D&D (2024) A Revised Necromancer Subclass?

[Neonchameleon]

If a person's Necromancer has the same spell load-out as any other caster... that's the player's decision to not stay on theme, not because it's a problem with the class. It's not WotC's job to force players to stay on theme by restricting or shortening spell lists.

If a player just "can't help themselves" and takes Fireball and always uses Fireball (even though they are a Necromancer) because it's the "best 3rd level spell"... then that's the player caring more about optimization than they do playing a character. That's not WotC's fault nor their responsibility to fix.

The problem here is that you are conflating in character and out of character decisions. For a wizard their spell list is largely an in character decision; it's what they have chosen to research. And, assuming that Fireball is the best third level combat spell (there is a good case for this) and that the character routinely goes into life threatening combat, the only reason for a wizard who can learn it to not take Fireball over e.g the more thematic but generally much useful Vampiric Touch is that they are someone so extra that they consider sticking to their theme more of a priority than lowering the risk to their life and the lives of their friends.

For a sorcerer of course their spells are what they get and are frequently not an in character decision. A sorcerer who picks Vampiric Touch over fireball is being played by a player who thinks that it is more of a priority for their character to stay in theme than it is to make the game easier. But they are not risking their own life.

It's not WotC's job to force players to stay on theme. But the theme of the wizard is "I can learn any arcane spells and can change them with little notice" and this directly undermines other thematic casting choices. This is why the wizard should be a subclass of sorcerer, and necromancer should also be a subclass of sorcerer.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That is why we need ONE mage class for full casters with lots of subclasses to bring out themes mechanically.

Depends what you mean by full casters. Wizards should certainly be a subclass of sorcerers - but it would be incredibly hard to bring bards, clerics, and druids under the same banner.

If I was rationalising I'd have the three basics of Fighty (Cleric, contains Druid), Tricksy (Warlock, contains Bard and Pact Magic isn't full casting), and Pure (Sorcerer, contains Wizard)

 

[Neonchameleon]

I feel like the Warlock really needs to drop the Eldritch Blast centric design if it's supposed to encompass very specific tropes like the necromancer. I almost like the warlock as THE summoner while letting someone like the sorcerer be the blaster with EB.

The D&Done one almost has. Pact of the Blade is currently (and should probably remain) the superior combat option, and a Celestial Warlock with True Strike doesn't actually need to spec into either Eldritch Blast or Blade Pact until level 11.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's not WotC's job to force players to stay on theme. But the theme of the wizard is "I can learn any arcane spells and can change them with little notice" and this directly undermines other thematic casting choices. This is why the wizard should be a subclass of sorcerer, and necromancer should also be a subclass of sorcerer.

That's if a player sticks with only what WotC gives them for theme. But any player who cares about playing to theme will and should make up their own restrictions to do so. If (general) you want to play a Necromancer, then play a Necromancer. Don't take Fireball. If playing to theme matters that much to you, then you do it.

But if (general) you make the excuse "Well, WotC is letting me take Fireball as a Wizard so I guess I have to play as a logical player and character and take Fireball because it is mechanically the most effective spell, moreso than any Necromancer spell"... that's (general) your issue. Your problem. Just because WotC's write-up for the Wizard states they can put any spell they want into their spellbook... you as a player do not have to do so. You aren't required to, especially not if you have a theme you wish to play.

But too often I think players are much more concerned about supposedly "playing right" than they are playing their character (and whatever issues, foibles, and disadvantages they might have). And I personally do not feel bad for those players-- that they cannot help but optimize even though they "don't want to" and play to theme. Because as far as I'm concerned... if they "want to" but then don't... they never actually wanted to in the first place. So their complaints ring hollow.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's if a player sticks with only what WotC gives them for theme. But any player who cares about playing to theme will and should make up their own restrictions to do so. If (general) you want to play a Necromancer, then play a Necromancer. Don't take Fireball. If playing to theme matters that much to you, then you do it.pre

So "If you want to play a theme you should make up house rules to do it". Not only is this pretty close to the the Oberoni fallacy, why do you think WotC should make you do this extra immersion breaking step when, as has been shown repeatedly, they have the tools to do it.

But if (general) you make the excuse "Well, WotC is letting me take Fireball as a Wizard so I guess I have to play as a logical player and character and take Fireball because it is mechanically the most effective spell, moreso than any Necromancer spell"... that's (general) your issue. Your problem. Just because WotC's write-up for the Wizard states they can put any spell they want into their spellbook... you as a player do not have to do so. You aren't required to, especially not if you have a theme you wish to play.

