Poor Necromancers

[Schwann145]

The new UA video talks a little about why Abjuration beat out Necromancy for the UA Playtest. (Link to conversation here. (https://youtu.be/VIJSH0F31VI?si=I5_xw7_0RIxYkzmM&t=2156))

Crawford talks about how the Necromancer (School of Necromancy Wizard) has traditionally done poorly in both "play" and "satisfaction" scores (compared to a class like the Ranger who has struggled with "play" scores but done well with "satisfaction" scores, or Druid who is the opposite).
I'm not even gonna pretend to know how they gauge these metrics; I've certainly never seen any non-playtest surveys to garner players' opinion, and Necromancer hasn't been part of playtest at all recently...

But I can't help but feel... "duh, of course it's not popular; you flubbed the design of the subclass and the support for the playstyle right out of the gate!"

I know I'm preaching to the choir, most likely, but heck it, let's go over it anyway:

Beginning when you select this school at 2nd level, the gold and time you must spend to copy a Necromancy spell into your spellbook is halved.
Standard for all Wizard schools. Nothing special to discuss here.

At 2nd level, you gain the ability to reap life energy from creatures you kill with your spells. Once per turn when you kill one or more creatures with a spell of 1st level or higher, you regain hit points equal to twice the spell's level, or three times its level if the spell belongs to the School of Necromancy. You don't gain this benefit for killing constructs or undead.
You get a very small healing reward for being a blaster... as a Necromancer... a playstyle that is not very good at blasting. You get a little bonus if you use a Necromancy-specific blast to do it, of which there are only four (four!) in the entire PHB.
It's criminally easy to design something better than this for a Necro. How about also working from damage done by controlled undead? How about making it a curse that applies to a single target who's life you get to leach from regardless of who's doing the damage? Etc and so fourth. This ability is so off theme, and in such an obvious way, that it boggles my mind that it survived initial playtest before 2014 release.

At 6th level, you add the Animate Dead spell to your spellbook if it is not there already. When you cast Animate Dead, you can target one additional corpse or pile of bones, creating another zombie or skeleton, as appropriate.

Whenever you create an undead using a necromancy spell, it has additional benefits:

The creature's hit point maximum is increased by an amount equal to your wizard level.

The creature adds your proficiency bonus to its weapon damage rolls.
You get the signature PHB Necromancy spell for free, and it's better than normal.
Good.
Too bad you get it a whole entire level later than you could/should.
Also too bad that 5e has turned it into the worst possible version of itself such that no one even likes it anymore (players, GMs, forum critics, probably devs too...). What I would give to have the old Animate Dead back, the one that allowed you to actually customize your undead so hunting specific corpses and material components was a fun part of the experience. Now, no matter what, we're stuck disrupting action economy and table playtime in order to deal with our horde of human skele/zombies that fall over to a stiff gust of wind and require brain-dead levels of effort to maintain your little army of them (entirely done, without issue, during downtime). You know what I want for my necromancer? A couple of really solid giants. Not a dozen humans. Alas.

Beginning at 10th level, you have resistance to necrotic damage, and your hit point maximum can't be reduced. You have spent so much time dealing with undead and the forces that animate them that you have become inured to some of their worst effects.
I certainly can't say this ability is bad. Necrotic is common enough of a damage type to be encountered that you'll probably get some use, though I don't know how often you really have to deal with hit point maximum loss...
But it comes very late, and it's not interesting. It doesn't help you proactively. Abjurers are getting stronger versions of their spells. Conjurers can maintain their summons better. Diviners gain their choice of sensory powers to use. Enchanters double their effectiveness! Meanwhile... you're just a little tougher, in niche circumstances. You aren't any better at doing Necromancy. Dang.
Useful. Boring.

Starting at 14th level, you can use magic to bring undead under your control, even those created by other wizards. As an action, you can choose one undead that you can see within 60 feet of you. That creature must make a Charisma saving throw against your wizard spell save DC. If it succeeds, you can't use this feature on it again. If it fails, it becomes friendly to you and obeys your commands until you use this feature again.

Intelligent undead are harder to control in this way. If the target has an Intelligence of 8 or higher, it has advantage on the saving throw. If it fails the saving throw and has an Intelligence of 12 or higher, it can repeat the saving throw at the end of every hour until it succeeds and breaks free.
This finally feels like a really good ability... gained at a level most games stop by. Oof.
Regardless, whether this is actually good or not is highly GM dependent. If you're never running into powerful and/or interesting undead enemies, then this ability is useless. If the undead you're running into are the same type that you could always animate anyway, then this ability is basically useless. If your interesting and/or powerful target makes just one save, it is now forever immune to this power. Forever. Oof.
Just too many ways to let you down.


On the spell-support side of things:
•I already ranted about Animate Dead above.
•The Wizard list is missing some key thematic spells such as Speak With Dead, Contagion, Inflict Wounds, and Harm.
•Not only is Animate Dead not great, but Create Undead is an embarrassment of a spell. Would you spend your daily 9th level slot to create... two Mummies (https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16961-mummy)?

Most of the best Necromancy spells are found outside of the PHB. Things like Dance Macabe, Summon Undead, Spirit Shroud, Enervation, etc. That's going to seriously impact the popularity of the subclass.


So, like, yeah, of course it's popularity is going to be low. But the conversation makes it sound like it's a theme-popularity problem.
As if Necromancy has ever been thematically unpopular!
It's unpopular because you made it bad and gave it bad support from the get-go.

Agree with me or not, I felt the need to rant. :smallyuk:

[RogueJK]

Necromancer is fine. (Now, post-Tasha's.)

It's not going to be super powerful (any more than other Wizards are at higher levels), but it's fine.

It's not going to allow you to have a horde of useful undead minions, but a single buffed-up Summon Undead is fine. Good, even. I happen to think it's the best all-around Summon X spell, being useful both in melee and a range, and both in combat and for out of combat exploration/infiltration. And a Necromancer's Summon Undead is better than anyone else's.

But yes, it involves a shift in playstyle, away from the expected norm/trope for a Necromancer. People who want to play a Necromancer typically want to be that creepy pale guy in a black robe, commanding a shambling horde of undead, raising slain monsters as new and better fodder, and using eerie necromantic spells to siphon the life from their enemies.

But 5e doesn't really allow for that in play. And when you try to do that, it ends up being disappointing, because Animate Dead and many of the other Necromancy spells are just weak.

