow you to repeatedly cast Aid on the necromancer in order to get virtually infinite HP. This clearly isn't RAI.

Now, we could say that they're still under the effect of Aid, and thus can't benefit from a second casting, but I don't think this is true. If the spell has expired, then it's no longer affecting them. If a spell has lingering effects after it ends, those effects aren't considered to be part of the spell, even if they were initially caused by the spell. This is why Dispel Magic doesn't destroy undead created with Animate Dead. It's also why Dispel Magic doesn't undo damage or healing caused by spells.

To me, the most sensible way to handle Aid for necromancers is as I laid out above: the expiration of the spell is not a reduction in max HP, but simply a bonus no longer being applied. To treat it differently causes problems like what you mentioned to come up. You could say that either interpretation is valid, but one causes fewer problems than the other; it makes sense to use the interpretation that causes fewer problems.

[MaxWilson]

Which by the way the concept of obeying the letter of the law (RAW) and the spirit of the law (RAI) is something that is often in question in legal cases.

In this particular tangent of the thread though we are in fact arguing over what the letter of the law is w/rt the word "reduction". IIRC you've referred to it as a RAW vs. RAI thing before, but it's really an argument about what the letter of the law actually is, and now you're implicitly that this really is a debate about RAW not RAI.

This is not a debate about the spirit of the law.

[TheUser]

"Your hit point maximum is halved" when exhausted (level 4). Necromancers are immune. This clarifies that Necromancers are not just specifically immune to undeath-related HP reductions, despite the fluff. It's still a reduction though, not a bonus, therefore not germane to your argument.

Citing this post at all in support of your literalist reading of the word "reduction" is spurious.

My point is we don't really have a legislative intent to work off of in this particular case.

[TheUser]

LOL, no I play with players that are lawyers in real life. A legal argument that has as it’s crux, an UNUSAL interpretation of a single word. An argument without support of precedent, or legislative intent....that type of argument prevails only if the presiding Magistrate WANTs it to....and is an Activist Judge.


For someone who plays with lawyers, surprisingly little has managed to pass over through osmosis...

A DM ruling is not reliant on precedent at all as any judgement that a DM comes to is independent of any other rulings by other DM's in other games and is further removed from the notion of precedent as it doesn't even need to remain consistent with the context of a "trial" as a DM can change the way they rule on something within a given session/campaign for whatever reason.

As for legislative intent, we have only 1 sage advice regarding inured to undeath that would seem to indicate a "literalist" view is taken (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/18/does-the-inured-to-undead-feat-for-necromancy-wizards-stop-the-level-4-exhaustion/) (not "unusual").

The only accurate point of this analogy is that both a DM and judge are somewhat democratically responsible in that they can be voted out (in the U.S.).



If a Necromancer is transmogrified into a toad...Inured to Undeath applies. The Wiz keeps their HP max...which is very different than a toad’s HP max.

Keep in mind, the Wizard’s EFFECTIVE HP changes to the toad’s. Healing Magic would be required to bring effective HP to the Wizard’s Maximum HP total.

This is RAW.

While in the form of a 500 HP monstrosity, Inured to Undeath applies.

Once out of the body that 500 HP Maximum, is no longer YOUR’s.

That Monstrosity is not your agent, you have no innate nor contractual possessive rights over the Monstosity’s Hit Point Maximum.

In your Body, your Hit Point Maximum is what is on your character sheet.

If you rent an apartment, it is not YOUR’s after the lease ends. Which is essentially what you are claiming. It is a spurious claim.

Are you also going to claim the Aid spell also permanently increases a person’s HP Max that has a feature like Inured to Undeath?

I hope the post did not come off as rude, but the argument is flawed.

RAW there is no such thing as transmogrification in 5e...

If a necromancer is "polymorphed" then inured to undeath does -not- kick in because all of their class features and abilities are replaced by the Toad's (of which Inured to Undeath is absent).

Where as something like shapechange, wildshape and magic jar specifically annotate that class features are "retained" (current hit points is another story entirely)



Inured to Undeath prevents any reduction in max HP.
Aid gives a bonus to max HP.
When Aid expires, your max HP are not being reduced, the bonus is simply no longer being applied. Thus, Inured to Undeath doesn't have any effect.

Now, there might be a valid interpretation where Aid does provide a permanent increase to a necromancer's max HP. However, this would allow you to repeatedly cast Aid on the necromancer in order to get virtually infinite HP. This clearly isn't RAI.

Now, we could say that they're still under the effect of Aid, and thus can't benefit from a second casting, but I don't think this is true. If the spell has expired, then it's no longer affecting them. If a spell has lingering effects after it ends, those effects aren't considered to be part of the spell, even if they were initially caused by the spell. This is why Dispel Magic doesn't destroy undead created with Animate Dead. It's also why Dispel Magic doesn't undo damage or healing caused by spells.

To me, the most sensible way to handle Aid for necromancers is as I laid out above: the expiration of the spell is not a reduction in max HP, but simply a bonus no longer being applied. To treat it differently causes problems like what you mentioned to come up. You could say that either interpretation is valid, but one causes fewer problems than the other; it makes sense to use the interpretation that causes fewer problems.

