Animate Dead balance

[Oramac]

So I'm writing a necromancer class, which some of you have helped critique (thank you!). But I'm running into a problem; not with the class. With animate dead. Specifically, the "At Higher Levels" part of the spell.


At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you animate or reassert control over two additional undead creatures for each slot level above 3rd. Each of the creatures must come from a different corpse or pile of bones.

Assuming I'm reading this correctly, if you cast the spell from a 9th level slot (dumb, but hey, it could happen) you'd end up with 13 undead under your control. Even at lower spell levels you're still getting a huge amount of thralls for a single spell slot, nevermind if you cast it several times over the course of a few days.

So my question is, how does this not break action economy? Even for the basic PHB necromancer wizard this seems hilariously overpowered. Help me understand this please!

[SociopathFriend]

So my question is, how does this not break action economy? Even for the basic PHB necromancer wizard this seems hilariously overpowered. Help me understand this please!

If an enemy is unable to fight off 13 Zombies or Skellies by the time you're throwing 9th Level spells at them- the enemy is gonna get rolled by darn-near anything.

Heck, blow a Horn of Valhalla and get anywhere from (2d4 + 2) to (5d4 + 5) Berserkers that are leaps and bounds above even the Animated Dead a straight 20 Levels of Necromancy Wizard gets you.



As for the more general question of, "How do you stop a hoard of Undead" then the answer is simple:
Fireballs cast by the enemy work just as well as Fireballs cast by PCs.
Fly renders an infinite number of Zombies worthless.
Wind Wall automatically repels any arrow a Skeleton or many Skeletons launch.

And so on and so forth. Heck for Zombies someone can just walk backwards- Zombies have 20 feet of movement. The default is 30.

[tokek]

So my question is, how does this not break action economy? Even for the basic PHB necromancer wizard this seems hilariously overpowered. Help me understand this please!

The control part of the spell is very restrictive, unusually so.

You must use a bonus action (with distance restriction) to give a single command to one or more of your minions. That command has to be more specific than for most minion spells because the spell lacks the part which says that they act as friendly. So an overly broad command such as "attack my enemies" will have them attacking everyone including other party members because they don't know or care who your friends are. The action economy issue is held in check by the fact that you can only give one command per turn and that any of them not commanded will continue doing what they were doing or just stand around uselessly. This is honestly much less challenging than a Shepherd Druid summoning 8/16/lots of snakes all of which do know friend from foe and take verbal orders (no action economy cost) so they can all be used far more optimally.

Also as other have said - AOE spells and effects will trash them really fast and the ability to get more back depends on the generosity of the DM in providing suitable corpses to cast spells on.

Given the limitations of the spell I'd say that anyone who has found necromancers to be powerful has done so almost entirely because of the generosity of their DM not because the rules actually make them powerful. Hordes of skeletons/zombies fall into a weird spot of being really awkward to manage in combat while actually not being very good by comparison with other uses of those spell slots.

One thing I would always do as a DM is insist that all the undead roll a single initiative and operate as an initiative group (much as I do for Conjure Animals). That simplifies things greatly and when you consider the command limitations of the spells its really not too hard to handle. Its not hard to speed-roll 20 dice for attacks and I would just stick to the fixed weapon damage unless I have an automated dice-roller (which some online platforms have). Do not allow the necromancer player to micro-manage them unless you are intent on increasing the power of the spell beyond its wording at the cost of bogging down every combat.

[Sception]

Animate Dead absolutely breaks action economy and at level 5 it's kind of ridiculous. But not too many levels past that anything that's still a threat to the party is going to clear the field of basic skeletons or zombies without much effort (especially after the high level necromancer's reputation starts to spread, so anyone planning on going up against them knows they'll need to deal with a bunch of undead minions), leaving the necromancer wondering if maybe the spell slots given over to asserting control over those undead might have been better spent on something else.

[Pildion]

So I'm writing a necromancer class, which some of you have helped critique (thank you!). But I'm running into a problem; not with the class. With animate dead. Specifically, the "At Higher Levels" part of the spell.



Assuming I'm reading this correctly, if you cast the spell from a 9th level slot (dumb, but hey, it could happen) you'd end up with 13 undead under your control. Even at lower spell levels you're still getting a huge amount of thralls for a single spell slot, nevermind if you cast it several times over the course of a few days.

So my question is, how does this not break action economy? Even for the basic PHB necromancer wizard this seems hilariously overpowered. Help me understand this please!

I turn my skeletons into swarms. Use that stat block them, makes things easier.

Also if your worried about the Necro's turn taking to long or overshadowing the rest of the party, you can have the skeletons in a couple smaller swarms for the others to control, give everyone 3-4 skeletons to use on their turn. I did that once with a Necro I played, it kept my turn from being to long, and gave everyone else so fun minions to play with.

[Keltest]

In my experience, clearing skeletons and zombies at that level is trivial. The problem comes when the necromancer's turn takes 20 minutes just from positioning all the minions and rolling for their attacks. Nobody wants to sit through a turn thats 8 times longer than anyone else's.

[LudicSavant]

So I'm writing a necromancer class, which some of you have helped critique (thank you!). But I'm running into a problem; not with the class. With animate dead. Specifically, the "At Higher Levels" part of the spell.



Assuming I'm reading this correctly, if you cast the spell from a 9th level slot (dumb, but hey, it could happen) you'd end up with 13 undead under your control. Even at lower spell levels you're still getting a huge amount of thralls for a single spell slot, nevermind if you cast it several times over the course of a few days.

So my question is, how does this not break action economy? Even for the basic PHB necromancer wizard this seems hilariously overpowered. Help me understand this please!

There's even more to it than that.

You can use up any leftover spell slots at night before bedtime, then long rest (getting them back) and still have your skeletons from yesterday's spell slots on Dungeon Delving Day.

Oh, and just as a bonus, at really high levels Wizards can recharge the spell on a short rest with their capstone, getting a super-sized army.

This is the real place it can cause an issue... not in using a 9th level spell slot on the spot for 13 minions (which honestly isn't that great for a 9th level slot), but in being able to hedge your resources from other rests (or even short rests), basically letting you convert downtime into minions.

[Unoriginal]

If an enemy is unable to fight off 13 Zombies or Skellies by the time you're throwing 9th Level spells at them- the enemy is gonna get rolled by darn-near anything.

This.

13 CR 1/4 minions is good at mid level, but not that powerful compared to what a 9th level spell slot can be spent on.

[Jerrykhor]

Its weird that people still have the assumption that a hoard of weak minions are worth a damn once you reach mid tier play. Once you meet your first dragon, a single breath will wipe all of them away. And the higher level you go, most monsters are also resistant or even straight up immune to non-magical damage. So unless you equip all your minions with magical weapons, they will do no damage.

[Burley]

Animate Dead is pretty weak as a 9th level spell. That's why Create Undead exists. Cast from a 9th level slot: you can animate or reassert control over six ghouls, three ghasts or wights, or two mummies.

That's way better than a baker's dozen of baker's bones.

[Unoriginal]

Its weird that people still have the assumption that a hoard of weak minions are worth a damn once you reach mid tier play. Once you meet your first dragon, a single breath will wipe all of them away. And the higher level you go, most monsters are also resistant or even straight up immune to non-magical damage. So unless you equip all your minions with magical weapons, they will do no damage.

That's not very accurate, though. While high CR monsters have more resistance/immunity to non-magic weapons, it's actually more a question of what type of monsters they are.

Dragons for example never get resistance/immunity to non-magic weapons (except the Undead ones like the Dracolich, the godlike ones, and maybe the mythical ones).

Furthermore not all campaigns go from fighting humanoid bandits to fighting Fiends.

I agree minions are frequently overhyped, especially in Animate Dead discussions, but one shouldn't underselling them either. Action economy is very important in 5e, so being the side with the highest number of creatures who can act is an advantage. If it's enough of an advantage to win a battle depends on other factors.