What does work well is playing a Necromancer as a generic semi-blaster/semi-controller Wizard, who also happens to call forth a single undead minion via Summon Undead frequently. And who might eventually have an even more powerful undead minion who sticks around a bit longer, if you get to Tier 4 and your DM throws you a bone.

You can still be that creepy pale guy who's friends with undead, and you still get some rejuvenating effect from slaying your foes, but most of the time you're going to need to play just like any other standard 5E wizard.

But then, the same can be said for just about any traditional Wizard build. Even with some of the other Wizard schools who get abilities with direct specific benefits from leaning heavily into spells of that school, most regular Wizards regardless of school are going to be learning and using ~75% the exact same spells, because those are demonstrably the "best/most useful" spells of each level.

So Necromancer is fine, arguably on par with Transmuter, Illusionist, Conjurer, Enchanter, etc. Not great. Not terrible. Just fine.



As for Abjurer, I think a lot of its popularity comes from its min/max-ability. How often do you see just a plain Abjurer, versus an Abjurer with racial armor or a multiclass dip to enable a gishy playstyle, or some method like grabbing Armor of Shadows to exploit Arcane Ward, or similar? Otherwise, as a basic traditional Wizard, an Abjurer isn't massively more powerful than a Necromancer. It's just more amenable to tweaking into more exotic builds.

[Kane0]

Crawford talks about how the Necromancer (School of Necromancy Wizard) has traditionally done poorly in both "play" and "satisfaction" scores (compared to a class like the Ranger who has struggled with "play" scores but done well with "satisfaction" scores, or Druid who is the opposite).
I'm not even gonna pretend to know how they gauge these metrics; I've certainly never seen any non-playtest surveys to garner players' opinion, and Necromancer hasn't been part of playtest at all recently...


Strange thing is a lot of playtest stuff has been about getting the less popular stuff some more time in the sun (Frenzy Barb, 4e Monk, cantrips in this very packet).
If the Abjurer was popular and good but not too good, why would you worry about fiddling with it instead of spending time with a less popular choice like the necromancer?

[LudicSavant]

One of the issues is Animate Dead itself.

It wasn't the swarms of mooks and action economy they removed from Animate Dead, it was the smaller number of larger, more powerful monsters -- you know, the option with less action economy. You can't make a zombie T-Rex anymore. You can make a legion of generic skeleton archers that's considerably stronger than a zombie T-Rex, though. Or use other minionmancy spells that are also more powerful than a zombie T-Rex.

They gutted the options and narrative, but the power, the resource efficiency? They gave it more. Now our skeletons have no more HD limit, no more costly components, no more chance of losing control mid-adventure, no more need to seek out better corpses like it was loot, and the corpses are even reusable now. And if there's any downtime at all, you can just make your army with resources from the day before the adventure. And if you can get it on a short rest recharge, it gets even crazier. Undead Thralls just exacerbates it.

The opportunity exists to give Animate Dead (and indeed, a lot of spells) more options, more narrative interaction, and still make it more balanced than the current version. Heck, even just making it so that those spell slots actually stay invested would go a long way.

You want people to be satisfied with necromancers? Fix your darned minionmancy already.

[Psyren]

I was actually surprised in the earlier UA when Crawford said that Necromancers would be core, once we knew that each class would only get 4 subclasses. Necromancer to me always felt like the last wizard to be core if there was any kind of limitation.

I'm also okay with Crawford's explanation of "polarity" around which ones they chose to include. Divination being opposite Illusion, and Evocation being opposite Abjuration, do make sense to me.

[Leon]

And I thought it was going to be about those who couldn't afford Onyx

[Kane0]

And I thought it was going to be about those who couldn't afford Onyx

Okay, you got me. I laughed.

[JellyPooga]

You want people to be satisfied with necromancers? Fix your darned minionmancy already.

Hard agree here. Necromancers needed variety in their minionmancy, not the opposite. Make it unique and customisable; where's the frost or flame skele's, fungal, poisoned or diseased zombies? I want to have skeletons that cast spells and have six arms and I want zombies that spew acid or are host to swarms of spiders.

Necromancy should be creepy and experimental; part of their fiction is hard based in historical ressurectionists, who exhumed the dead in the name of science (yeah, ok, they exhumed the dead for money, but it was doctors looking for experimental materials that were paying them), so I expect similar theme in the class. Other necromantic traditions draw more on religious aspects; your hoodoo/voodoo, etc. and would be better suited in a Cleric or Druid subclass, but the Wizard Necromancer should be a kind of magical scientist, a Dr.Frankenstein that's creating few, experimental undead abominations and tinkering with them, not raising legions of the living dead. At least in my book.

[Grim Portent]

A major beef I have with the 5e version of animate dead is that there's no way to create an undead mount. Necromancers riding zombie horses or death knights upon skeletal steeds is an iconic bit of fiction and you just can't do it. I could maybe get it if they didn't want people animating dragons, despite being cool a dragon is a pretty strong mount even if it's a zombie, but a warhorse? What about a giant vulture, also an iconic mount for old creepy wizards? Ogres and cyclops, a classic part of zombie hordes when they need a siege monster.

It would've been trivial to make animate dead only work on creatures with a CR of spell slot or lower and apply a simple template based on skeleton or zombie. Like lose all saving throw proficiencies and skills, zombies get con saves, skeletons get dex saves, zombie gets the rule where they're hard to kill and a scaling speed penalty, maybe a minor stat boost, skeletons lose flying, special abilities are lost. Done.


Hell, maybe even make animate dead like moon druids and wildshape, where only necromancy wizards and death clerics get access to the full version and everyone else can only animate basic humanoid skeletons and zombies. Swap out Undead Thralls for a wildshape style blurb about reanimating exotic creatures, like you can spend spellslots to animate a number of undead (apply skeleton or zombie template) with a total CR equal to the level of the spell slot -2, and the spell slot doesn't come back on a rest until the undead are all dead or dismissed so you can't animate a cool army before bed and then throw around lots of spells the day after. Maybe progress it to animate ghoul/wight version of lower CR creatures as well.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would happily trade my 9th level slot for a zombie young black dragon (cr 7 before becoming a zombie) to ride, because dragons are cool. Hell, I'd even have a bunch of ghouls with lances riding skeleton warhorses to go with it. Waste of spell slots? Probably, but it'd be cool.

