So as I'm rolling a necromancer, I remember a thing I read back when I made one a while back: You can make an argument that you can equip your undead based on the pictures having pieces of armor and carrying bows and swords.
Was wondering if there was ever an official ruling on this or even just your personal take on the situation?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
I'd argue that it is entirely possible. The main issue I see is that the monster manual does not present equipment proficiencies the undead creatures might have, so pretty much anything they are given would need to be treated as if they do not have proficiency in it, with all the correlated downsides. I do not believe that an undead creature (in the sense of mindless reanimated corpse) would retain the knowledge and training of their former life.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
It's like mounts and barding. If you look at the Warhorse, it technically doesn't have proficiency in armor.
It's all GM fiat.
By the logic that they aren't proficient with weapons and armor why does a Skeleton have proficiency in shortbow and shortsword? Because the MM says so, and it doesn't care about listing off every possibility.
If your GM is on board with player's playing Necromancer Barbie's Malibu Dream Horde, then if you guy the weapons and armor they can wear them. That said there is no "rule" they are proficient in anything not on the sheet, but that gets kinda dumb.
If your GM is on board with player's playing Necromancer Barbie's Malibu Dream Horde, then if you guy the weapons and armor they can wear them. That said there is no "rule" they are proficient in anything not on the sheet, but that gets kinda dumb.
The Monster Manual does say monsters are proficient with the equipment their stat block gives them. Anything beyond that is up to the DM.
That said, the repercussions for not being proficient with a weapon are much more mild than not being proficient with armor, and giving a ton of expendable minions good weapons can still be very effective whether they're proficient or not.
That doesn't discount what I said. I said there is no rule saying they are not proficient with things not listed, the rule says they are considered proficient with anything listed.
Because yes, the Monster Manual says they are proficient with any equipment in their stat block, but monsters are also up to GM fiat.
If the GM arms a skeleton with a great sword, is the player going to argue the skeleton doesn't get +2 to hit for proficiency? So that attack wouldn't hit their AC? Because the Monster's Manual, therefore RAW, doesn't say it's proficient in great swords.
p11 of MM under Equipment says that you can equipment them with additional gear. by RAW a Skeleton is proficient with armor scraps, sword sword and short bows. Can a skeleton wield a longsword? rapier? great club? crossbow? chain shirt? Where do you draw the line other then to say assume they are proficient in any equipment given to them.
Is an Orc only proficient in Great Axe and Javelin because that's what's on the standard block? Does it not get it's proficiency if it's wielding a mace? That's also GM fiat.
That doesn't discount what I said. I said there is no rule saying they are not proficient with things not listed, the rule says they are considered proficient with anything listed.
It's like mounts and barding. If you look at the Warhorse, it technically doesn't have proficiency in armor.
It's all GM fiat.
By the logic that they aren't proficient with weapons and armor why does a Skeleton have proficiency in shortbow and shortsword? Because the MM says so, and it doesn't care about listing off every possibility.
If your GM is on board with player's playing Necromancer Barbie's Malibu Dream Horde, then if you guy the weapons and armor they can wear them. That said there is no "rule" they are proficient in anything not on the sheet, but that gets kinda dumb.
I nearly lost it at Necromancer Barbie's Malibu Dream Horde XD
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
Obviously up to the DM, but in the description of the skeleton
A skeleton can fight with weapons and wear armor, can load and fire a catapult or trebuchet, scale a siege ladder, form a shield wall, or dump boiling oil. However, it must receive careful instructions explaining how such tasks are accomplished.
And the description of zombies
A zombie armed with a weapon uses it, but the zombie won’t retrieve a dropped weapon or other tool until told to do so.
So you could fairly easily rule that yes they can use stuff but maybe some logic restrictions? Perhaps a zombie can’t understand the complexity of ranged weapons. It takes a day of training to give skeletons proficiency, but the only heavy armor you could use on it is Ring mail as it doesn’t meet the required strength for the others and due to it’s 14 in dex the medium armor half plate would be best.
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. If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures. Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete.
