| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm playing in a campaign where we have a necromancer as well. It terribly slows down combat and isn't very balanced. Our necromancer was going as hard as he could into having undead, and had something like 15 undead at the table.
We found the answer to be "You can have only 1 combat undead." And it is tempered with allowing him to make a Necrocraft.
You're playing probably still isn't going to like it, but necromancy just isn't balanced and causes a lot of problem at tables.
The Evoker fireballs a bunch of Skeletons. The rest of the party (including a Cleric who is only down a spell or two) kills him.
Also, Burning Bloody Skeletons are an option.
|
It is also good to remember that most towns/cities do not look kindly on undead walking around.
I could see an interesting encounter with an opponent under the affect of the "hide from undead" spell who has innocent people behind him. After the necromancer commands the undead to attack, the undead charge past the opponent, that they can't sense, to start slaying the innocent people. The opponent then hinders the necromancer's ability to deliver his verbal commands, so he can't order the undead to stop.
I think this setup is interesting because the blame for any innocent death should rest on the necromancer's shoulders. Also the party may split their focus between the opponent and their own skeletons.
I think this setup is interesting because the blame for any innocent death should rest on the necromancer's shoulders.
Filthy peasants will probably blame him because they're stupid, but the guy who specifically set this up in order to kill a bunch of innocents is probably who should be blamed.
"Look at this thing I did without your knowledge! It's all your fault somehow, hahahah!"
|
|
The setup doesn't work without the order to attack.
Is it unreasonabe for an opponent that has heard of the PCs to have hide from undead going if he chooses to encounter them. It seems like a good idea to target a cleric with aqueous orb as they have poor reflex saves and it stops the cleric from using verbal spells. So this situation could result as an accident of the NPCs preparations.
In gun control courses they train you to be aware of what is behind your target because while it isn't your intent to miss your target it is your choice to shoot and put bystanders behind your target at risk.
I do not know the characters or players, but a situation like this could make a memorable moment in the game. It is up to the players if they want it to affect their character and it is up to the GM to decide if any NPCs care.
It also relies on the necromancer ordering the undead to attack everything rather than to attack that one guy. Which is sort of a weird order to give in this scenario.
|
Yeah, I'm playing in a campaign where we have a necromancer as well. It terribly slows down combat and isn't very balanced. Our necromancer was going as hard as he could into having undead, and had something like 15 undead at the table.
We found the answer to be "You can have only 1 combat undead." And it is tempered with allowing him to make a Necrocraft.
You're playing probably still isn't going to like it, but necromancy just isn't balanced and causes a lot of problem at tables.
I love the idea of making a Necrocraft to stave off the "you gots 2501 skeletons" garbage.
Well done!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Pathfinder has mob rules, or a mob template. I would use that if someone has a large number of undead. It basically treats them as one creature. That why the player might not feel cheated, and he doesn't hold the game up by taking 20 actions on one turn.
I think Pathfinder has mob rules, or a mob template.
The troop subtype? Some people here had favorable opinions about it.
Personally I love the necrocraft idea, but other players might not want to look into designing their custom creature.
I think Pathfinder has mob rules, or a mob template.The troop subtype? Some people here had favorable opinions about it.
Personally I love the necrocraft idea, but other players might not want to look into designing their custom creature.
Yeah, that is probably what I meant.
|
|
So, I'm DMing for a party with a necromancer cleric. Up until now, he's had three little skeletons following him about which wasn't much trouble to manage. But now he's got animate dead as well as a large supply of corpses to fill his 25HD limit as a level 5 cleric. He's planning on using ten bloody skeletons and 5 regular skeletons, but I'm not quite sure how to balance this properly. I've considered just adding the xp total of the skeletons onto my encounter budgets but I'm worried this will give me some very high AC creatures. Should I really just be throwing lots of low CR monsters at this undead horde or is there a better way? I'm quite new to DMing so there may be a rule for this I'm not aware of, but any help would be appreciated. Many thanks.
For starters, even if he "commands" your NPCs, the NPCs are still yours to control. Anything that isn't a player character is an NPC. The trees, the skeletons, the grass, everything is an NPC if you want it to be.