[tokek]

In my experience, clearing skeletons and zombies at that level is trivial. The problem comes when the necromancer's turn takes 20 minutes just from positioning all the minions and rolling for their attacks. Nobody wants to sit through a turn thats 8 times longer than anyone else's.

You get one order per turn. One. So on turn one they get one order, after which if you have 20 of them use the mob attack rules. So for example if you have 20 of them attacking AC18 you look it up and see you need 3 attacker per hit from skeletons, that's 7 hits at 5 damage each. Turn over for the skeleton mob. Takes maybe a minute.

This is why you restrict them to what the spell says it can do. Issue one order to one or more undead - no complicated manoeuvring or targetting across them. This really is only a problem when the DM is being incredibly generous in how to interpret the spell and gives the necromancer a level of fine control which ignores the limitations.

[Burley]

You get one order per turn. One. So on turn one they get one order, after which if you have 20 of them use the mob attack rules. So for example if you have 20 of them attacking AC18 you look it up and see you need 3 attacker per hit from skeletons, that's 7 hits at 5 damage each. Turn over for the skeleton mob. Takes maybe a minute.

This is why you restrict them to what the spell says it can do. Issue one order to one or more undead - no complicated manoeuvring or targetting across them. This really is only a problem when the DM is being incredibly generous in how to interpret the spell and gives the necromancer a level of fine control which ignores the limitations.

And, if you have 20 of them attacking 5 enemies? Or 17 enemies? What about 3 enemies?

The game still stalls on that turn to do division, decide where to send remainders, roll attacks, roll damage, then the DM needs to take note of all that damage on the different units. And, that's the necromancer's BONUS action. Then, they look over all their spells to decide what to do for a standard action, roll dice, determine damage/effect, DM takes notes.
Now, on the DMs turn, they have to decide how to attack your 20 skellimans.


All that is to say: It's fine. It's part of the game and it's not that big of a deal. But, it does stall the game on one player's turn and it's disingenuous (IMO, I guess) to argue otherwise.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Its weird that people still have the assumption that a hoard of weak minions are worth a damn once you reach mid tier play. Once you meet your first dragon, a single breath will wipe all of them away. And the higher level you go, most monsters are also resistant or even straight up immune to non-magical damage. So unless you equip all your minions with magical weapons, they will do no damage.

This isn't the argument most think it is. Admittedly, losing initiative to a dragon will put everyone on the back foot, but if you don't (like you won't with Alertness), spreading your troops out means either the dragon ignores them to target you, or ignores you to target them, and both of those are wins for you. Admittedly, this is maybe the first time I've ever thought of Arcane Gate as a truly useful spell for positioning, but wow would it be.


And, if you have 20 of them attacking 5 enemies? Or 17 enemies? What about 3 enemies?

The game still stalls on that turn to do division, decide where to send remainders, roll attacks, roll damage, then the DM needs to take note of all that damage on the different units. And, that's the necromancer's BONUS action. Then, they look over all their spells to decide what to do for a standard action, roll dice, determine damage/effect, DM takes notes.
Now, on the DMs turn, they have to decide how to attack your 20 skellimans.


All that is to say: It's fine. It's part of the game and it's not that big of a deal. But, it does stall the game on one player's turn and it's disingenuous (IMO, I guess) to argue otherwise.

If you're deciding what to do "on your turn" you are not being a good sport. Every pet player I have at a table gets a conversation before they get a pet that goes like this:
"I love pet classes too, but they can bum out the other players. I like to keep things moving. Here are your options: A) you pass pets out to each player with the instruction to "do what this guy tells you" or "attack what they attack" etc. or B) you pay close attention to what's happening and start your rolls when the person before you goes. Have the spell you'll cast or action you take in mind when your turn starts."

I prefer the passing out pets option. For example- I've been playing a Conjurer wizard for nearly a year. ~ level 6 we found a manual of stone golems. I'm the only caster, I took the mountain of psychic damage and nearly died trying to read it when we found it. We just hit level 10 and are also getting 6 months of downtime. We earned a hoard by returning the heart of a dragon's mate. I'm going to get to build that golem. That golem will be my pet, so when I cast Summon Shadowspawn or Summon Draconic Spirit I'll just pass that off to an ally. Let the warrior ride the Dragon as a mount, let the rogue control the shadow to assist with sneak attacks.

[tokek]

And, if you have 20 of them attacking 5 enemies? Or 17 enemies? What about 3 enemies?

The game still stalls on that turn to do division, decide where to send remainders, roll attacks, roll damage, then the DM needs to take note of all that damage on the different units. And, that's the necromancer's BONUS action. Then, they look over all their spells to decide what to do for a standard action, roll dice, determine damage/effect, DM takes notes.
Now, on the DMs turn, they have to decide how to attack your 20 skellimans.


All that is to say: It's fine. It's part of the game and it's not that big of a deal. But, it does stall the game on one player's turn and it's disingenuous (IMO, I guess) to argue otherwise.

Unless the player can give a single simple order to all of them that achieves that end result I just don't let them do that. The spell only permits a single order per turn. It in no way permits "You three attack that one, you seven attack that other one and the rest of you shoot at the last one" that is simply not a valid use of the spell. Now by turn 3 you could end up with that situation but in my experience that's usually not a problem - either the skellies are dead or their last ordered target is dead or both.

[NecessaryWeevil]

And, if you have 20 of them attacking 5 enemies? Or 17 enemies? What about 3 enemies?

Much of the post you're responding to still applies. See the chart they mentioned, and apply it.


The game still stalls on that turn to do division, decide where to send remainders,
There is no deciding where to send remainders, because the caster gives them one order. It's reasonable for the DM to say "Yes that target's already dead, but skeletons and zombies are not smart and do exactly what you tell them."


roll attacks, roll damage,
See the chart already referenced for the number of hits. As for damage, this is what standard damage is for.


then the DM needs to take note of all that damage on the different units.
Also the case for Fireball.


Now, on the DMs turn, they have to decide how to attack your 20 skellimans.
Yeah, that's a fair point.



All that is to say: It's fine. It's part of the game and it's not that big of a deal. But, it does stall the game on one player's turn and it's disingenuous (IMO, I guess) to argue otherwise.
I agree that it does slow down the game, but there *are* techniques to speed it up. Whether it *stalls* the game once you've applied these techniques, depends on where your threshold for "stall" is.

[sithlordnergal]

It does seem OP at first glance, but you'll quickly realize that's not really the case, especially at high levels. By the time you have 9th level spells you should have moved on to facing things like Ancient Dragons and other high CR creatures as a semi-normal enemy. What were once boss monsters at level 10 and below should now join the ranks of common goblins. Which means most creatures should be able to stomp an undead hoard relatively easily, unless you're doing something like attacking an armor of about 100 commoners or something ridiculous.

Edit: Now, if you're worried about a minionmancer, keep an eye out for Shepard Druids. They really break things via minionmancy, even at high levels, especially with Conjure Animals. Sure, 16 beasts of cr 1/4 seem like they should be the same as having 16 zombies, but pack tactics makes all the difference. This is especially true if you let the druid summon 16 velocoraptors, which have pack tactics and multiattack

[tokek]

Edit: Now, if you're worried about a minionmancer, keep an eye out for Shepard Druids. They really break things via minionmancy, even at high levels, especially with Conjure Animals. Sure, 16 beasts of cr 1/4 seem like they should be the same as having 16 zombies, but pack tactics makes all the difference. This is especially true if you let the druid summon 16 velocoraptors, which have pack tactics and multiattack

This is true. Not only are their minions better but their control over them is much better. They have full verbal control so its much harder to rule that they can't have them attacking in multiple directions all at once. Also they have the "The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions." text in their spell so they can safely just give the order to attack the nearest enemy and its safe and effective (unlike Animate Dead which lacks that so attack nearest would include your friends because they neither know nor care who your friends and enemies are).