I think this covers giving orders. I don't think there should be misinterpretation. It's magical/telepathic communication.
I agree with Jlwolf2. I wouldn't let a Zombie change the damage die of a Zombie. Slam deals 1d6+1, I'd let them "wield" an axe to change bludgeoning to slashing or something else for piercing. I do like the idea of Skeleton being able to reasonable complex tasks, but would need constant Bonus Actions every turn to adapt to any change in the environment. Like, you could tell a group of skeletons or zombies to turn a grinding wheel and make flour with a single command. They will keep turning that wheel even if it's not connected to anything, until told not to.
With Eberron coming back I look forward to remaking my favorite warforged, based on the Dustmen of Planescape. He's a Necromancer, upset at being treated as property for so long. He buys the dead bodies of people and puts them to work as labor, for profit. He has a company: IBM (Infernal Business Machines).
I don't know about it being official, but me and my friend found an item that lets us cast Animate Dead spell, we noticed that the zombies have 13 STR, we gave the Zombie Chain Mail because his STR is high enough and the effects that you get when you aren't proficient with armor don't effect undead very much, we ended up boosting his AC a bunch, and we just send him in first.
Could a necromancer’s undead army use items like healer’s kit, catapult, or pitons? Like, would it be possible for a necromancer to give items like those to some zombies or skeletons, then let them stable other knock downed teammate, toss down traps, and set up climbing routes while battling?
I realize this is a slightly older thread, but my new party has the first necromancer I've had to dm, so I've been giving this some thought recently, and I think I have something worth weighing in on.
In all my games magic can accomplish any task. So, you could in theory make modifications to the spell that gives you weapon/armor proficient zoomies or skullbois. I'm going to let the player work this out on their own, and make some rolls and spend some resources figuring it out, but I'll permit two things.
First, a thrall will be proficient with the weapons and armor it's raised with. Tools and kits were also asked about, by default, no.
Second, a thrall could be made proficient with additional gear, given a suitable extra material component added to the spell to imbue that corpse with the additional proficiencies. And at the very least, the first time the player casts this version of the spell they'll need to make a skill check. If they roll low the magic could go awry since this is not the usual way the spell is cast and it could have side effects. That's the usual way I rule the fact that magic can do anything, push it outside its typical constraints, and it can cause problems.
The monster manual does state that the skeletons act in ways their previous self lived. A miner will mine, a guard will patrol. Until something living shows itself to be killed. This should extend to their proficiencies. What they used in life they can use as long as the stats fit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So as I'm rolling a necromancer, I remember a thing I read back when I made one a while back: You can make an argument that you can equip your undead based on the pictures having pieces of armor and carrying bows and swords.
Was wondering if there was ever an official ruling on this or even just your personal take on the situation?
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
I'd argue that it is entirely possible.
The main issue I see is that the monster manual does not present equipment proficiencies the undead creatures might have, so pretty much anything they are given would need to be treated as if they do not have proficiency in it, with all the correlated downsides. I do not believe that an undead creature (in the sense of mindless reanimated corpse) would retain the knowledge and training of their former life.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
It's like mounts and barding. If you look at the Warhorse, it technically doesn't have proficiency in armor.
It's all GM fiat.
By the logic that they aren't proficient with weapons and armor why does a Skeleton have proficiency in shortbow and shortsword? Because the MM says so, and it doesn't care about listing off every possibility.
If your GM is on board with player's playing Necromancer Barbie's Malibu Dream Horde, then if you guy the weapons and armor they can wear them. That said there is no "rule" they are proficient in anything not on the sheet, but that gets kinda dumb.
The Monster Manual does say monsters are proficient with the equipment their stat block gives them. Anything beyond that is up to the DM.
That said, the repercussions for not being proficient with a weapon are much more mild than not being proficient with armor, and giving a ton of expendable minions good weapons can still be very effective whether they're proficient or not.
That doesn't discount what I said. I said there is no rule saying they are not proficient with things not listed, the rule says they are considered proficient with anything listed.
Because yes, the Monster Manual says they are proficient with any equipment in their stat block, but monsters are also up to GM fiat.