[Damon_Tor]

Most of what necromancers need is a way for many creatures to attack as a unit. I run a set of Houserules that allows a summoner to roll 1d20 for all his attacking minions: the result tells you HOW MANY of your minions' attack hit. It's a great system. You can calculate the result of 12 skeletal archers firing a volley from their bows all at once which makes them much less of a burden to the table.

[JackPhoenix]

Most of what necromancers need is a way for many creatures to attack as a unit. I run a set of Houserules that allows a summoner to roll 1d20 for all his attacking minions: the result tells you HOW MANY of your minions' attack hit. It's a great system. You can calculate the result of 12 skeletal archers firing a volley from their bows all at once which makes them much less of a burden to the table.

We already have that. DMG, 250. No rolls needed at all, though you'll have to do some math to compare their attack bonus to target's AC.

[OldTrees1]

Most of what necromancers need is a way for many creatures to attack as a unit.

This is a part of it. As a necromancer gets stronger, they have different desires:

Greater variety in what undead they can create/control
Denser undead (stronger but cost more)
Different abstractions for orders of magnitude of cheaper undead. (From individual to squad/unit to eventually terrain)


In a recent game (full of homebrew) my necromancer migrated from skeletons, to ghasts (denser undead), and eventually abstracted a horde of ghouls as difficult terrain that caused paralysis (similar to the abstraction spirit guardians uses).

[Damon_Tor]

This is a part of it. As a necromancer gets stronger, they have different desires:

Greater variety in what undead they can create/control
Denser undead (stronger but cost more)
Different abstractions for orders of magnitude of cheaper undead. (From individual to squad/unit to eventually terrain)


In a recent game (full of homebrew) my necromancer migrated from skeletons, to ghasts (denser undead), and eventually abstracted a horde of ghouls as difficult terrain that caused paralysis (similar to the abstraction spirit guardians uses).

I made a homebrew "death touched" sorcerer subclass that could cause his undead to coalesce into a "shambling horde", a large "swarm" that functioned much like you describe.

[LudicSavant]

Hard agree here. Necromancers needed variety in their minionmancy, not the opposite. Make it unique and customisable; where's the frost or flame skele's, fungal, poisoned or diseased zombies? I want to have skeletons that cast spells and have six arms and I want zombies that spew acid or are host to swarms of spiders.

Necromancy should be creepy and experimental; part of their fiction is hard based in historical ressurectionists, who exhumed the dead in the name of science (yeah, ok, they exhumed the dead for money, but it was doctors looking for experimental materials that were paying them), so I expect similar theme in the class. Other necromantic traditions draw more on religious aspects; your hoodoo/voodoo, etc. and would be better suited in a Cleric or Druid subclass, but the Wizard Necromancer should be a kind of magical scientist, a Dr.Frankenstein that's creating few, experimental undead abominations and tinkering with them, not raising legions of the living dead. At least in my book.


A major beef I have with the 5e version of animate dead is that there's no way to create an undead mount. Necromancers riding zombie horses or death knights upon skeletal steeds is an iconic bit of fiction and you just can't do it. I could maybe get it if they didn't want people animating dragons, despite being cool a dragon is a pretty strong mount even if it's a zombie, but a warhorse? What about a giant vulture, also an iconic mount for old creepy wizards? Ogres and cyclops, a classic part of zombie hordes when they need a siege monster.

It would've been trivial to make animate dead only work on creatures with a CR of spell slot or lower and apply a simple template based on skeleton or zombie. Like lose all saving throw proficiencies and skills, zombies get con saves, skeletons get dex saves, zombie gets the rule where they're hard to kill and a scaling speed penalty, maybe a minor stat boost, skeletons lose flying, special abilities are lost. Done.


Hell, maybe even make animate dead like moon druids and wildshape, where only necromancy wizards and death clerics get access to the full version and everyone else can only animate basic humanoid skeletons and zombies. Swap out Undead Thralls for a wildshape style blurb about reanimating exotic creatures, like you can spend spellslots to animate a number of undead (apply skeleton or zombie template) with a total CR equal to the level of the spell slot -2, and the spell slot doesn't come back on a rest until the undead are all dead or dismissed so you can't animate a cool army before bed and then throw around lots of spells the day after. Maybe progress it to animate ghoul/wight version of lower CR creatures as well.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would happily trade my 9th level slot for a zombie young black dragon (cr 7 before becoming a zombie) to ride, because dragons are cool. Hell, I'd even have a bunch of ghouls with lances riding skeleton warhorses to go with it. Waste of spell slots? Probably, but it'd be cool.


Yeah. They took away a large part of the core fantasy of being a necromancer.

Other games -- including other versions of D&D! -- not only let you do this stuff, but also make necromancers more balanced to boot.

[Hurrashane]

I can definitely see why Necromancer doesn't see much play and it has nothing to do with mechanics. It's that it doesn't fit. Most games are likely the players playing good or relatively good characters and the necromancer very much isn't that.

Warlocks fulfil a similar narrative niche but they can also be cursed with their power, using their dark gifts for good. Necromancers are harder to work with because at it's core they're a guy who desecrates corpses and creates monsters. It's hard to play a good necromancer.

If/when they do another run at it they should be more like the phantom rogue or spirit bard. Someone who gains power from death, talks to the dead, or otherwise communes with spirits. Allow the zombie/skeleton making be a facet of the subclass but not their whole being.

[JellyPooga]

I can definitely see why Necromancer doesn't see much play and it has nothing to do with mechanics. It's that it doesn't fit. Most games are likely the players playing good or relatively good characters and the necromancer very much isn't that.

Warlocks fulfil a similar narrative niche but they can also be cursed with their power, using their dark gifts for good. Necromancers are harder to work with because at it's core they're a guy who desecrates corpses and creates monsters. It's hard to play a good necromancer.

If/when they do another run at it they should be more like the phantom rogue or spirit bard. Someone who gains power from death, talks to the dead, or otherwise communes with spirits. Allow the zombie/skeleton making be a facet of the subclass but not their whole being.

Don't forget that the Wizard Necromancer should also be a master of anatomy as well as over the powers of life and undeath; that can (should) make them a healer too. That they use a power source that's perceived as sinister (whether or not it actually is, in the game world, is a matter for philosophers), their results should be plain to see. Hiring a very competent, if a bit creepy, surgeon instead of a preachy, holier-than-thou priest could very well be the go-to for the less "Lord Shiny McPaladin and his Mitey Woriers" style of party. The mercenary bands, the pragmatic survivors and so forth might prefer someone equally matter-of-fact. Even if it means putting up with some of his more esoteric supply requests and tolerating his weird assistant.
"I never heard Igor complain about any task he's set to...actually now I think of it, he never talks at all really, just sort of...grunts a bit. And has that gimpy leg of his. Strong as an ox, that guy, mind and never tires, won't hear a word against him. Don't think I've seen him sleep either, which is a bit weird but we all have our battles in the land of dreams and I have trouble sleeping on the road too sometimes. Still, stand up guy, if you ask me. If you don't mind the smell. Man could use a bath..."