So, first thing to do is take away the PC control of the animated dead. Yeah, he can create them and explain how they are supposed to function, but they are still NPCs and move by the GM's direction, not the player's.
Even with Command Undead, they are still NPCs controlled by the GM, even if they must follow the PC's orders to the best of their ability. Exactly how every summoned monster and companion animal is supposed to function.
Taking away control like this will be upsetting to the player, but it definitely how they are supposed to function.
Now, as mentioned, the undead are pretty brainless. And on top of that, they don't feel pain or understand fear, so will get themselves into situations where logical, pain-feeling creatures just wouldn't try.
Think supervillian's minions. They "try" to follow orders, but they usually fail. If the player wants undead that can follow orders properly, they need to invest in Intelligent Undead and get some higher HD minions.
As for balance, the above should balance it. I'd create more encounters with easily avoided natural hazards on the battlefield. Unintelligent Undead won't go around, unless ordered to. They're brainless, fearless, and can't feel pain - not a good combination for a minion ordered to attack that creature on the other side of the spiked pit...
Despite being mindless I have never seen undead played as not recognizing obstacles, and having a GM control them wont make time pass that much faster. They won't run into a pit or just walk into a brick wall and not go around it. It is not much different than insects who are also mindless walking on the edge of tables vs going over the side. They know that boundary is there.
|
|
Despite being mindless I have never seen undead played as not recognizing obstacles, and having a GM control them wont make time pass that much faster. They won't run into a pit or just walk into a brick wall and not go around it. It is not much different than insects who are also mindless walking on the edge of tables vs going over the side. They know that boundary is there.
Depends on the creature. Vermin would avoid obviously painful encounters, but they aren't afraid of the unknown and would certainly venture into a hazardous area if they didn't know better.
A skeleton told to attack a creature with a spike pit in between. Mindless creature, if the path around can't result in attacking this turn, they might jump down and climb up the other side. Could also just try to jump over it (on a side note, a skeleton should have a bonus to jump just because they lack the weight of their flesh).
They have no fear of the fall, there isn't any pain, why would they avoid a spikey area? Yeah, if going in the spikey area looks slower, the mindless undead, would take the faster route, but they aren't avoiding areas because they look painful or because they fear what would happen to them if they did.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite being mindless I have never seen undead played as not recognizing obstacles, and having a GM control them wont make time pass that much faster. They won't run into a pit or just walk into a brick wall and not go around it. It is not much different than insects who are also mindless walking on the edge of tables vs going over the side. They know that boundary is there.Depends on the creature. Vermin would avoid obviously painful encounters, but they aren't afraid of the unknown and would certainly venture into a hazardous area if they didn't know better.
A skeleton told to attack a creature with a spike pit in between. Mindless creature, if the path around can't result in attacking this turn, they might jump down and climb up the other side. Could also just try to jump over it (on a side note, a skeleton should have a bonus to jump just because they lack the weight of their flesh).
They have no fear of the fall, there isn't any pain, why would they avoid a spikey area? Yeah, if going in the spikey area looks slower, the mindless undead, would take the faster route, but they aren't avoiding areas because they look painful or because they fear what would happen to them if they did.
The issue with this? The next time the GM throws mindless undead at the party and it doesn't do the same thing you are going to have one very angry player.
It is better to allow the skeletons basic pathfinding capabilities(I do mean basic; they won't avoid AOOs or not walk in the water near sshocker lizards). The worst part is this suggestion could even end up slowing combat even more as the GM must keep checking the player when they try to move a skeleton.
|
|
The issue with this? The next time the GM throws mindless undead at the party and it doesn't do the same thing you are going to have one very angry player.
It is better to allow the skeletons basic pathfinding capabilities(I do mean basic; they won't avoid AOOs or not walk in the water near s
shocker lizards). The worst part is this suggestion could even end up slowing combat even more as the GM must keep checking the player when they try to move a skeleton.
Maybe an issue for you. That's how I'd normally run skeletons. There's a reason most dungeons have skeletons in empty rooms, or in pits, along the road...They are just very lacking minions.