I've played one to 10th level and the biggest problem was DM frustration at just how powerful it is. I was very fast at running them (online game) and could do their turn faster than most character turns - but the sheer brutal power of them caused too much DM rage.

[sithlordnergal]

This is true. Not only are their minions better but their control over them is much better. They have full verbal control so its much harder to rule that they can't have them attacking in multiple directions all at once. Also they have the "The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions." text in their spell so they can safely just give the order to attack the nearest enemy and its safe and effective (unlike Animate Dead which lacks that so attack nearest would include your friends because they neither know nor care who your friends and enemies are).

I've played one to 10th level and the biggest problem was DM frustration at just how powerful it is. I was very fast at running them (online game) and could do their turn faster than most character turns - but the sheer brutal power of them caused too much DM rage.

Yeah, I desperately want to play a Shepard Druid...but I also don't want to because I know how much of a headache they can be. Heck, I played Tomb of Ahnniliation as a Moon Druid when it first came out, before the Shepard Druid was really a thing. And even then, without any magical damage at all, a single casting of Conjure Animals could take down things like a Hydra, a swarm of Yuan-Ti, and more. There were times when instead of fighting my party would focus on exploring the room as my summons dealt with the enemies.

[MoiMagnus]

So my question is, how does this not break action economy? Even for the basic PHB necromancer wizard this seems hilariously overpowered. Help me understand this please!

I've GMed with a player maintaining 20 skeletons. What are the actual limitations:

It's Evil. And even if NPCs might be convinced by your talk about being the lesser Evil, or bringing more good than evil onto the world, a lot NPCs (especially those you didn't talk to yet) will still see you as Evil and behave as such.
It's not helped by the fact that you might need new corpses as a regular basis.
It dies quickly to an AoE. And any enemy somewhat clever and prepared against you will have an AoE.
If you fight with an army, that means you fight in place where an army can fight, and that means you might have an army against you. Often, as a GM, I might try to reduce the amount of creatures to handle, because it's kind of a convention in RPG that fights don't have significantly more than 10 creatures in total (5PC vs 5 Enemies). If the PCs come with 20 skeleton, this convention is off the table and the PCs and the BEBG might come with his entire battalion or archers if that makes sense plot-wise.

[JackPhoenix]

One thing I would always do as a DM is insist that all the undead roll a single initiative and operate as an initiative group (much as I do for Conjure Animals).

That's RAW: "The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time."

[PhoenixPhyre]

One other thing to note: it's not clear that
a) you can animate a skeleton from a recent corpse (ie you'd need some labor-intensive, not-purely-defined way of stripping the flesh from the bones or else you'll get a zombie)
b) if you do animate a skeleton, that they come with any gear. Sure, the stat block has them, but it strains my verisimilitude that if you animate a pile of dead cow bones, you get a bonus suit of patchwork armor, a short sword, and a bow with arrows. Plus plays merry hob with the economy. And the spell doesn't say it produces gear, so the default is that it doesn't. You get unarmed skellies.

Sure, both readings are a bit of a jerk move as a DM to pull on the fly and would need to be communicated well in advance. But I think they're relatively fair readings. And make mass undead minion-mancy much more difficult to pull off. And more expensive.

[sithlordnergal]

One other thing to note: it's not clear that
a) you can animate a skeleton from a recent corpse (ie you'd need some labor-intensive, not-purely-defined way of stripping the flesh from the bones or else you'll get a zombie)
b) if you do animate a skeleton, that they come with any gear. Sure, the stat block has them, but it strains my verisimilitude that if you animate a pile of dead cow bones, you get a bonus suit of patchwork armor, a short sword, and a bow with arrows. Plus plays merry hob with the economy. And the spell doesn't say it produces gear, so the default is that it doesn't. You get unarmed skellies.

Sure, both readings are a bit of a jerk move as a DM to pull on the fly and would need to be communicated well in advance. But I think they're relatively fair readings. And make mass undead minion-mancy much more difficult to pull off. And more expensive.

Ehhh, while I do understand about the verisimilitude, if you follow exactly what the wording of the spell is, then age of the corpse doesn't matter. A fresh corpse that's turned into a skeleton will just have all that flesh slide off, and it uses the exact weapons found in the skeleton stat block. I feel like that actually helps to keep Animate Dead in line since, if you're stuck using the Skeleton statblock, it means they can't actually use a +1 shortbow. They're stuck with their normal, non-magical weapons and armor.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ehhh, while I do understand about the verisimilitude, if you follow exactly what the wording of the spell is, then age of the corpse doesn't matter. A fresh corpse that's turned into a skeleton will just have all that flesh slide off, and it uses the exact weapons found in the skeleton stat block. I feel like that actually helps to keep Animate Dead in line since, if you're stuck using the Skeleton statblock, it means they can't actually use a +1 shortbow. They're stuck with their normal, non-magical weapons and armor.



This spell creates an Undead servant. Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small Humanoid within range. Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an Undead creature. The target becomes a Skeleton if you chose bones or a Zombie if you chose a corpse (the DM has the creature's game statistics).


Not seeing it. Specifically, a corpse is not a pile of bones. It's a corpse. So if you target a corpse, you get a zombie. If you target a pile of bones, you get a skeleton. You don't get to target a corpse and get a skeleton.

In fact, I'd say that this wording is quite clear--if it's recognizably a corpse, you get a zombie. Period. You have to (somehow) clean the flesh off to get a skeleton. Or find a crypt where nature's done that for you.

And I'm sorry, I can't see having a pile of non-humanoid bones (which is a valid reading, since the "of a Medium or Small Humanoid" clause attaches to "a corpse", not the whole phrase) that suddenly has armor and weapons. Too many infinite-generation tricks possible there. I could decide to ignore that fact for ease of use, but that'd be (in my eyes) a concession, rather than how the spell reasonably works normally.

[tokek]

I don't think the problem with weapons is a very serious problem. The necromancer can usually carry a bunch around and supply them to newly animated skeletons. The stat block provides them with proficiency with exactly the weapons on the stat block and no others.

The fact that a fresh corpse is very clearly not a pile of bones is a serious issue for them to be animating skeletons. A corpse animates as a zombie (once, you can't reanimate it if the zombie is destroyed).

[sithlordnergal]

Not seeing it. Specifically, a corpse is not a pile of bones. It's a corpse. So if you target a corpse, you get a zombie. If you target a pile of bones, you get a skeleton. You don't get to target a corpse and get a skeleton.

In fact, I'd say that this wording is quite clear--if it's recognizably a corpse, you get a zombie. Period. You have to (somehow) clean the flesh off to get a skeleton. Or find a crypt where nature's done that for you.

I dunno...I've always read it and seen it read as you can choose to target the skeleton, provided the body still has one. I've never seen it read as you have to clean off the bones or you get a zombie. Though I can certainly see where your reading would come from.



And I'm sorry, I can't see having a pile of non-humanoid bones (which is a valid reading, since the "of a Medium or Small Humanoid" clause attaches to "a corpse", not the whole phrase) that suddenly has armor and weapons. Too many infinite-generation tricks possible there. I could decide to ignore that fact for ease of use, but that'd be (in my eyes) a concession, rather than how the spell reasonably works normally.

Ehh, you're generating a shortbow and shortsword. At most you're generating 17.5 gold per skeleton, unless you decide to haggle and sell the items for more than half their price. If you're a 20th level wizard and you dump every single slot into making Skeletons you'll have about 83 skeletons, provided I did my math right. At most, a 20th level wizard can make 1,452 gp and 5 sp via making skeletons. Or you can cast Wish once to make a 25,000 gp object. In order to match that a Necromancer would need to raise 83 skeletons every single day for about 17 days in a row.

And remember, the bodies must be Humanoid, so you can't reuse dead Skeletons, cause they're no longer Humanoid, they're Undead. Not really an impressive infinite-generation trick if you ask me.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't think the problem with weapons is a very serious problem. The necromancer can usually carry a bunch around and supply them to newly animated skeletons. The stat block provides them with proficiency with exactly the weapons on the stat block and no others.