That's where I could see Necromancer Wizard fitting in to a core role; the scholarly healer, the experimenter, the mad scientist. Let the artificer tinker with his machines, the Necromancer dabbles in the art of the finest machine known; the living body. They manipulate not only its physical form, but the energies that power it. They would gain bonuses to mundane healing checks, treating disease and poison, as well as learning healing magic (to a lesser degree than Clerics, of course, something more akin to Lay on Hands than just getting Cure spells, perhaps?) and becoming increasingly resistant to such things as they increase in level and experiment with their own physiology (resistant/immune to poison, disease and necrotic damage, less need for food, water and sleep...essentially gaining undead traits over the course of their career). In addition, they would gain superior ability to craft undead servants; not hordes of undead but customisable minions which could be as weird and wonderful or subtle as you desire (to suit your flavour; you want to be Death incarnate riding a flaming skeletal horse, you got it. Want to be Dr.Frankenstein with a zombie Igor manservant? You got it. Want to be JimBob McGillity with his amazing juggling six-armed ogre skeleton that explodes when it takes too much damage? Yeah, whatever, that's cool too). Add in a boost to necromancy spells of some sort (I don't know, bonus damage or life-drain, or whatever) and/or add necromantic effects to non-Necromancy spells (an ability to change damage types to Necrotic or something) and you've got a solid, thematic class.

Just spit-balling off the top of my head, but that's the direction I'd go with it.

[Snowbluff]

I think there are multiple contributing factors that compound on the necromancers issues. I don't think its terribly well designed, sure, but also just one of the core competencies being minionmancy is kind of a limiting factor in a lot of games. A lot of DMs and players simply don't want to deal with a bunch of goons kludging up the field. The basic concept can be difficult to realize without causing other issues, like you can see with a lot of the other summoning spells.

So it doesn't fit the heroic setting for some, it's too poorly designed/doesn't fit the necromancy spells wizard gets for others, is unappealing for the spells it does fit, doesn't fit in the dichotomy of 2024 subclasses, and can cause slowdown problems for the game. I'm not sure if there is another subclass that can have so many issues simultaneously, but I think it it might have hit the tipping point of being too much trouble in too many directions to be a PHB release.

[Grim Portent]

If/when they do another run at it they should be more like the phantom rogue or spirit bard. Someone who gains power from death, talks to the dead, or otherwise communes with spirits. Allow the zombie/skeleton making be a facet of the subclass but not their whole being.

Personally if it was done that way I would never touch the subclass, I'd just skip straight to someone that summons fiends to fill a similar narrative concept, because when I want to be a necromancer it's because I want to be at least a bit evil and push the boundaries of a conventional protagonist. Not that there's currently any good options for making a character based around working with fiends.

Necromancer is for the token evil member of a party, or just a member of an actually evil/evil-side-of-neutral party. The fantasy is supposed to revolve around the embrace of dark and terrible powers for personal gain, the tragic mage driven mad by loss, the acolyte of darkness who allies wth heroes against a greater evil, the cursed soul in tune with the malevolent powers of the underworld.

Encouraging the party to join you in riding dread steeds and fighting side by side with wraiths and wretches is kind of the whole point.



Another thing that makes necromancy kind of meh is that there's no utility value in the undead because of the way the rest of the game works. When travel matters undead horses are useful, when food and water are tracked undead porters are a boon, when you need tools to climb, camp and explore then once again undead porters come in handy. When a baggage train exists undead guards are handy. A lot like mundane hirelings undead suffer from the lack of detail outside of combat, there's no reason to use them for anything except fighting because nothing outside of combat really matters.

[Kane0]

Put the necromancer in the new dmg with the death cleric, 'bad' paladin, etc. Have them be in the optional, 'these are typically antihero characters' section.

Then for the subclass itself let it conglomerate its horde into a bigger, nastier undead minion (eg three skellies to a minotaur skeleton, two for a skeletal horse, etc)

[Snowbluff]

Put the necromancer in the new dmg with the death cleric, 'bad' paladin, etc. Have them be in the optional, 'these are typically antihero characters' section.

Then for the subclass itself let it conglomerate its horde into a bigger, nastier undead minion (eg three skellies to a minotaur skeleton, two for a skeletal horse, etc)

I like this idea. Kind of like the Death Cleric and Oathbreaker paladin, right? :smallsmile:

[Kane0]

Oathbreaker Pally, Death Cleric, Necromancer Wizard, you could fill out a few more from other classes too from ones that didnt make the cut in the PHB.

[OldTrees1]

Oathbreaker Pally, Death Cleric, Necromancer Wizard, you could fill out a few more from other classes too from ones that didnt make the cut in the PHB.

Hmm, should the Enchanter and other evil leaning subclasses go in the DMG too? Or should some evil leaning subclasses remain in the PHB?

[Zevox]

The new UA video talks a little about why Abjuration beat out Necromancy for the UA Playtest. (Link to conversation here. (https://youtu.be/VIJSH0F31VI?si=I5_xw7_0RIxYkzmM&t=2156))

Crawford talks about how the Necromancer (School of Necromancy Wizard) has traditionally done poorly in both "play" and "satisfaction" scores (compared to a class like the Ranger who has struggled with "play" scores but done well with "satisfaction" scores, or Druid who is the opposite).
I'm not even gonna pretend to know how they gauge these metrics; I've certainly never seen any non-playtest surveys to garner players' opinion, and Necromancer hasn't been part of playtest at all recently...

But I can't help but feel... "duh, of course it's not popular; you flubbed the design of the subclass and the support for the playstyle right out of the gate!"
I don't think its lack of popularity in terms of actual use has much to do with the mechanical design, personally. Well, outside of the fact that if it were quite powerful it would draw people who care more about that than anything else, anyway. I think it mostly has to do with its nature: being a Necromancer generally means being an evil character, and in many groups/campaigns that will be a no-go. Further, and perhaps a mistake on their part, they outright discourage people from considering playing a non-evil Necromancer by centralizing the class around Animate Dead specifically, while also noting in the description of the Nercomancy school that only evil casters use that spell frequently. And even if you are allowed to play an evil Necromancer, just wandering around a typical campaign setting flanked by your undead minions is going to create complications that may be quite a problem, which playing any other evil character won't cause just from people looking at you.

