Animate Dead balance

[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/showthre...taurs-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.