Unless you're in AL, where you *have* to use stat blocks presented in the books, the GM is free to decide what equipment a creature has, if any, and what it is proficient with.
"Despite the versatile collection of monsters in this book, you might be at a loss when it comes to finding the perfect creature for part of an adventure. Feel free to tweak an existing creature to make it into something more useful for you, perhaps by borrowing a trait or two from a different monster or by using a variant or template, such as the ones in this book."
"If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace that weapon with a different one. For example, you could replace a hobgoblin's longsword with a halberd. Don't forget to change the damage and the attack's reach where appropriate. Also be aware of the consequences of switching from a one-handed weapon to a two-handed weapon, or vice versa. For example, a hobgoblin wielding a halberd (a two-handed weapon) loses the benefit of its shield, so its AC decreases by 2."
"Assume that a creature is proficient with its armor, weapons, and tools. If you swap them out, you decide whether the creature is proficient with its new equipment. For example, a hill giant typically wears hide armor and wields a greatclub. You could equip a hill giant with chain mail and a greataxe instead, and assume the giant is proficient with both, one or the other, or neither."


I dunno...I've always read it and seen it read as you can choose to target the skeleton, provided the body still has one. I've never seen it read as you have to clean off the bones or you get a zombie. Though I can certainly see where your reading would come from.

And remember, the bodies must be Humanoid, so you can't reuse dead Skeletons, cause they're no longer Humanoid, they're Undead. Not really an impressive infinite-generation trick if you ask me.

Per SAC: "Can I cast animate dead on the humanoid-shaped corpse of an undead creature such as a zombie or a ghast?
When animate dead targets a corpse, the body must have belonged to a creature of the humanoid creature type.
If the spell targets a pile of bones, there is no creature type restriction; the bones become a skeleton."

Not only it reinforces that corpses are not piles of bones, the fact the bones don't need to be humanoid is the correct reading.

[tokek]

Unless you're in AL, where you *have* to use stat blocks presented in the books, the GM is free to decide what equipment a creature has, if any, and what it is proficient with.
"Despite the versatile collection of monsters in this book, you might be at a loss when it comes to finding the perfect creature for part of an adventure. Feel free to tweak an existing creature to make it into something more useful for you, perhaps by borrowing a trait or two from a different monster or by using a variant or template, such as the ones in this book."
"If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace that weapon with a different one. For example, you could replace a hobgoblin's longsword with a halberd. Don't forget to change the damage and the attack's reach where appropriate. Also be aware of the consequences of switching from a one-handed weapon to a two-handed weapon, or vice versa. For example, a hobgoblin wielding a halberd (a two-handed weapon) loses the benefit of its shield, so its AC decreases by 2."
"Assume that a creature is proficient with its armor, weapons, and tools. If you swap them out, you decide whether the creature is proficient with its new equipment. For example, a hill giant typically wears hide armor and wields a greatclub. You could equip a hill giant with chain mail and a greataxe instead, and assume the giant is proficient with both, one or the other, or neither."

.

The DM could but I think it would almost be an act of self-harm. Minions are tricky enough to deal with, allowing every single one of them to be needlessly unique and different so all of the normal techniques to keep things flowing can't apply seems like a terrible idea to me.

But if a DM really wants to do it then that's up to them. I'd hate it as a DM and honestly if that is how it was played I suspect I would hate the endless delays as a player.

[JackPhoenix]

The DM could but I think it would almost be an act of self-harm. Minions are tricky enough to deal with, allowing every single one of them to be needlessly unique and different so all of the normal techniques to keep things flowing can't apply seems like a terrible idea to me.

But if a DM really wants to do it then that's up to them. I'd hate it as a DM and honestly if that is how it was played I suspect I would hate the endless delays as a player.

Well, then you should propably make sure you provide standardized armanents to your walking piles of bones when you're a player. After all, piles of bones rarely come with readily usable weapons. And it's not like the player can't give them different gear already, causing the exact same issues.

[sithlordnergal]

Well, then you should propably make sure you provide standardized armanents to your walking piles of bones when you're a player. After all, piles of bones rarely come with readily usable weapons. And it's not like the player can't give them different gear already, causing the exact same issues.

Eh, my rule as a DM is that you use the statblock, no changing it, no swapping out weapons. It says you have a skeleton with a Shortbow and Shortsword. Same with zombies, zombies have no weapons or armor. You can't give it a longbow, you can't give it a +1 Shortbow, its stuck with what its got. Skeletons also come with their weapons, as per the statblock. As for where the weapons come from, I've never been too concerned about that. It could be some shadowy manifestation of a regular old shortbow that only a skeleton can use for all I care. It keeps things simple.

Side note, this includes living NPC minions as well. I only allowed gear swapping once, when the party managed to get a bandit captain as an ally. I regretted letting them upgrade his gear, but I eventually killed him. After that, no more gear upgrades for NPCs, they're stuck with whatever their statblock gives them.

[Melphizard]

Animate Dead is one of those spells that is hard to determine the power of. On one hand, having a lot of minions is super powerful and your economy is going to be busted having the ability to command like 40 skeletons to fire at once; however, they never get an improved bonus to hit, which is very limiting. I feel that at level 6, you're going to feel quite powerful with your skeleton army. Once you get to about levels 13-17 your going to start hitting bumps that'll make your animated skeletons (zombies aren't useful) either have only <10% to hit or will just be butchered and even your Create Undead spell can't produce effective undead that'll survive the things you regularly get hit with at this level.

From here there are two tactics to employ:

1. Portable Firing Squad: Using a Portable Hole and two undead, you can effectively use a method of opening the hole, having your army of skeletons shoot their arrows, then the other undead closes it, protecting them from damage. I've seen this used before and it's fairly effective, though it could fall apart if the enemies get serious about destroying the tactic.

2. Just have them out: This tactic is very flimsy. A fireball will likely not kill all your skeletons but if you're level 17 or higher you'd better expect a meteor storm forecast for every combat against a spell caster.


With these two things acknowledged, here's my personal opinion: Animate Undead should be changed to allow higher power undead to be created with your slots. Not to toot my own horn here but I've sorta covered my opinion on this before https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?640981-Advanced-Necromancy-Workings-Minotaurs-and-More . I think Animate Dead is powerful earlier on where most campaigns shall admittedly be. Sometimes your games don't go to super high level so it'll feel quite hard to deal with; but, at higher levels it has a fall-off that is felt hard. Additionally, I better hope you have some method of dealing with 40 skeleton attacks quickly because that could eat up a large chunk of time in combat. I personally do my games on Roll20 so my necromancer player has set up some script to roll many attacks at once but in person with none of that and just dice? Ugh that's gotta be a pain.

[tokek]

1. Portable Firing Squad: Using a Portable Hole and two undead, you can effectively use a method of opening the hole, having your army of skeletons shoot their arrows, then the other undead closes it, protecting them from damage. I've seen this used before and it's fairly effective, though it could fall apart if the enemies get serious about destroying the tactic.

.

This is the sort of thing I meant when I said about necromancers only being good when the DM is intentionally generous.

A portable hole is 6' wide by 10' deep. That's big enough for two skeletons to stand in there and shoot. Not an army, just two skeletons.

But it gets worse because while they are in there the are in an interdimensional space so they are not within 60' of the necromancer. They can only be commanded while the portable hole is open. So you need to use a BA to get some skeletons to open it, then you need to wait for your next necromancer turn to BA command the skeletons inside and tell them what to shoot. All of this for 2 skeleton shots per turn. Its not worth the spell slots, its not worth the Rare magic item and its not worth the effort.

So if you saw that being effective its because the DM set aside a whole bunch of rules in order to make it effective.