It also doesn't help that Necromancy is the school with the least spells to its name in the Player's Handbook, and even with later additions it still has among the least, it just manages to edge out Divination and Illusion. And a lot of its spells either have niche uses or are just weaker for their intended purpose than spells from other schools, too, so that makes it a lot harder to find a reason to play a Necromancer as anything but a character focused on Animate Dead, even before you get into their subclass abilities.

Personally though, I don't think that was a good reason not to include the Necromancer here. It's probably the single most iconic version of a Wizard in all of fantasy, it should be there. It would just need some redesigning, and quite probably new spells to go with that. It should still have bonuses to using Animate Dead, of course, but it needs something else to help give people a clear way to play one that isn't evil, or at least isn't focused heavily around using Animate Dead specifically.

[Kane0]

Hmm, should the Enchanter and other evil leaning subclasses go in the DMG too? Or should some evil leaning subclasses remain in the PHB?

Well you have the assassin rogue and the whole warlock already there, so theres precedent.

But really this is a way to smuggle in more than 4 subclasses for the core set :P

[Psyren]

Hmm, should the Enchanter and other evil leaning subclasses go in the DMG too? Or should some evil leaning subclasses remain in the PHB?

*rolls Dex save to avoid debate*
*Succeeds*


I don't think its lack of popularity in terms of actual use has much to do with the mechanical design, personally. Well, outside of the fact that if it were quite powerful it would draw people who care more about that than anything else, anyway. I think it mostly has to do with its nature: being a Necromancer generally means being an evil character, and in many groups/campaigns that will be a no-go. Further, and perhaps a mistake on their part, they outright discourage people from considering playing a non-evil Necromancer by centralizing the class around Animate Dead specifically, while also noting in the description of the Nercomancy school that only evil casters use that spell frequently. And even if you are allowed to play an evil Necromancer, just wandering around a typical campaign setting flanked by your undead minions is going to create complications that may be quite a problem, which playing any other evil character won't cause just from people looking at you.

It also doesn't help that Necromancy is the school with the least spells to its name in the Player's Handbook, and even with later additions it still has among the least, it just manages to edge out Divination and Illusion. And a lot of its spells either have niche uses or are just weaker for their intended purpose than spells from other schools, too, so that makes it a lot harder to find a reason to play a Necromancer as anything but a character focused on Animate Dead, even before you get into their subclass abilities.

Personally though, I don't think that was a good reason not to include the Necromancer here. It's probably the single most iconic version of a Wizard in all of fantasy, it should be there. It would just need some redesigning, and quite probably new spells to go with that. It should still have bonuses to using Animate Dead, of course, but it needs something else to help give people a clear way to play one that isn't evil, or at least isn't focused heavily around using Animate Dead specifically.

I think you covered this best - it's iconic in fantasy, yes, but for its villainy, which is actually a mark against it.

[Schwann145]

I don't think its lack of popularity in terms of actual use has much to do with the mechanical design, personally. Well, outside of the fact that if it were quite powerful it would draw people who care more about that than anything else, anyway. I think it mostly has to do with its nature: being a Necromancer generally means being an evil character, and in many groups/campaigns that will be a no-go. Further, and perhaps a mistake on their part, they outright discourage people from considering playing a non-evil Necromancer by centralizing the class around Animate Dead specifically, while also noting in the description of the Nercomancy school that only evil casters use that spell frequently. And even if you are allowed to play an evil Necromancer, just wandering around a typical campaign setting flanked by your undead minions is going to create complications that may be quite a problem, which playing any other evil character won't cause just from people looking at you.

-snip-

Personally though, I don't think that was a good reason not to include the Necromancer here. It's probably the single most iconic version of a Wizard in all of fantasy, it should be there. It would just need some redesigning, and quite probably new spells to go with that. It should still have bonuses to using Animate Dead, of course, but it needs something else to help give people a clear way to play one that isn't evil, or at least isn't focused heavily around using Animate Dead specifically.

I've always found the official claim(s) of "it's the evil playstyle" to be inherently problematic and hypocritical.
For one, it's the exact same in-narrative reason one probably shouldn't allow Drow, or Tieflings, or any number of totally acceptable (and very popular) character races, yet they don't get the same scrutiny.
For two, of all the inherently evil things that the D&D spell list allows, animating dead probably doesn't even break into the top 10, yet it's always highlighted as being "always evil."
Enervate? Not evil. Animate? Always evil. ... huh?! And, as Psyren just narrowly dodged, there's the whole, "really? Enchantment gets the 'it's neutral' pass despite the laundry list of absolutely awful and evil things that are inherent to the core playstyle of the school?" argument...

Sure, having undead with you won't be a pleasant experience for any and all involved, corpses and all that... And you're likely to run into narrative-driven cultural issues and you're likely to be an upsetting character...
But upsetting is not the same as evil. Sure, you can easily be an evil necromancer, but the argument that animating the dead is what makes you one is about the weakest argument against it.
It's one of those things I'd love the opportunity to publicly ask any/all of the devs about, frankly (knowing that opportunity will never exist).

[JackPhoenix]

I've always found the official claim(s) of "it's the evil playstyle" to be inherently problematic and hypocritical.
For one, it's the exact same in-narrative reason one probably shouldn't allow Drow, or Tieflings, or any number of totally acceptable (and very popular) character races, yet they don't get the same scrutiny.
For two, of all the inherently evil things that the D&D spell list allows, animating dead probably doesn't even break into the top 10, yet it's always highlighted as being "always evil."
Enervate? Not evil. Animate? Always evil. ... huh?! And, as Psyren just narrowly dodged, there's the whole, "really? Enchantment gets the 'it's neutral' pass despite the laundry list of absolutely awful and evil things that are inherent to the core playstyle of the school?" argument...

Sure, having undead with you won't be a pleasant experience for any and all involved, corpses and all that... And you're likely to run into narrative-driven cultural issues and you're likely to be an upsetting character...
But upsetting is not the same as evil. Sure, you can easily be an evil necromancer, but the argument that animating the dead is what makes you one is about the weakest argument against it.
It's one of those things I'd love the opportunity to publicly ask any/all of the devs about, frankly (knowing that opportunity will never exist).

