D&D (2024) A Revised Necromancer Subclass?

[tetrasodium]

I think that the problem with necromancer and similar strongly themed wizard subclasses is that they decided wizard would be "spell list the class" & then made sorcerer/warlock "wizard but hot"/"dating the gm".

The wizard chassis doesn't have enough room for necromancer features that feel special. That's exacerbated because there aren't enough wizard exclusive spells for it to matter even if it makes necromancer type spells more acceptable or more noteworthy. That wasn't helped by spending the last decade just accepting Internet wisdom carried over from 3.x blaming wizard for sorcerer and warlock excess while working to bring sorcerer and warlock up to that fictional level

Sorcerer is devoting too much to be "wizard but hot" to fit it without destroying the power scale. That's made worse because it already has the vast majority of wizard spells so it doesn't feel too special getting access to animate dead type spells too.

Warlock could have replaced agonizing repelling blast the bladelock thing or pact magic with cool necromancer type abilities that matter but all of those are trying to be top shelf on the power scale or better across nearly all levels and there is no easy way to do fit those kinds of things.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because the premise of the thread is how WotC can improve the Necromancer wizard subclass for the D&D 2024 edition through feasible, practical solutions rather than just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Your "best solution" jumps the sharks, IMHO, because it jumps from diagnosing the problem to an incredibly implausible solution that makes the wizard subclass into a sorcerer one. There's no snowball's chance in the Nine Hells that WotC will even consider that to be a solution.

I disagree - and I have explicitly pointed out both the Undead Warlock and the Dread Necromancer as times when WotC have done things similar to what you say they won't. Meanwhile I've pointed out why the wizard is the wrong class. You haven't given a single reason that that's inaccurate. Merely that your reading of the tea leaves says WotC won't do it when they have done similar things in the past.

And even if it's not a solution WotC will use due to tradition being more important than being good doesn't mean that the solution space shouldn't be explored to see if at least some of the very real and clear benefits of the necromancer being a sorcerer not a wizard can somehow be ported back to the wizard. Your entire objection amounts to "Only thoughts inside the box should even be discussed".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Different take:
necromancer just is no fit for most heroic adventurer parties. At least if they animate corpses. It is not diablo. Wizards of the school of necromancy would be closer to a diviner in a D&D game: summoning and questioning spirits. Maybe also manipulating life energy. Bolster people with false life etc.

True necromancers that manipulate corpses are better reserved for a cleric or artificer subclass or even a whole new class.

Maybe the artificer might be the best fit. With only half spellcasting and a focus of divine and arcane creations, artificers could easily fill the role.

The battlesmith is a bit too combat oriented. But something between alchemist and battlesmith might fit well enough.

 

[Aldarc]

Your entire objection amounts to "Only thoughts inside the box should even be discussed".

Yes, and? That is the point of the thread. I purposefully made this thread so it's not about how I would make the necromancer in an ideal scenario or whether it would be better as a subclass for another class or as its own class. It's about practical, feasible solutions for the necromancer wizard subclass so that it's brought up to par with the other wizard spell tradition-based subclasses. Yes, I am asking you to think in the box for the purposes of this thread.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

A few ideas:

1) Inured to Death: +1 HP per level, AC is 12+Dex, resistance to Poison and Necrotic

6) Unlife finds a way. Spells that only affect humanoid can affect Undeads and you ignore Poison and Necrotic resistance
Friendly undeads within 30 add +PB to hit and damage.

10) Taint the Lifestream: As a reaction when an enemy within 60 ft would regain HP, the target regains no HP and must make a Con save of take the same amount he would have regained as Poison damage and get the poisoned condition for 1 minute. Once per short rest.

14) Undying Reprisal. When you are making death saves, a spectral apparation of yourself appears over your body. The apparition cant be attacked and dont take any damage. The apparition cant move but can otherwise take the Magic action on your turn. The apparition disappears when you die or become stable.

 

[Gorck]

In a recent video, Jeremy Crawford revealed that the Necromancer subclass not only received low satisfaction ratings for its mechanics but also that the subclass does not get played much, suggesting deeper problems with the subclass. This is one reason why the Necromancer subclass won't be included in the new PHB. So what would make the Necromancer worth playing? What are some practical, feasible solutions for improving the Necromancer subclass to boost its popularity and satisfaction levels?