If raising Undead was a thing in real life, the bigger issue would be skeletons jamming up our sewer systems and clogging our hydroelectric dams. They are just remarkably lacking in intelligence, fear, and a concept of pain - a terrible combination for mobile creature.
|
|
The issue with this? The next time the GM throws mindless undead at the party and it doesn't do the same thing you are going to have one very angry player.
It is better to allow the skeletons basic pathfinding capabilities(I do mean basic; they won't avoid AOOs or not walk in the water near s
shocker lizards). The worst part is this suggestion could even end up slowing combat even more as the GM must keep checking the player when they try to move a skeleton.Maybe an issue for you. That's how I'd normally run skeletons. There's a reason most dungeons have skeletons in empty rooms, or in pits, along the road...They are just very lacking minions.
If raising Undead was a thing in real life, the bigger issue would be skeletons jamming up our sewer systems and clogging our hydroelectric dams. They are just remarkably lacking in intelligence, fear, and a concept of pain - a terrible combination for mobile creature.
As I said, it's only an issue if you don't run every skeleton that way. If you do there is no issue at all. But then skeletons become one of the worst creatures to use in the game(from the point of view of the ones who raised them to undeath). *shrugs* But you have as much right to use them that way as anyone does to use them any way.
Now, my question for you is... do you run golems this way too? They are little different in mindset.
Despite being mindless I have never seen undead played as not recognizing obstacles, and having a GM control them wont make time pass that much faster. They won't run into a pit or just walk into a brick wall and not go around it. It is not much different than insects who are also mindless walking on the edge of tables vs going over the side. They know that boundary is there.Depends on the creature. Vermin would avoid obviously painful encounters, but they aren't afraid of the unknown and would certainly venture into a hazardous area if they didn't know better.
A skeleton told to attack a creature with a spike pit in between. Mindless creature, if the path around can't result in attacking this turn, they might jump down and climb up the other side. Could also just try to jump over it (on a side note, a skeleton should have a bonus to jump just because they lack the weight of their flesh).
They have no fear of the fall, there isn't any pain, why would they avoid a spikey area? Yeah, if going in the spikey area looks slower, the mindless undead, would take the faster route, but they aren't avoiding areas because they look painful or because they fear what would happen to them if they did.
The issue with this? The next time the GM throws mindless undead at the party and it doesn't do the same thing you are going to have one very angry player.
It is better to allow the skeletons basic pathfinding capabilities(I do mean basic; they won't avoid AOOs or not walk in the water near s
shocker lizards). The worst part is this suggestion could even end up slowing combat even more as the GM must keep checking the player when they try to move a skeleton.
This is the exact situation I was thinking about. I have never seen a GM run a monster like this.
|
|
As I said, it's only an issue if you don't run every skeleton that way. If you do there is no issue at all. But then skeletons become one of the worst creatures to use in the game(from the point of view of the ones who raised them to undeath). *shrugs* But you have as much right to use them that way as anyone does to use them any way.
Now, my question for you is... do you run golems this way too? They are little different in mindset.
Golems are a bit different, but it is similar. The Golem is usually given orders upon creation. The Orders can be complex or simple, but the typical order is guarding a location.
The Golem will stay near the location, only leaving if guarding requires them to leave the location. The Golem has an understanding of what it means to protect, but no special intelligence beyond that.
If the location they are to protect was planned by the creating wizard (or other class), the golem will likely have the hazards pre-"programmed" into their design. This won't include hazards created AFTER the creation of the Golem, but it would include the traps and other hazards that were originally part of the dungeon/location.
So, in example, golem at the top of a tower, guarding a Vase for some long-deceased wizard that is forgotten by time. If the Golem has AoE attacks, they won't use them around the Vase, because they understand the concept of protecting. They also won't fall or jump off the tower, intentionally, as the ledge represent a hazard from when the Golem was created, but a new crevice in the floor, for example, would be something the Golem would not be able to apply their original orders to. They still wouldn't automatically fall, but they won't consider the crevice as an obstacle when reacting the intruders (attempt to jump over, or jump down it and climb the other side).
And if the players/intruders can figure out what the orders were that the Golem was given, they may even be able to manipulate the Golem by stealing the Vase and threatening to harm it. The Golem may be mindless, but it possesses intelligence enough to consider the best way to accomplish it's orders. And if the Vase were destroyed and the Golem's orders do not account for what to do in case of failure, it would just go into standby, as it waited for relevant orders.
|
|
Anyway, I'm an eccentric. I get really into what the character or creature would do in a given situation. Hence my many threads regarding alignment.