Don't you know? Drow aren't evil anymore, any reference to that was removed from the game, and tieflings never were, at least not any more than humans.
Creating undead is evil not-good by definition, enchantment may or may not be evil, depending on how you use it. Charm Person (or whatever) may be used to end conflict peacefuly or to manipulate someone, but Animate Dead will always only create undead.

[Hurrashane]

I've always found the official claim(s) of "it's the evil playstyle" to be inherently problematic and hypocritical.
For one, it's the exact same in-narrative reason one probably shouldn't allow Drow, or Tieflings, or any number of totally acceptable (and very popular) character races, yet they don't get the same scrutiny.



It's definitely easier to rationalize "I am a good member of an generally evil people" than it is to rationalize "I am a good person who just so happens to bring with me a horde of monsters that if they were free of my command would tear every living thing asunder."

Same as it's easier when it's like, "Ok, Bob is evil but if he steps out of line we can take him" instead of "Ok, Bob is evil but if he steps out of line we have to not only face a powerful wizard but also his ever increasing horde of undead abominations."

It'd be a step in the right direction to make the things that are animated with animate dead cease to be animated when the caster dies. Then at least they wouldn't be as much of a problem to the populous at large.

[Zevox]

I've always found the official claim(s) of "it's the evil playstyle" to be inherently problematic and hypocritical.
For one, it's the exact same in-narrative reason one probably shouldn't allow Drow, or Tieflings, or any number of totally acceptable (and very popular) character races, yet they don't get the same scrutiny.
For two, of all the inherently evil things that the D&D spell list allows, animating dead probably doesn't even break into the top 10, yet it's always highlighted as being "always evil."
Enervate? Not evil. Animate? Always evil. ... huh?! And, as Psyren just narrowly dodged, there's the whole, "really? Enchantment gets the 'it's neutral' pass despite the laundry list of absolutely awful and evil things that are inherent to the core playstyle of the school?" argument...

Sure, having undead with you won't be a pleasant experience for any and all involved, corpses and all that... And you're likely to run into narrative-driven cultural issues and you're likely to be an upsetting character...
But upsetting is not the same as evil. Sure, you can easily be an evil necromancer, but the argument that animating the dead is what makes you one is about the weakest argument against it.
It's one of those things I'd love the opportunity to publicly ask any/all of the devs about, frankly (knowing that opportunity will never exist).
As long as they insist, as 5E does, that every type of undead Necromancers can create are evil creatures, and the act of creating them is evil, they will either trap the Necromancer as the evil version of the Wizard, or need to find a way to do a Necromancer that isn't focused on creating undead. Personally, I'd like for them to go to mindless undead (Skeletons and Zombies primarily) being Unaligned, like beasts, and the act of creating them potentially culturally problematic, since most cultures still have an emotional attachment to a person's body after death, but not marked as just inherently evil. But they've chosen not to do that.

Re: Enchantment - The thing there is that there are very useful enchantment spells that aren't mind-control style spells. Hold Person/Monster, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Confusion, Sleep. And even with the mind-controly spells, when directed at monsters, or used in self defense, most will have little objection to their use. But you need to rule that undead are handled pretty differently than outlined by default in 5E for a Necromancer who makes significant use of Animate Dead not to be considered evil.

[Segev]

I, personally, would put command undead in as a first level necromancy spell. I would copy animal friendship's mechanics, replacing 'beast' with 'undead,' and adding upcast options to increase the intelligence of the undead it can affect. It would also have some clause for overriding Charm immunity.

I would make the 2nd level necromancer class feature be learning command undead, or another Necromancy spell of their choosing if they already know it. (Same clause on animate dead when learned at sixth level, too.) And the ability to be understood by any undead they have Charmed, so they can issue orders or other social influence on them.

[Damon_Tor]

As long as they insist, as 5E does, that every type of undead Necromancers can create are evil creatures, and the act of creating them is evil, they will either trap the Necromancer as the evil version of the Wizard, or need to find a way to do a Necromancer that isn't focused on creating undead. Personally, I'd like for them to go to mindless undead (Skeletons and Zombies primarily) being Unaligned, like beasts, and the act of creating them potentially culturally problematic, since most cultures still have an emotional attachment to a person's body after death, but not marked as just inherently evil. But they've chosen not to do that.

Re: Enchantment - The thing there is that there are very useful enchantment spells that aren't mind-control style spells. Hold Person/Monster, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Confusion, Sleep. And even with the mind-controly spells, when directed at monsters, or used in self defense, most will have little objection to their use. But you need to rule that undead are handled pretty differently than outlined by default in 5E for a Necromancer who makes significant use of Animate Dead not to be considered evil.

I have a homebrew world set in a sort of a fantasy Judge-Dredd-esque world where order vs chaos is the primary cosmic struggle and good vs evil takes a backseat. Necromancy is common in this world, as labor-past-death is a useful way to settle debts. Necromancy is highly regulated (most dangerous things are) but unlawful use of a corpse is more akin to theft than anything, property crime.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was actually surprised in the earlier UA when Crawford said that Necromancers would be core, once we knew that each class would only get 4 subclasses. Necromancer to me always felt like the last wizard to be core if there was any kind of limitation.
Likewise.

I can definitely see why Necromancer doesn't see much play and it has nothing to do with mechanics. It's that it doesn't fit. Most games are likely the players playing good or relatively good characters and the necromancer very much isn't that. I'll go make some popcorn.

Put the necromancer in the new dmg with the death cleric, 'bad' paladin, etc. Have them be in the optional, 'these are typically antihero characters' section.

Then for the subclass itself let it conglomerate its horde into a bigger, nastier undead minion (eg three skellies to a minotaur skeleton, two for a skeletal horse, etc) Good idea. Again. :smallcool:

[Psyren]

Speaking of "bad paladin", Oathbreaker needs a rework if they plan on keeping it around. It's a bit silly imo for every paladin, regardless of starting Oath/alignment, to all get shunted into one evil-flavored subclass.

"Hey, your tyrannical Conquest Paladin was too nice back there and chose to facilitate cooperation and harmony. So you're a different flavor of evil now."

[titi]

Speaking of "bad paladin", Oathbreaker needs a rework if they plan on keeping it around. It's a bit silly imo for every paladin, regardless of starting Oath/alignment, to all get shunted into one evil-flavored subclass.

"Hey, your tyrannical Conquest Paladin was too nice back there and chose to facilitate cooperation and harmony. So you're a different flavor of evil now."