[Glorthindel]

Eh, my rule as a DM is that you use the statblock, no changing it, no swapping out weapons. It says you have a skeleton with a Shortbow and Shortsword. Same with zombies, zombies have no weapons or armor. You can't give it a longbow, you can't give it a +1 Shortbow, its stuck with what its got. Skeletons also come with their weapons, as per the statblock. As for where the weapons come from, I've never been too concerned about that. It could be some shadowy manifestation of a regular old shortbow that only a skeleton can use for all I care. It keeps things simple.


I think the Shortbow (and arrows) are the bit that stretches credibility. As for the armour and shortsword, I'd happily rule that what armour scraps and other chunks of bone lie around can form sufficient armour to grant the skeleton its book AC, and likewise, they would be holding a random bit of metal, wood, or just a broken bone, and use it as their "shortsword". However, I would be less willing to grant them a working bow and arrows without those being provided by the Necromancer. At least that way, the player is getting a functional combatant if summoning on the fly, and doesn't feel like they are getting screwed out of half the monsters functionality.

But alternatively, I can see how the "shadow-formed" weapon solution also works and saves time and aggravation, as long as those weapons then vanish with the creatures death, there is nothing to sell/re-use, so it doesn't really matter.

[Burley]

Much of the post you're responding to still applies. See the chart they mentioned, and apply it.


There is no deciding where to send remainders, because the caster gives them one order. It's reasonable for the DM to say "Yes that target's already dead, but skeletons and zombies are not smart and do exactly what you tell them."


See the chart already referenced for the number of hits. As for damage, this is what standard damage is for.


Also the case for Fireball.


Yeah, that's a fair point.



I agree that it does slow down the game, but there *are* techniques to speed it up. Whether it *stalls* the game once you've applied these techniques, depends on where your threshold for "stall" is.

Why, if you basically agreed with my assessment, do you feel you had to break my post down, line-by-line, to imply that I wasn't reading what I was commenting on? Why attempt to discredit me by piecemealing my post? I wrote what I wrote, the way I wrote it, to describe the process at the table and you breaking into your own little chunks demerits my post as a whole so you can win several tiny arguments of your own design.
"Looking something up on a chart" similarly slows down gameplay on a single turn. But, rather than tear apart something I disagree with (like needing a friggin' spreadsheet to play a dice rolling game), I opted to only give my own assessment.
It's unnecessary, Weevil.

[tokek]

"Looking something up on a chart" similarly slows down gameplay on a single turn. But, rather than tear apart something I disagree with (like needing a friggin' spreadsheet to play a dice rolling game), I opted to only give my own assessment.
It's unnecessary, Weevil.

If you are going to have minionmancers in the party I'd suggest putting that table on your DM screen (or whatever else you use). Its not very big or complicated and I suspect you will just know it after a few sessions.

[Burley]

If you are going to have minionmancers in the party I'd suggest putting that table on your DM screen (or whatever else you use). Its not very big or complicated and I suspect you will just know it after a few sessions.

You're right. Players/DMs should do whatever they need to prepare for their game.

I'll reference my first post in the thread, where I said, instead of upcasting Animate Dead to get a bunch of weak undead that require extra bookkeeping, you can upcast Create Undead to have, say, two mummies or six ghouls, which would be more effective and less paperwork than thirteen zombies.

[Tanarii]

This is true. Not only are their minions better but their control over them is much better. They have full verbal control so its much harder to rule that they can't have them attacking in multiple directions all at once. Also they have the "The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions." text in their spell so they can safely just give the order to attack the nearest enemy and its safe and effective (unlike Animate Dead which lacks that so attack nearest would include your friends because they neither know nor care who your friends and enemies are).

You've got it back to front. The single Bonus Action of Animate Dead gives you the ability to to decide what action and movement they will take. This is explicit in the spell. There's no restriction on how complicated those actions or movement are.

Meanwhile, verbally controlled conjured creatures must also be commanded on turn (since you can only speak on your turn), you're limited to what you can say in 6 seconds in combat, and you have no precise control over how they execute that order. As NPCs, the DM might allow the player to control them, but they'd certainly have the right to step in if they tried to play tactical genius.

In short, it's far easier to give very complicated commands to animated dead than to verbally command conjured creatures, since you get to decide their exact actions and movement.

[tokek]

You've got it back to front. The single Bonus Action of Animate Dead gives you the ability to to decide what action and movement they will take. This is explicit in the spell. There's no restriction on how complicated those actions or movement are.



It is a single command. The typical thing I see necromancer players trying to do is "These three attack this target, these two attack that one...." which is very obviously multiple commands and not permitted.

As I keep saying, don't permit micromanagement - that is what will break the action economy and bog down the game and the spell description really does not support it.

[Tanarii]

It is a single command. The typical thing I see necromancer players trying to do is "These three attack this target, these two attack that one...." which is very obviously multiple commands and not permitted.

As I keep saying, don't permit micromanagement - that is what will break the action economy and bog down the game and the spell description really does not support it.
You, the player, get to pick the exact actions and movement. Micromanagement is built in to the spell, unlike Conjure spells.

I wish it were more like Conjure spells. That's a feature/bug (depending on your POV) for those spells. Personally I think it's a balancing feature.

[tokek]

You, the player, get to pick the exact actions and movement. Micromanagement is built in to the spell, unlike Conjure spells.

I wish it were more like Conjure spells. That's a feature/bug (depending on your POV) for those spells. Personally I think it's a balancing feature.

We clearly totally disagree on the meaning of "issuing the same command to each one" so I think we just leave the discussion there. Not much point continuing it further.

[sithlordnergal]

You, the player, get to pick the exact actions and movement. Micromanagement is built in to the spell, unlike Conjure spells.

I wish it were more like Conjure spells. That's a feature/bug (depending on your POV) for those spells. Personally I think it's a balancing feature.

I dunno, I'm looking at Animate Dead and it says "On each of your turns, you can use a Bonus Action to mentally Command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 60 feet of you (if you control multiple Creatures, you can Command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same Command to each one)."

Near as I can tell, that's saying you can either command one Undead that you made, or you can command all of your Undead. If you command all of your Undead, they all receive the exact same command, with no way to modify it.

Meanwhile Conjure Animals doesn't really have any limitations like that, outside of you only being able to command them on your turn. But those commands can be pretty in depth, especially since you can apparently do a lot in 6 seconds. Consider this, in the space of 6 seconds a Human Fighter/Wizard can:

-Open a Door (Free Object Interaction)

- Move 30 feet into the room while remaining out of reach of multiple attacks of opportunity (Movement)

- Cast Shield to defend themselves if they are hit by a held action (Reaction)

- Pull out the components for Fireball and cast it (Action)

- Action Surge to pull out the components for Haste and cast it on themselves (Action Surge)

- Heal themselves via Second Wind (Bonus Action)

- Attack/Hide/Disengage/Dash via the Haste action (Hasted)

- Tell the party how many enemies are left that they see in the room (Chance to speak)

- Leave the room cause their movement is now 60 and they have 30 feet of movement left, all while avoiding surviving enemies


You're telling me you can do all that in 6 seconds, but can't tell "Half of the animals attack the bugbear, half attack the goblins" in 6 seconds?

[SociopathFriend]

It is a single command. The typical thing I see necromancer players trying to do is "These three attack this target, these two attack that one...." which is very obviously multiple commands and not permitted.

As I keep saying, don't permit micromanagement - that is what will break the action economy and bog down the game and the spell description really does not support it.

Personally- this is how *I* run Necromancers. Individual orders are a no-go. They're a mob of corpses- treat them like it.

You can get a good bit of mileage out of just ordering individual attacks anyways.

"You four attack the Troll".
Unless that Troll is dead in one round- you don't need to redo the order.

[Melphizard]

Personally- this is how *I* run Necromancers. Individual orders are a no-go. They're a mob of corpses- treat them like it.

You can get a good bit of mileage out of just ordering individual attacks anyways.

"You four attack the Troll".
Unless that Troll is dead in one round- you don't need to redo the order.