Indeed. You can just ignore the rules of the game and any implicit worldbuilding within the rules to go and do your own thing. But if you are going to do that why do you give WotC a single penny?

When WotC presents a theme, that you need to put blinkers onto your PC in order to make them make sense demonstrates nothing more than that they have provided a bad version of the theme. Especially when this is not something that you would need to do for good design.

But too often I think players are much more concerned about supposedly "playing right" than they are playing their character (and whatever issues, foibles, and disadvantages they might have). And I personally do not feel bad for those players-- that they cannot help but optimize even though they "don't want to" and play to theme. Because as far as I'm concerned... if they "want to" but then don't... they never actually wanted to in the first place. So their complaints ring hollow.

You are literally asking me to not roleplay, or to only roleplay suicidal madmen. Of course I'm going to optimise my in character choices. Surviving combat is a literal matter of life and death in character. My character in a game with a significant combat is going to know their tools as well as a soldier knows their kit; their life depends on it. And if they care about their lives they are going to spend far more time than I ever will working out their best choices and strategies, whether making notes in a book or talking and picking up stories. It is not an exaggeration to say there is a good chance their life, the lives of their closes companions, and possibly even the fate of the world may depend on it. And on their ability to push any soft boundaries.

I feel bad for any roleplayers who are so disconnected from their characters that they don't even get deeply enough into the heads of those characters to have them care about things that are likely to keep them alive. Because as far as I'm concerned ... what they are doing isn't roleplaying.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So "If you want to play a theme you should make up house rules to do it". Not only is this pretty close to the the Oberoni fallacy, why do you think WotC should make you do this extra immersion breaking step when, as has been shown repeatedly, they have the tools to do it.

Indeed. You can just ignore the rules of the game and any implicit worldbuilding within the rules to go and do your own thing. But if you are going to do that why do you give WotC a single penny?

So you want to accuse me of the Oberoni fallacy but then decide to use your own fallacy with the whole "If WotC wants me to make up one rule for myself, then I guess I should just make up ALL the rules for myself and not use or pay for WotC's at all". Well, unfortunately I don't find that to be a compelling retort.

Look, you do what you want. If you think it's bad roleplaying not to use every single bit of mechanical advantage WotC gives you even though it doesn't make narrative, story, or personality sense for your character... then fine. Roleplay the mechanics more than your character's personality. Do what's more important to you.

But that doesn't mean WotC is under obligation to assist you with it. And from all accounts, more often that not they DON'T... because they have determined this is your personal issue and not one they feel the need to fix. After all... the millions of D&D players out there have all had their own particular bugaboos about what they found to be important that WotC didn't agree with. So no one's going to get every one of theirs taken care of.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Look, you do what you want. If you think it's bad roleplaying not to use every single bit of mechanical advantage WotC gives you even though it doesn't make narrative, story, or personality sense for your character... then fine.

It is clear that you haven't read and understood the difference I have made between in character and out of character choices.

Roleplay the mechanics more than your character's personality. Do what's more important to you.

The mechanics are how you interface with the game world. To not take the mechanics into account is to play a mad character who doesn't live in their world. Yes I consider not playing a literally insane character unless the insanity is part of their character to be important.

But that doesn't mean WotC is under obligation to assist you with it.

Nevertheless they have put out classes that do actually enable rather than harm roleplaying in this way. Notably the sorcerer and the warlock - which are two of the three classes in the PHB that were created by WotC not TSR. I'm not asking WotC to do anything they don't already do here. I'm just pointing out that the wizard is utterly drenched in its distinctive mechanics and power fantasy.

And from all accounts, more often that not they DON'T... because they have determined this is your personal issue and not one they feel the need to fix.

And yet the classes WotC has added to the game have fixed it. They just haven't fixed it for the necromancer because they've kept it under the Wizard heading.

 

[TwoSix]

But that doesn't mean WotC is under obligation to assist you with it. And from all accounts, more often that not they DON'T... because they have determined this is your personal issue and not one they feel the need to fix. After all... the millions of D&D players out there have all had their own particular bugaboos about what they found to be important that WotC didn't agree with. So no one's going to get every one of theirs taken care of.

To be fair, this entire thread started because Wizards is actually fixing the issue by removing the Necromancer subclass from Wizards.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To be fair, this entire thread started because Wizards is actually fixing the issue by removing the Necromancer subclass from Wizards.

True. Although of course players will still be able to play Necros by just using the 5E14 subclass, so the discussion can still stand and be had.

 

[Neonchameleon]

True. Although of course players will still be able to play Necros by just using the 5E14 subclass, so the discussion can still stand and be had.

But the reason it's being removed is that they don't. Because it's a poor implementation of a niche archetype.