Oathbreaker isn't oathbreaker.

An Oathbreaker paladin specifically broke his oath to do evil.
You're not evil because you broke your oath, you're evil because you're evil

[Psyren]

Oathbreaker isn't oathbreaker.

An Oathbreaker paladin specifically broke his oath to do evil.
You're not evil because you broke your oath, you're evil because you're evil

So what happens if an evil paladin (Conquest, Vengeance, maybe even a particularly self-centered Glory) breaks their oath then? Nothing?

[Saelethil]

So what happens if an evil paladin (Conquest, Vengeance, maybe even a particularly self-centered Glory) breaks their oath then? Nothing?

I would say it would depend on how they broke their oath. I could easily see a conquest paladin breaking their oath and becoming a redemption/devotion paladin. I also think the PHB or DMG should give guidance so new GM’s don’t pull a BG3 and just say “You broke your oath. I guess you’re into undeath now.”

[Psyren]

I would say it would depend on how they broke their oath. I could easily see a conquest paladin breaking their oath and becoming a redemption/devotion paladin. I also think the PHB or DMG should give guidance so new GM’s don’t pull a BG3 and just say “You broke your oath. I guess you’re into undeath now.”

I would be totally fine with Oathbreaker and Redemption being a fallen pair. In fact, I've been meaning to start a thread discussing Crawford's comments on subclass pairs more generally...

[Snowbluff]

I would be totally fine with Oathbreaker and Redemption being a fallen pair. In fact, I've been meaning to start a thread discussing Crawford's comments on subclass pairs more generally...

Splitting up the paladins into falling pairs would be awesome! Maybe vengeance could fall into redemption... hmmm...

[Zevox]

Oathbreaker isn't oathbreaker.

An Oathbreaker paladin specifically broke his oath to do evil.
You're not evil because you broke your oath, you're evil because you're evil
If that's the case, it needs a new name/concept. Because at that point, the point isn't that it's a Paladin who broke their oath, it's that they're an evil Paladin. Which, yeah, we could use another version or two of, since Conquest is the only evil oath as it stands; but as-is, calling it the Oathbreaker gives the impression it's what a Paladin becomes when they break their oath, and obviously it doesn't work for that.

[Kane0]

Oath of Desecration
Oath of Malice
Oath of Depravity
Oath of Suffering

[Saelethil]

Oath of Desecration
Oath of Malice
Oath of Depravity
Oath of Suffering

All would work but “Oath of Desecration” feels right and hits the edge lord energy that the subclass deserves (in a good way).

[Schwann145]

Used to be Blackguard. Frankly, I can't fathom why they insisted on changing it.

[JackPhoenix]

If that's the case, it needs a new name/concept. Because at that point, the point isn't that it's a Paladin who broke their oath, it's that they're an evil Paladin. Which, yeah, we could use another version or two of, since Conquest is the only evil oath as it stands; but as-is, calling it the Oathbreaker gives the impression it's what a Paladin becomes when they break their oath, and obviously it doesn't work for that.

Oathbreaker isn't just a paladin who broke their oath. That just means you don't get a subclass anymore, and can either atone or switch to a different one. Oathbreaker is a paladin who broke oath, and instead of atoning or swearing another one, decided to be an evil bastard with no rules.

All paladins, including Conquest have tenets they have to keep, Oathbreakers don't. That's what makes them Oathbreakers.

[Psyren]

Oath of Desecration
Oath of Malice
Oath of Depravity
Oath of Suffering


All would work but “Oath of Desecration” feels right and hits the edge lord energy that the subclass deserves (in a good way).

Yeah, I think reworking "Oathbreaker" into its own actual Oath is the way to go.


If that's the case, it needs a new name/concept. Because at that point, the point isn't that it's a Paladin who broke their oath, it's that they're an evil Paladin. Which, yeah, we could use another version or two of, since Conquest is the only evil oath as it stands; but as-is, calling it the Oathbreaker gives the impression it's what a Paladin becomes when they break their oath, and obviously it doesn't work for that.

Exactly.

With that said: Conquest is the overtly evil Oath, but you could have evil versions of several of the others. For example:

An evil Watchers Paladin might be a humanoid-supremacist (or even human-supremacist) - seeking to reject and eject not just fiends from the world, but also celestials, fey, elementals etc - and those tainted by association, like planetouched (aasimar, tieflings, geniekind etc) and feytouched like changelings and hexbloods - or ensure that any who remained are subordinated to humanity and under their control. In short, anything and anyone that might get in the way of humanity charting its own course free of extraplanar politics and influence. Similarly, I could see an evil Glory Paladin could be an enforcer of the privileged elite of their faith, believing and perpetuating the idea that those who succeed in life are those who deserve to, and any apparent systemic or societal inequities are the just punishment of those who either foolishly rejected the "true" doctrine of their chosen faith, or even those who signed up. but simply aren't trying hard enough to lift themselves by their sabaton-straps.

I could see a faith like Zarus or Bane or Laduguer (change humanity to duergar) utilizing paladins like these.



All paladins, including Conquest have tenets they have to keep, Oathbreakers don't. That's what makes them Oathbreakers.

Then why are they still Paladins? Having tenets (that give you power, no less) is the entire point of the class.


Used to be Blackguard. Frankly, I can't fathom why they insisted on changing it.

I can think of... several reasons, but chief among them is that Blackguard has the same problem as Oathbreaker in that it implies a movement in only one direction.

[Schwann145]

Then why are they still Paladins? Having tenets (that give you power, no less) is the entire point of the class.
They're explicitly not still Paladins. They trade all their Paladin Oath features out for Oathbreaker features. The chassis remains because of simple game mechanic considerations (in the same way that a Cleric of the god[ess] of Love looks *nothing* like a Cleric of the god[ess] of War, but they both use the Cleric chassis identically).

I can think of... several reasons, but chief among them is that Blackguard has the same problem as Oathbreaker in that it implies a movement in only one direction.
Well, sure, but that's because "Paladin" isn't Paladin anymore; it's now actually "Oathbound Warrior" but they were too lazy to switch the titles when they published 5e.
So the "evil paladin" option is the direct opposite (give or take) of the Oath of Devotion... because Oath of Devotion is what a "Paladin" is.

[Psyren]

Well, sure, but that's because "Paladin" isn't Paladin anymore; it's now actually "Oathbound Warrior" but they were too lazy to switch the titles when they published 5e.