You can also get a bit creative with your orders if the DM allows it. For example, split your skeletons up into two groups and tell them to "shoot the enemy in front of you". Ofc this assumes your skeletons can move in a non-mass way. I think giving the necromancer the ability to at least move their skeletons in a more direct way should be fair. More then two groups may be pushing it though.

[Tanarii]

We clearly totally disagree on the meaning of "issuing the same command to each one" so I think we just leave the discussion there. Not much point continuing it further.


I dunno, I'm looking at Animate Dead and it says "On each of your turns, you can use a Bonus Action to mentally Command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 60 feet of you (if you control multiple Creatures, you can Command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same Command to each one)."

Near as I can tell, that's saying you can either command one Undead that you made, or you can command all of your Undead. If you command all of your Undead, they all receive the exact same command, with no way to modify it.
Okay good point on the same command ruling. Clearly I've let previous pushback in other threads on player controlling specific actions/movement colour my opinion. Because there was definitely a point where I viewed it as being limited.



You're telling me you can do all that in 6 seconds, but can't tell "Half of the animals attack the bugbear, half attack the goblins" in 6 seconds?Whatever you can fit that's an order in six seconds that they'll be able to figure out is fair game as far as I'm concerned. That particular order probably shouldn't be though. How do the animals know which half they are? But that's just being nit-picky, I'm sure we could come up with a reasonable version for a fairly simple command like that. That's nowhere near the tactical genius and complexity I used to see happen when AL DMs would let players control the conjured beasts directly, with no particular care for requiring a specific order to be stated and obeyed to boot.

[SociopathFriend]

You can also get a bit creative with your orders if the DM allows it. For example, split your skeletons up into two groups and tell them to "shoot the enemy in front of you". Ofc this assumes your skeletons can move in a non-mass way. I think giving the necromancer the ability to at least move their skeletons in a more direct way should be fair. More then two groups may be pushing it though.

Well I didn't want to list EVERY given order I've ever given as I like Necromancers and have played several- and so put quite a bit of thought into it. :D
Most DMs I've played with take the "mental" part of the command to mean you can transfer a good bit of intent with the order- which helps.


"Half of you attack each Orc" for example I would consider a single order. Because it's a mental command and not a verbal one- it would carry the intent of where I considered the 'half' divider to be.

Or

"Each of you attack the closest enemy" is a single order- even if it results in a variety of actions. And as it's a mental command- obviously it's based on what I mentally consider an enemy rather than the undead wanting to kill everything counting.



Generally speaking I think if you ever address more than one 'group' of Undead with different tactics in the same turn- you're using more than one order. However I also generally employ theater of the mind as a Necromancer- next campaign will be the first with a DM that absolutely insists on using grids and we'll see how that goes.

[tokek]

Well I didn't want to list EVERY given order I've ever given as I like Necromancers and have played several- and so put quite a bit of thought into it. :D
Most DMs I've played with take the "mental" part of the command to mean you can transfer a good bit of intent with the order- which helps.


"Half of you attack each Orc" for example I would consider a single order. Because it's a mental command and not a verbal one- it would carry the intent of where I considered the 'half' divider to be.

Or

"Each of you attack the closest enemy" is a single order- even if it results in a variety of actions. And as it's a mental command- obviously it's based on what I mentally consider an enemy rather than the undead wanting to kill everything counting.



Generally speaking I think if you ever address more than one 'group' of Undead with different tactics in the same turn- you're using more than one order. However I also generally employ theater of the mind as a Necromancer- next campaign will be the first with a DM that absolutely insists on using grids and we'll see how that goes.

OK the "half of you" order is fine so long as you do not give any order to the other half that turn. Regardless of how you want to play the mental command bit there is a direct prohibition in the spell against giving different orders to different undead in the same bonus action. Also as they cannot communicate they cannot really coordinate their actions, that's a limitation for the DM to consider when applying the command. I strongly recommend the DM does the most obvious thing for the undead as that moves the game on faster - although its rarely the most optimal thing.

Attack closest enemy will include the necromancer and their friends. Attack the closest orcs will work so long as there are no orc player characters. They do not regard the party as friends and trying to create that benefit by the back door of "I visualise it all and mentally command it" is creating an effect which the spell does not grant. I would regard that as pushing too far. Positioning them to then attack everything because the party is at a safe distance is fine.

[tokek]

Okay good point on the same command ruling. Clearly I've let previous pushback in other threads on player controlling specific actions/movement colour my opinion. Because there was definitely a point where I viewed it as being limited.

Whatever you can fit that's an order in six seconds that they'll be able to figure out is fair game as far as I'm concerned. That particular order probably shouldn't be though. How do the animals know which half they are? But that's just being nit-picky, I'm sure we could come up with a reasonable version for a fairly simple command like that. That's nowhere near the tactical genius and complexity I used to see happen when AL DMs would let players control the conjured beasts directly, with no particular care for requiring a specific order to be stated and obeyed to boot.

Conjure Animals should also be a mob and generally be played as such. There is no strict rule against giving parts of the mob different orders on the same turn so if a player can express the order well and quickly I'd allow it as a benefit of creative play.

Also Conjured Animals know friend from foe by the wording of the spell so "Attack the nearest enemy" works well enough and is safe. As you can manually position them when you conjure them you can set up an initial efficient attack this way - that's harder to do later on in a later combat for example. This is of course not perfectly safe, an neutral NPC could be attacked if present as they only regard your allies as friendly but an "attack all enemies except her" seems reasonable to me.

[Tanarii]

Okay rereading the Animate Dead spell, I remember why I used to get pushback on the idea that it was as limited limited as Comjure.

It reads:
"On each of your turns, you can use a Bonus Action to mentally Command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 60 feet of you (if you control multiple Creatures, you can Command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same Command to each one). You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general Command, such as to guard a particular Chamber or corridor."

The argument was you take a Bonus Action and mentally Command any number. You then either issue a Command like "attack them (mental picture of enemies)" and directly control their action and movement, or you state a general Command. The argument being that Command isn't words unless you issue general command.

I kind of get it. It's pretty clear you get to control the action and movement, and that's a radical departure from Conjure spells. But I get the counter argument. IMO it's somewhere in between the two. Clearly you can have them executed an attack against a group of different enemies with fairly precise targeting (for skeletons at least). But you probably can't have some act as a shield wall whole others do a flanking maneuver while others climb a tree to pull down some guy while a third group digs a chest out of the ground.

[tokek]

Okay rereading the Animate Dead spell, I remember why I used to get pushback on the idea that it was as limited limited as Comjure.

It reads:
"On each of your turns, you can use a Bonus Action to mentally Command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 60 feet of you (if you control multiple Creatures, you can Command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same Command to each one). You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general Command, such as to guard a particular Chamber or corridor."

The argument was you take a Bonus Action and mentally Command any number. You then either issue a Command like "attack them (mental picture of enemies)" and directly control their action and movement, or you state a general Command. The argument being that Command isn't words unless you issue general command.

I kind of get it. It's pretty clear you get to control the action and movement, and that's a radical departure from Conjure spells. But I get the counter argument. IMO it's somewhere in between the two. Clearly you can have them executed an attack against a group of different enemies with fairly precise targeting (for skeletons at least). But you probably can't have some act as a shield wall whole others do a flanking maneuver while others climb a tree to pull down some guy while a third group digs a chest out of the ground.

At my table the bit about mental command means

Enemies cannot overhear it
It is not blocked by Silence spell or the Deafened condition
No worries about it working underwater and holding your breath

There is no way at my table I would allow a level of instant communication that is reserved for the 8th level Telepathy spell. This sort of "instant military briefing with maps and diagrams and full situational awareness" each turn would not fly with me at all. As I said a lot earlier in the thread, the mass of undead are only powerful and only clog up the combat if the DM is highly generous with how they interpret the spell and its restrictions.