A Golem, being Neutral, is only following orders. They have no issues with player characters provided their orders do not conflict with the players being present.
The Skeletons, on the other hand, are Neutral Evil in pathfinder. They enjoy causing pain, despite being mindless. They would attempt to harm player characters even if it wasn't covered by their orders. They would only tolerate the players if their orders were specific to that.
So a skeleton following orders and a Golem following orders is different. The skeleton will try to inflict damage to the living, within their orders, as much as possible. This is one of the many reasons necromancy is not welcome in most areas.
The Golem only follows the exact orders, never going further or doing less. In this respect, the Golem can be a bigger wild card, as unforeseeable circumstances can make the exact orders become a real disaster.
Skeletons are predictable, which is their main strong point. You tell them to attack a creature that they can't attack, so they'll go attack another creature. They just like causing pain and suffering.
The Golem may be mindless, but it possesses intelligence enough to consider the best way to accomplish it's orders
That's a pretty self contradictory statement...
But I agree with you. I just think you should extend the same line of thinking to skeletons.
While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor.
And surely enough cunning to not walk into walls or directly into an obvious pit, though probably not enough to intentionally avoid an AoO on its way to its target.
|
|
And surely enough cunning to not walk into walls or directly into an obvious pit, though probably not enough to intentionally avoid an AoO on its way to its target.
The walking into walls was not one of my examples or suggestions. I said hazards and obstacles. I'm thinking rivers, lava pits, and so forth. Not things that block the path entirely, but things that a creature with a concept of fear and pain would avoid.
Spiked Pits were one of my examples, and the qualifier is if they couldn't reach their target by going around, they'd go through or attempt to jump over. And even within that, the qualifier was the orders given was a vague "attack that guy" on the other side of the spiked pit.
A player that sends his skeletons to attack the guy on the other side of the lava pit will only have his skeletons fail to jump across the lava and get toasted. It is the player that needs to work on better orders. There's a reason the two suggested orders are ATTACK and FOLLOW. FOLLOW is the smart order when hazards deny a sensible way to accomplish the ATTACK order.
If you ordered the golem to attack like this, it too, would attempt swim in lava...That's why mindless creatures are often given ranged attacks or orders which don't specify a direction they NEED to go. Guarding and following are much easier orders to execute than the attack order, most of the time.
Attacking is a good order option when the target is in a location where attacking is not complicated. And, as mentioned, the Skeletons will attack living creatures without the order being given.
Using a necrocraft is my favorite solution. I've always thought a dedicated necromancer should get an undead companion much in the way of a animal companion. It solves so many issues.
Undead armies really are better for (evil)NPCs or campaigns that use mass combat rules.
Necrocraft is probably the best solution mechanically, but at the same time the swarm of undead is probably a large reason why people are drawn to the necromancer concept in the first place. Being that one guy with the super zombie isn't always a part of the fantasy.
That's why I also like having the troop template as an option, too.
Placing the actual control of the mob in the hands of the GM is the cleanest solution, IMO. Recognizing that there isn't time in a round for the player to individually direct even 3 skeletons is easier when the player can't move the pieces around themselves. That should go a long way towards impressing upon the player the downside of a crowd of fodder vs one or two specialized servants.
They could also do what I did and make a Necrocraft made up exclusively from the murdered corpses of one player's characters. It's not my fault the party never wondered why an arcane caster was taking watch in the middle of the night, or why he carried a wand of silence he never seemed to use.
So how do you all handle making the Necrocraft scale up or do you? I am actually really interested in using one as my Necromancer but they seem a bit lackluster right out of the box.
|
|
Skeletons are smart enough to wield swords and dodge attacks. If it knows how to dodge an incoming blade, it has some sense of self preservation and can avoid a pit.
Sure, it has sense to avoid a pit, BUT, it's bound by your orders. If you give it an order that is easier to accomplish by jumping over the pit, they'll try.
|
|
Getting stuck in the pit is not accomplishing the order.