What concerns me is that WotC saw that the Necromancer subclass doesn't get played much and concluded that the player base wasn't interested in playing Necromancers, rather than concluding that the subclass was poorly implemented and, perhaps, a better implemented Necromancer might actually see some use.

 

[Cadence]

I played my first necromance ever last year in 13th Age. I wonder if it was a bit more like a summoner than a classic D&D one - calling dead things up where-ever they were needed. I used lots of skeletal minion class feature, death's gauntlet, and summon undead - and summon undead could really change the focus of a combat when you had 2-4 things show up to help. Definitely enjoyed it... and maybe it has some ideas hidden in it.

Necromancer – 13th Age SRD

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, and? That is the point of the thread. I purposefully made this thread so it's not about how I would make the necromancer in an ideal scenario or whether it would be better as a subclass for another class or as its own class. It's about practical, feasible solutions for the necromancer wizard subclass so that it's brought up to par with the other wizard spell tradition-based subclasses. Yes, I am asking you to think in the box for the purposes of this thread.

And what I offered was practical and feasible and even relatively straightfoward. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit one of your then-unstated assumptions.

If you want to do it your way you have to start by fixing the school of necromancy being a half-school. You need to add spells. Remember there are no fifth level necromancy spells wizards can cast in the entire PHB. There are only two fourth level necromancy spells in the entire game - and Shadow of Moil is Warlock-exclusive. And you've basically no out of combat utility in Necromancy until you get third level spells. You've a zap cantrip, combat debuffs, and False Life for temp hp as a wizard ... and that's it. Even when you look in Xanathar's and Tasha's.

This means that at a bare minimum to fix the Necromancer if we arbitrarily have to keep them in the wizard class we need to create two utility first level spells, two utility second level spells, and two fourth level spells, all within the school of necromancy, all of which have to be entirely new to D&D 5e (plus to pull in some fifth level spells from Xanathar's). Or we can do things my actually practical and feasable way that doesn't require a necromancy supplement - and allow the Necromancer sorcerer to have spells like an Unseen Servant variant that uses spirits that doesn't clog up the page count to produce an almost duplicate effect.

So we have a bad subclass based on a school that is not fit for purpose and you want us to think inside the box. If the box contained the answers Crawford would have managed it.

 

[Aldarc]

What concerns me is that WotC saw that the Necromancer subclass doesn't get played much and concluded that the player base wasn't interested in playing Necromancers, rather than concluding that the subclass was poorly implemented and, perhaps, a better implemented Necromancer might actually see some use.

That's kinda what this thread is about: What would a better implemented Necromancer wizard subclass look like?

Necromancer doesn't get played much probably because most players still see it as an "evil" character subclass. And there's no way most tables will try and reconcile that. They'll just leave the subclass by the wayside.

Now if you changed the name of the subclass to 'Biomancer' or 'Animancer' and really made it about the circle of life and death, you might get more play on it. But 'Necromancers' are just really bad people as far as most players are concerned, and they aren't going to play them. They're villains, not PCs. And no amount of mechanical benefits will change that.

I'm not entirely sure that this assumption squares with the necromancer's relative popularity in a wide breath of video games where they exist as heroic or protagonistic characters: e.g., Diablo 2-4, Guild Wars 1-2, Elder Scrolls Online, Path of Exile, etc. I have seen a fair number of players express interest in the Necromancer over the past 20 some years. However, many were kind of underwhelmed by it in D&D, especially when compared to some of the aforementioned video games. My own bias leans more towards a gap between the D&D Necro and the Pop Culture Necro rather than it being perceived as a villain option. (Though maybe this is also generational.)

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Under Thralls should be implemented a horde, which grows in power as a Necromancer levels up. So maybe at the beginning it's 1 skeleton, but at high levels it's a Gargantuan Horde of skeletons. And maybe while they're at it have the thralls be a choice of skeletons, zombies or ghosts, with maybe Zombies being the toughest in terms of hp, Ghosts having the least hp and damage but the most control/mobility.