Now you do you and enjoy your games. But in thread discussing the logistical issues of permitting massed undead in the game I think we can and should look at more restrained interpretations of mental command and not look to make the game hard to run.

[Tanarii]

How do you explain that you get to control the action and movement? That's a very broad statement, without a lot of limitations on it, and one that doesn't apply at all to Conjure Animals and the like.

As to "instant military briefing with maps and diagrams and full situational awareness", the player absolutely does get to control that way for sure IF they have all the creatures execute the same order. The player is absolutely allowed to move 4 skeletons aa they wish to target a single enemy, for example.

[tokek]

How do you explain that you get to control the action and movement? That's a very broad statement, without a lot of limitations on it, and one that doesn't apply at all to Conjure Animals and the like.

As to "instant military briefing with maps and diagrams and full situational awareness", the player absolutely does get to control that way for sure IF they have all the creatures execute the same order. The player is absolutely allowed to move 4 skeletons aa they wish to target a single enemy, for example.

Open that door is a fine command, it involved multiple movements but its an order that an undead can understand and execute. It will move to the door and open it as ordered. If the door is locked it will just repeatedly try and fail until you give another order.

Move backwards ten paces and shoot that troll is a fine command to apply to multiple skeletons. They will keep walking away from the troll and shooting it whether it lives or dies until you give another order.

Move over there and shoot that thing is a legitimate order, they will even stop before bumping into each other but will crowd as close to the indicated point as possible. It is a single order.

The problem I have with your examples is that you are trying to convey positional and target information for multiple undead each of which should move to a different place in a different direction, along with a different target for each of them. In my view it clearly violates the "issuing the same command to each one" part of the spell. You are trying to bypass that limitation by claiming to be able to give arbitrarily complex sets of commands via a Telepathy level of communication although the spell never says it permits instant audio-visual communication nor that it improves the low comprehension of dim-brained undead.

So none of what you are relying on would work at my table, its a huge stretch in my opinion and I would just say no.

(All the same would apply to Tiny Servant at my table too. Tiny Servant shenanigans with Artificers in particular would also be very troublesome if you apply this approach)

[The_Jette]

Open that door is a fine command, it involved multiple movements but its an order that an undead can understand and execute. It will move to the door and open it as ordered. If the door is locked it will just repeatedly try and fail until you give another order.

Move backwards ten paces and shoot that troll is a fine command to apply to multiple skeletons. They will keep walking away from the troll and shooting it whether it lives or dies until you give another order.

Move over there and shoot that thing is a legitimate order, they will even stop before bumping into each other but will crowd as close to the indicated point as possible. It is a single order.

The problem I have with your examples is that you are trying to convey positional and target information for multiple undead each of which should move to a different place in a different direction, along with a different target for each of them. In my view it clearly violates the "issuing the same command to each one" part of the spell. You are trying to bypass that limitation by claiming to be able to give arbitrarily complex sets of commands via a Telepathy level of communication although the spell never says it permits instant audio-visual communication nor that it improves the low comprehension of dim-brained undead.

So none of what you are relying on would work at my table, its a huge stretch in my opinion and I would just say no.

(All the same would apply to Tiny Servant at my table too. Tiny Servant shenanigans with Artificers in particular would also be very troublesome if you apply this approach)

Question: in your opinion, would "flank that group of enemies and attack" be a valid command? It would allow the skeletons to spread out around an enemy and give more than just one target as an option for their attack. And, your examples seem to be setting a precedent that "move then attack" is valid as a single command.

[tokek]

Question: in your opinion, would "flank that group of enemies and attack" be a valid command? It would allow the skeletons to spread out around an enemy and give more than just one target as an option for their attack. And, your examples seem to be setting a precedent that "move then attack" is valid as a single command.

I would allow it so long as the group of enemies is sufficiently distinct - like "attack those orcs from the left flank" is perfectly fair. That does not give the sort of fine detail control that bogs down the game - they pile in however the DM wants them to and attack whatever seems most convenient. Which is why it then does not bog down the combat.

Treat them as a mob, that's how the spell seems designed to work. On a subsequent turn you can have just part of that mob split off to do something else and the main part of the mob will continue with their last order.

Of course if you command them one at a time you can specify position and target one at a time. What ruins it is commanding multiples of them and insisting on still having that fine control of each of them - that's why spells like this have that clause of it being a single order for all of them. It streamlines the game and keeps it playable.

[Tanarii]

I would allow it so long as the group of enemies is sufficiently distinct - like "attack those orcs from the left flank" is perfectly fair. That does not give the sort of fine detail control that bogs down the game - they pile in however the DM wants them to and attack whatever seems most convenient. Which is why it then does not bog down the combat.

The player gets to control the action and movement for Animate Dead, not the DM.

With Conjure Animals, it's not specified, and your point applies. But for Animate Dead, it's one mental Command that lets the player choose the action and movement. Given it lets the player choose the action and movement, there's clearly some leeway in how broad the mental control to execute the command is. Attack one enemy? Player definitely gets to execute as they see fit. Attacks a group of enemies? If permitted, player gets to execute as they see fit.

[Burley]

I would allow it so long as the group of enemies is sufficiently distinct - like "attack those orcs from the left flank" is perfectly fair. That does not give the sort of fine detail control that bogs down the game - they pile in however the DM wants them to and attack whatever seems most convenient. Which is why it then does not bog down the combat.

Treat them as a mob, that's how the spell seems designed to work. On a subsequent turn you can have just part of that mob split off to do something else and the main part of the mob will continue with their last order.

Of course if you command them one at a time you can specify position and target one at a time. What ruins it is commanding multiples of them and insisting on still having that fine control of each of them - that's why spells like this have that clause of it being a single order for all of them. It streamlines the game and keeps it playable.

Even if you treat them as a mob, or give them a command like "Attack the humans," you, the player, have to decide to send two to attack that human, two on that other one and three to third one. And, you, the player, roll seven sets of attacks/damage. Likewise, you have to track the defenses and HP of your seven zombies as your DM attacks.
On your next turn, you could let them continue to attack their original targets (which may require them to move toward them, if they moved away) or you can issue a new command, like "attack the cloaked human" to have the remaining ones target the wizard. But, you still have to move them, which may provoke attacks of opportunity, and then make all the attack/damage.

And, that's still not taking into account whatever your necromancer is doing with their action(s).

If you've ever played at a table where some other player summons creatures (I've done it as a druid), it quickly feels like the DM and that player are playing their own game and you'll get a chance to do your thing. And, when there's so much on the table at once, it's really hard to plan your turn around a wildly shifting board state. (That's my refutation of the argument that we should all have our turns planned before our turn, because sometimes the necromancer goes before you and you have no idea what the game will look like when their 9 minute turn is over.)

[tokek]

Even if you treat them as a mob, or give them a command like "Attack the humans," you, the player, have to decide to send two to attack that human, two on that other one and three to third one. And, you, the player, roll seven sets of attacks/damage. Likewise, you have to track the defenses and HP of your seven zombies as your DM attacks.
On your next turn, you could let them continue to attack their original targets (which may require them to move toward them, if they moved away) or you can issue a new command, like "attack the cloaked human" to have the remaining ones target the wizard. But, you still have to move them, which may provoke attacks of opportunity, and then make all the attack/damage.

And, that's still not taking into account whatever your necromancer is doing with their action(s).

If you've ever played at a table where some other player summons creatures (I've done it as a druid), it quickly feels like the DM and that player are playing their own game and you'll get a chance to do your thing. And, when there's so much on the table at once, it's really hard to plan your turn around a wildly shifting board state. (That's my refutation of the argument that we should all have our turns planned before our turn, because sometimes the necromancer goes before you and you have no idea what the game will look like when their 9 minute turn is over.)

I understand the feel bad here - but its because a DM does not use all the tools at their disposal to speed this up.