If the GM arms a skeleton with a great sword, is the player going to argue the skeleton doesn't get +2 to hit for proficiency? So that attack wouldn't hit their AC? Because the Monster's Manual, therefore RAW, doesn't say it's proficient in great swords.
p11 of MM under Equipment says that you can equipment them with additional gear.
by RAW a Skeleton is proficient with armor scraps, sword sword and short bows.
Can a skeleton wield a longsword? rapier? great club? crossbow? chain shirt? Where do you draw the line other then to say assume they are proficient in any equipment given to them.
Is an Orc only proficient in Great Axe and Javelin because that's what's on the standard block? Does it not get it's proficiency if it's wielding a mace? That's also GM fiat.
Sorry, I read that sentence too fast.
I nearly lost it at Necromancer Barbie's Malibu Dream Horde XD
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
Obviously up to the DM, but in the description of the skeleton
A skeleton can fight with weapons and wear armor, can load and fire a catapult or trebuchet, scale a siege ladder, form a shield wall, or dump boiling oil. However, it must receive careful instructions explaining how such tasks are accomplished.
And the description of zombies
A zombie armed with a weapon uses it, but the zombie won’t retrieve a dropped weapon or other tool until told to do so.
So you could fairly easily rule that yes they can use stuff but maybe some logic restrictions? Perhaps a zombie can’t understand the complexity of ranged weapons. It takes a day of training to give skeletons proficiency, but the only heavy armor you could use on it is Ring mail as it doesn’t meet the required strength for the others and due to it’s 14 in dex the medium armor half plate would be best.
I think this covers giving orders. I don't think there should be misinterpretation. It's magical/telepathic communication.
I agree with Jlwolf2. I wouldn't let a Zombie change the damage die of a Zombie. Slam deals 1d6+1, I'd let them "wield" an axe to change bludgeoning to slashing or something else for piercing.
I do like the idea of Skeleton being able to reasonable complex tasks, but would need constant Bonus Actions every turn to adapt to any change in the environment.
Like, you could tell a group of skeletons or zombies to turn a grinding wheel and make flour with a single command. They will keep turning that wheel even if it's not connected to anything, until told not to.
With Eberron coming back I look forward to remaking my favorite warforged, based on the Dustmen of Planescape. He's a Necromancer, upset at being treated as property for so long. He buys the dead bodies of people and puts them to work as labor, for profit. He has a company: IBM (Infernal Business Machines).
I don't know about it being official, but me and my friend found an item that lets us cast Animate Dead spell, we noticed that the zombies have 13 STR, we gave the Zombie Chain Mail because his STR is high enough and the effects that you get when you aren't proficient with armor don't effect undead very much, we ended up boosting his AC a bunch, and we just send him in first.
Could a necromancer’s undead army use items like healer’s kit, catapult, or pitons? Like, would it be possible for a necromancer to give items like those to some zombies or skeletons, then let them stable other knock downed teammate, toss down traps, and set up climbing routes while battling?
I realize this is a slightly older thread, but my new party has the first necromancer I've had to dm, so I've been giving this some thought recently, and I think I have something worth weighing in on.
In all my games magic can accomplish any task. So, you could in theory make modifications to the spell that gives you weapon/armor proficient zoomies or skullbois. I'm going to let the player work this out on their own, and make some rolls and spend some resources figuring it out, but I'll permit two things.
First, a thrall will be proficient with the weapons and armor it's raised with. Tools and kits were also asked about, by default, no.
Second, a thrall could be made proficient with additional gear, given a suitable extra material component added to the spell to imbue that corpse with the additional proficiencies. And at the very least, the first time the player casts this version of the spell they'll need to make a skill check. If they roll low the magic could go awry since this is not the usual way the spell is cast and it could have side effects. That's the usual way I rule the fact that magic can do anything, push it outside its typical constraints, and it can cause problems.
The monster manual does state that the skeletons act in ways their previous self lived. A miner will mine, a guard will patrol. Until something living shows itself to be killed. This should extend to their proficiencies. What they used in life they can use as long as the stats fit.