IMO there would need to be a greater than 2/3rds chance of success from apparent facts for the skeleton to attempt the jump.
So you are saying that the mindless skeleton needs to get out their abacus and calculate the odds of a successful jump?
I do agree, it would need to be reasonably possible to succeed, but I don't think the skeleton is going to get exact about it. If you have an entire horde of skeletons, they'd probably have the result of whoever went first determine if the jump is possible or not. If just the one, I'd say a 5 or 10 foot jump is possible with a running start, while a 15 foot jump is too far for a medium skeleton.
|
|
Anyway, I'm an eccentric. I get really into what the character or creature would do in a given situation. Hence my many threads regarding alignment.
A Golem, being Neutral, is only following orders. They have no issues with player characters provided their orders do not conflict with the players being present.
The Skeletons, on the other hand, are Neutral Evil in pathfinder. They enjoy causing pain, despite being mindless. They would attempt to harm player characters even if it wasn't covered by their orders. They would only tolerate the players if their orders were specific to that.
So a skeleton following orders and a Golem following orders is different. The skeleton will try to inflict damage to the living, within their orders, as much as possible. This is one of the many reasons necromancy is not welcome in most areas.
The Golem only follows the exact orders, never going further or doing less. In this respect, the Golem can be a bigger wild card, as unforeseeable circumstances can make the exact orders become a real disaster.
Skeletons are predictable, which is their main strong point. You tell them to attack a creature that they can't attack, so they'll go attack another creature. They just like causing pain and suffering.
Doesn't sound eccentric to me... I do the same thing. I read a lot of the fluff/alignment/background stuff just for that reason. But as you were describing things that were a little contrary to Paizo's fluff I was wondering how different it was.
For example, a golem is not built with a set of commands. But, it may accept commands which it follows explicitly. They are incapable of complex tactics or strategies. They may only be given simple commands to follow while their master is away.
To clarify, I'm not putting down your way of handling them. Just noting differences and thinking through different ways of doing things.
|
|
We are getting a little off topic though.
So far we have
*Play mindless undead extra stupid
*Limit undead to one creature(troop or necrocraft)
*Throw more good/neutral clerics at the party
Edited to add...
*Apply a time limit to his turn(did not originally have this as all turns should typically have this... if they are typically slow)
Any other ideas or ones I've missed?
A good deity takes notice of a serious upturn in undead actions. They order an agent (or agent of theirs) to investigate the situation:
Don't go overboard, but introduce the player to elements that directly object to their methods. They don't have to be antagonists necesarrily - they can even be a third party to whatever events transpire in the campaign. Don't actively hunt them and don't change elements of your game.
A gaggle of wuss skeletons are little more than a nuisance that helps provide short-lived "tile blockers". As mindless creatures, until such time as he fashions some method of instantaneous communication, they have to be given spoken commands. (This is the main problem with a gaggle o' minions.)
Foes with Cleave and Great Cleave are going to wreck them fast. AoE effects are going to annihilate them swiftly. Foes with Command Undead (feat or spell) can turn his minions against them.
He has to remember to give them orders. They don't act on their own unless attacked. He has to equip them from his share of loot. That adds up very, very quickly.
Once your cleric hits 6th level, (s)he can be running around with two hill giant zombies from animate dead - as many as four if he uses desecrate when animating them. THOSE are worthy of concern as they're packing 12 undead HD, are proficient with their armor and weapons (but not rock throwing, thankfully) and don't smell much worse than they did when alive. A few spells nicely ramps up their combat effectiveness. A zombified dragon is a flying mount with ludicrous speed. Not very agile, but very, very fast.
The nice thing about undead minions is that they absorb damage (about half the time) that likely would have whacked other PCs. It gives the group a longer adventuring day.
They come in handy as porters, able to hold a portable ram (and use it), provide aid checks, perform extremely simple manual labor (dig there) and other fun stuff.
Around 12th level you can look forward to an entire party of adventuring undead if they're of the mind to do so. Mummified barbarians, oh my. :D
Have fun with seeing how player controlled undead works at the table. If it becomes too much, have a conversation with the player and offer "divinely inspired free, instantaneous retraining" to rebuild for something more manageable for the group.