Use the mob attack rules, just lookup the table for how many hits they generate, spread them out among the reachable targets and apply the fixed damage (e.g. 5 per hit for a skeleton shortsword). It should not take more than a minute or two. If the player starts to dither and mess around and slow things down then the DM can and should take over the movement of the mob to facilitate the game for everybody else - the minions have an order that should have been clearly stated and the DM can adjudicate it just fine.

Use mob attack rules for AOO. Its just skellies, don't slow the game down for them.

I would say use the mob rule for anything 5+ in number. Below that if the player is trying to go fast then I'd run them as individuals, roll attacks but still take fixed damage. This depends on how quick the player is and how much I feel they are trying to work within the spirit of it being a dumb mob.

[Tanarii]

None of those tools are player facing. They're all DM facing for DM controlled creatures. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of whom is in control of the creature actions with Animate Dead.

[Burley]

I understand the feel bad here - but its because a DM does not use all the tools at their disposal to speed this up.


It's not a matter of DM tools, used or not. It's that the hypothetical player is using a spell (9th level Animate Dead) to create garbage minions that will slow down the game when there is a better spell (9th level Create Undead) that creates useful minions that don't slow the game as badly.
Unless your goal is to gum up your opponent with fodder, it's better for an effective character and a compassionate player to use better spells than seek out "tools" to prop up poor spell choice.

[tokek]

None of those tools are player facing. They're all DM facing for DM controlled creatures. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of whom is in control of the creature actions with Animate Dead.

That's not an actual rule, its just an expectation you have from playing at your table.

The only actual rule is that the DM decides how to run things at their table. Therefore we are discussing the ways in which a DM can make that decision so that the game flows for the maximum fun of everyone at the table.

There is no rule forcing the hand of the DM and the wording of the spell says "mentally command" not "mentally control" - so the DM can ask you to state your command and then execute it while being perfectly in line with the rules. Indeed if the player controlling them causes the sorts of issues that have been raised in this discussion then the DM would be very well advised do so. Nobody wants all the other players getting bored and losing interest while the necromancer player micro-manages skellies for 10 minutes every turn.

[Tanarii]

That's not an actual rule, its just an expectation you have from playing at your table.
From Animate Dead:
You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn,
PHB 273

The player decides what action and movement the animated dead will take. Not the DM.

[MoiMagnus]

From Animate Dead:
You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn,
PHB 273

The player decides what action and movement the animated dead will take. Not the DM.

I see at least two ways of interpreting this sentence:
(1) "You will decide during its next turn what action the creature will take and where it will move" [EDIT: note the that the "will" is attached to the verb "decide" instead of being in attached to the verbs "take" and "move"]
(2) "You plan right now what the what action the creature will try to take and where the creature will try to move during its next turn, but if situation were to change in unpredicted ways, the GM determines how to resolve the action"

Since I'm more of a "turn-based combat is an approximation, the reality is simultaneous" kind, I would rule in favour of (1). But if you have a more "strict turn-based" approach, the spell says that you are making a decision during your turn and communicating it to your servants during your turn, but it does not give you the right of making any decision and communication during the undead turn (you cannot use your reaction to give a command), and by default in situations like this, it's the GM's role to resolve the creature's action.

[Burley]

I see at least two ways of interpreting this sentence:
(1) "You will decide during its next turn what action the creature will take and where it will move" [EDIT: note the that the "will" is attached to the verb "decide" instead of being in attached to the verbs "take" and "move"]
(2) "You plan right now what the what action the creature will try to take and where the creature will try to move during its next turn, but if situation were to change in unpredicted ways, the GM determines how to resolve the action"

Since I'm more of a "turn-based combat is an approximation, the reality is simultaneous" kind, I would rule in favour of (1). But if you have a more "strict turn-based" approach, the spell says that you are making a decision during your turn and communicating it to your servants during your turn, but it does not give you the right of making any decision and communication during the undead turn (you cannot use your reaction to give a command), and by default in situations like this, it's the GM's role to resolve the creature's action.

We can debate intent and interpretation for three more pages. The reality is that somebody has to move those minis, it's supposed to be the player and it takes time to do so.

To wrap back to the original question: summoning 13 weak skeletons doesn't break action economy, because, at that level, those actions are all pretty worthless. The flow of combat, however, may be broken and that would probably negatively impact your game session.
Am I saying you shouldn't do it? Kiiiiinda... I'm at least saying there's better options for a high-level necromancer. There's certainly a place for 13 zombies, like patrolling an area or a large-scale battle. I don't think it's compassionate to other players to do it during a standard combat session.

[JackPhoenix]

It's not a matter of DM tools, used or not. It's that the hypothetical player is using a spell (9th level Animate Dead) to create garbage minions that will slow down the game when there is a better spell (9th level Create Undead) that creates useful minions that don't slow the game as badly.
Unless your goal is to gum up your opponent with fodder, it's better for an effective character and a compassionate player to use better spells than seek out "tools" to prop up poor spell choice.

Ignoring the slowing down the game argument, which is very much group dependant, how exactly are 6 ghouls or 2 mummies more useful than 13 skeletons?

Skeletons have AC 13 and 169 collective HP on 13 targets. They are vulnerable to AoE, due to low individual HP, but there's a lot of them, so non-AoE attacks don't lower their overall effectiveness that much, and singular powerful attacks are kinda wasted against them. They output 19.5 DPR against AC 19 (the average value for CR 17 enemies per the DMG), either in melee or at range of up to 80', the later of which puts them away from many sources of danger and keeps them out of the way.
Ghouls have worse AC and less total HP on fewer creatures, so they are collectively squishier, and their collective damage output is either 10.8 (with bite) or 12.6 + paralyze with DC 10 Con (so pretty much irelevant at the level we're talking about) save in melee only.
Ghast aren't significantly better than ghouls, and you only get half of them.
Mummies have even worse AC, and while their collective effective HP are better than skeletons against non-magic weapons, with only 2 of them, losing one is a big deal. They should have just enough HP to survive the expected DPR of a CR 17 creature for 1 round, assuming it does not have magic weapons. Now, offensively, they output 14 DPR spread between two damage types. Mummy rot is irrelevant in the context of an individual fight, Dreadful Glare is better than anything ghouls can do, but you can only try to use it once on an individual target, and plenty of enemies are immune to frightened, even if they fail the still pretty low DC 11 save. The issue with mummies is their 20' movement speed, which means the entire party has to slow down on their account.
Now, wights have better AC and beat even mummies in HP department if the enemy doesn't have magic or silver weapons. They have DPR of 12.6 in melee or 10.8 at range, which gets worse in sunlight. Their best feature is that they come with up to 36 zombies if they get some preparation time, but that hardly improves the speed of the necromancer's turn.

[Amdy_vill]

Damage, the big thing that prevents it from truly breaking the game is their low damage and hp. but it still has problems particularly turn length, this can be partially fixed by using mob combat in the dmg, it removes all the extra rolls. there is still a problem if your player uses a bunch of different actions. but it is pretty balance when you run all the overlooked rules of the game. My suggestion for a necromancer class would be to move over to focusing on tashas style summoning instead. build up some undead spells like summon vampiric spirit, or summon skeletal warrior. it removes most of the problem with animate dead and create undead.

[Burley]

Ignoring the slowing down the game argument, which is very much group dependant, how exactly are 6 ghouls or 2 mummies more useful than 13 skeletons?

~snipped for length~

Ghouls and Ghasts aren't much stronger, I'll admit. They have riders to them, though, like paralyzing and poisoning effects.
Wights and Mummies have crazy damage resistances and immunities. Life drain, mummy rot and fear effects.

Comparing a single unit, obviously, the stronger units are stronger. But, okay, let's look them pooled:
116HP (with resistance to non-magical damage) on 2 mummies who also have fear effects and prevent healing.
145HP (with resistance to non-magical, non-silvered damage) on 3 wights that can multi-attack and have life drain (and turn resistance, I think? I closed the tab).

I'm not the ultimate math wizard, but having a few strong monsters with better defenses and status effects seems more advantageous.