You have a contract with your boss that says your wage cannot be reduced.
You are put onto a project that requires more specialization in a given skill or an additional set of skills or for whatever reason your wage goes up during the project (danger pay seems like a good example).
You are off the project in a few months and your boss wants to put you back to your old wage, since the whole purpose of the increase was danger pay and you are no longer in danger back in your old position. Have they reduced your wage? Does your contract clause kick in?
This isn't about what you think is right, it boils down to what the words say and what the word reduced means. (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reduce)
Turns out, replacing a bigger number with a smaller number is still technically a reduction.


verb (used with object), re·duced, re·duc·ing.
to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc.: to reduce one's weight by 10 pounds.

There are even other spells that go to great lengths to make sure that they say "..spells and other magical effects can neither reduce the target’s speed nor cause the target to be paralyzed or restrained." (freedom of movement) this would point to the absence of an effect (like losing haste) would still reduce your speed because the caveats of the ability denote that the reduction must be caused by a spell or magical effect not lack thereof.

Inured to Undeath could very well say, "your maximum hit points can no longer be reduced by spells, abilities or effects" and yet it does not.

To digress, there is absolutely nothing broken about having a high HP homunculous. I honestly would never guess that a DM would rule against the necromancer in this regard.
I would also note that maximum hit points and current hit points are not intrinsically bound to one another; if a homunculous lives and has 1/99 hit points and its master rests, reducing it's max hp back to 5, it goes to 1/5 hit points. Unless otherwise noted, a change in maximum hit points does not affect current hit points or vice versa unless you are reducing maximum hit points to a point below current hitpoints (in which case current must fall at or below maximum).

EDIT: accidentally deleted post because I thought I double posted.

[JackPhoenix]

There are even other spells that go to great lengths to make sure that they say "..spells and other magical effects can neither reduce the target’s speed nor cause the target to be paralyzed or restrained." (freedom of movement) this would point to the absence of an effect (like losing haste) would still reduce your speed because the caveats of the ability denote that the reduction must be caused by a spell or magical effect not lack thereof.

They go to those lengths to clarify that being grappled, restrained by a net, or having your speed reduced through non-magical means (like copper dragon's breath) still work. And by your interpretadion, dispeling 'speed increase' from Haste would still be a spell reducing your speed.


Inured to Undeath could very well say, "your maximum hit points can no longer be reduced by spells, abilities or effects" and yet it does not.

It could, but it would be a waste of space, and it would still allow your HP max to be reduced by 4 levels of exhaustion (as that's a condition, not a spell, ability or effect (whatever the last is supposed to mean)).

[TheUser]

They go to those lengths to clarify that being grappled, restrained by a net, or having your speed reduced through non-magical means (like copper dragon's breath) still work. And by your interpretadion, dispeling 'speed increase' from Haste would still be a spell reducing your speed.

{Scrubbed}

This would be a case where a spell "effect" is not reducing speed, it is the absence of an effect, which is not the same.




It could, but it would be a waste of space, and it would still allow your HP max to be reduced by 4 levels of exhaustion (as that's a condition, not a spell, ability or effect (whatever the last is supposed to mean)).

It would not. Since having your HP reduced by/to half from exhaustion is an "effect" of exhaustion {Scrubbed}

[Zalabim]

So how does Sanctuary work in bizzaro world? Does it count creative insults (attack on character), misspoken idioms (attack on language), and misquoted Shakespeare (attack on literature) in its prohibited behaviors?

[MaxWilson]

So how does Sanctuary work in bizzaro world? Does it count creative insults (attack on character), misspoken idioms (attack on language), and misquoted Shakespeare (attack on literature) in its prohibited behaviors?

This post amused me greatly but since it didn't quote anything I wasn't able to determine what prompted it. Wrong thread or just sarcasm?

[micahaphone]

I believe zalabim is pointing out that unless the authors of the rules go to legalese lengths to explicitly define everything they mean, there will always be some assumptions and intentions taken into account. In their example, Sanctuary is of course referring to any hostile damage dealing action when it says "attack", but the spell doesn't explicitly say that.
5E just isn't made with that level of explicitness, WotC believes that any DM can look at their rules and say "no, sanctuary doesn't prevent someone from butchering their way through Hamlet." Though I'd love be a part of a table where that attempt is made.
Other games have writing that's closer to that level of explicitness, and people often enjoy spending lots of time on character creation in those systems, because there's so much more to work with. In 5E, we can generally assume the designers did not intend for any creative rules readings that lead to massive buffs.



If your table is okay with reading the rules in such a way that certain characters will get massive buffs, then you are free to do so at your own table in your personal game.

[SociopathFriend]

So assuming your Maximum Hit Points cannot be reduced by any means would that mean if you Attuned to the Amulet that raises your Constitution to 19 and then ditched it your Max HP wouldn't lower because, "It cannot be reduced?"

Because that sounds... really really wrong.

[TheUser]

So how does Sanctuary work in bizzaro world? Does it count creative insults (attack on character), misspoken idioms (attack on language), and misquoted Shakespeare (attack on literature) in its prohibited behaviors?

Unfortunately you can't protect a language or literature using the sanctuary spell (explicitly protects creatures) but verbal abuse hurled your way that are attacks on your character might trigger the spell :P

The real question is does it leave "yo' mamma" insults on the table since sanctuary specifically protects a creature and not their mothers...