So the "evil paladin" option is the direct opposite (give or take) of the Oath of Devotion... because Oath of Devotion is what a "Paladin" is.

Ah, this stance explains a lot.

You "Devotion is the only real paladin" people have had 9 years to get used to the idea that other paladin concepts exist.


They're explicitly not still Paladins. They trade all their Paladin Oath features out for Oathbreaker features. The chassis remains because of simple game mechanic considerations (in the same way that a Cleric of the god[ess] of Love looks *nothing* like a Cleric of the god[ess] of War, but they both use the Cleric chassis identically).

Nothing in the subclass entry backs up this claim. Oathbreakers are called paladins repeatedly throughout.

Even if this reading had been correct, that wouldn't have been a level of ludonarrative dissonance I could accept. (Fortunately, I won't have to.)

[Schwann145]

Ah, this stance explains a lot.

You "Devotion is the only real paladin" people have had 9 years to get used to the idea that other paladin concepts exist.

Personally, I actually prefer the "Oathbound" style of the class. I will admit I find it annoying that they didn't change the name though, because it has done nothing but fuel grognard anger and arguments for, basically, no reason. :smalltongue:

But regardless, an "evil paladin" is still an oxymoron as the class, regardless of which Oath it takes, is described in the PHB as such: "Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil."
(Followed by an entire two paragraphs titled: The Cause of Righteousness.)

[Psyren]

Personally, I actually prefer the "Oathbound" style of the class. I will admit I find it annoying that they didn't change the name though, because it has done nothing but fuel grognard anger and arguments for, basically, no reason. :smalltongue:

Avoiding "grognard anger and arguments" is a pointless errand as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad they haven't let the possibility of such hold them back.


But regardless, an "evil paladin" is still an oxymoron as the class, regardless of which Oath it takes, is described in the PHB as such: "Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil."
(Followed by an entire two paragraphs titled: The Cause of Righteousness.)

Even if you stick purely to the 2014 PHB entry, that entry goes on to say that "paladins are rarely of any evil alignment." Rarely != never, in fact it's proof that evil paladins are possible/not an oxymoron.

[Kane0]

Its just the PHB giving the 'default' fluff and generally assuming your average game isnt an evil campaign.

[Unoriginal]

Being an Oathbreaker Paladin doesn't just mean you broke your Oath.

Paladins can break their Oath and get back to it, after the proper "alright, my bad" period. Or break their Oath and switch to a whole different one.

An Oathbreaker is a Paladin who broke their Oath then kept digging, gaining power from the breaking.

They're not "Paladin, but evil", they're the Paladins that evil Paladins don't want to touch with a 10-feet pole.

It's to the point that all Oathbreakers become Death Knights when they die.

[Segev]

Edit to change entirely: I just realized this is a thread on Necromancers after writing a lengthy screed about the paladin debate.

We should probably move the paladin discussion to its own thread.

[Hurrashane]

Poor necromancers, people don't want to play them and now people don't even want to discuss them

[Segev]

Poor necromancers, people don't want to play them and now people don't even want to discuss them

I mean, to be fair, we got off on the tangent because Oathbreaker Paladins do the archetype better, which is a valid reason to say, "poor Necromancers."

To be honest, the 5e animate dead rules don't bug me too much. I do wish we could actually make more kinds of zombies and skeletons than the basic ones; there are some neat ones in the MM that'd be pretty nifty to be able to animate that way.



It gets awfully DM-dependent, but I'd be tempted to go so far as to suggest Necromancers get some ability to make undead who don't already know them and have reason to be hostile based on past interactions start at Friendly. Give Necromancers a feature to let all undead understand them, regardless of languages. (This does not need to be reciprocal, but it would ensure that undead aren't going to fail to be persuaded to obey just on the basis of not understanding the necromancer.)

[Theodoxus]

Been playing Astarion as a necromancer, because vampire spawn undead master, yes please. I didn't realize until I got him to 7th level, that there are additional options for ghouls and flying ghouls at higher levels using the base Animate Dead spell... so, Larian is on board with more options from higher slots.

[Segev]

Been playing Astarion as a necromancer, because vampire spawn undead master, yes please. I didn't realize until I got him to 7th level, that there are additional options for ghouls and flying ghouls at higher levels using the base Animate Dead spell... so, Larian is on board with more options from higher slots.

Could even build it in by saying "This counts as two skeletons or zombies" style billing, because the current upcast only grants more bodies per casting.

It would automatically pull back on the size of the horde as you get stronger minions, too.

[OldTrees1]

Been playing Astarion as a necromancer, because vampire spawn undead master, yes please. I didn't realize until I got him to 7th level, that there are additional options for ghouls and flying ghouls at higher levels using the base Animate Dead spell... so, Larian is on board with more options from higher slots.

Oh, that is clever! This solves both the density and variety goals at the same time.
Talk about 20/20 hindsight. I remember I used to use Rebuke Undead to get diverse undead with higher prices for stronger undead, but I did not consider altering Animate Dead itself beyond skeleton/zombie variants.

The question is which levers to use to balance it.

Increased Body cost (fewer ghouls than skeletons)
Minimum Spell Slot level (ghouls require better spell slots)
Minimum Character level (no ghouls before Nth level)

I suggest modeling it after the summon monster spells and have high spell slots AND higher body cost.
For 5E we could even use the undead CR as a linear estimate of how many bodies to require each undead to cost. (Then playtest it rather than presuming CR would be correct)

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, the way it works in BG3 is it provides options, so, level 3 slot, you get 1 skeleton or zombie (doubled for necromancer specialization). A level 4 slot doubles the skeletons/zombies (2 for standard, 4 for necromancer) or, the option to pick 1 ghoul. A level 5 slot doubles the ghouls, or grants 1 flying ghoul (which looks wicked cool by the way, but the description of 'ranged attacker' doesn't seem to hold up - or at least I didn't see a ranged option on it, so abandoned it for 4 skeletons). I don't know what/if there's an additional option for a 6th level slot.

I'm looking forward to 11th level though, and getting my four skeletons and a mummy from Create Undead, walking around like an undead boss! (might double up on the necromancers in the party, get a true undead horde going on... I turned Shart into an Oathbreaker for even more undead shenanigans.)

[Psyren]

BG3 also lets you find the necronomicon a powerful Thayan necromancy book, and at the end of a long-ish quest chain you can use it to learn the Danse Macabre spell from Xanathar's, which gives you a decent undead army if that's your bag.