D&D 5E "Choice Points", "Background" and "Specialities" Wish List

[DEFCON 1]

I've just got to throw my two coppers in on the matter of "Necromancer".

I think that Necromancer should be a specialty, since D&D has traditionally had both cleric and wizard necromancers. A well-conceived necromancer specialty, along with a few feats to help build up your undead army and so on, is better (IMHO) than making a necromancer wizard tradition.

I would agree with this, with one caveat... that they change the name of the school and the keyword of which the "necromancy" spells are all designated, to something else.

So long as all those spells which deal with life, death, healing, and infliction are called "necromancy" spells... then ipso facto the Wizard Tradition that specializes in them is called a Necromancer. Which has always caused a disconnect in the past, as healing spells for 2nd edition fell within the necromancy school, much to people's confusion.

Let's change the spell keyword from "necromancy" to "biotics", and thus the Tradition can now becomes a Bioticist. A Wizard who specializes in the spells of the life cycle. And thus the 'Necromancer' concept can go back to being open for any classes that deals specifically with the undead.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Why can't necromancer be a wizard tradition? You can have a necromancer wizard, a death cleric, and a necromancer specialty. Done.

healing spells for 2nd edition fell within the necromancy school, much to people's confusion.

It made perfect sense to me. Reversing the process of life and death. Having them as conjurations is much more confusing, in my opinion. What are you conjuring, exactly? When did necromancy become such a dirty word that raise dead can't be called necromancy?

(They were necromantic in 1e too, BTW.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why can't necromancer be a wizard tradition? You can have a necromancer wizard, a death cleric, and a necromancer specialty. Done.
It made perfect sense to me. Reversing the process of life and death. Having them as conjurations is much more confusing, in my opinion. What are you conjuring, exactly? When did necromancy become such a dirty word that raise dead can't be called necromancy?

(They were necromantic in 1e too, BTW.)

The point is that the word 'necromancer' right now has become too geared towards working just with the undead, and not all spells dealing with the life and death cycle. When you say 'necromancer', you are implying a very specific type of individual-- one who doesn't deal with healing people. If you want to get technical... the Lifegiving cleric could be called a Necromancer, because the healing spells have fallen into the necromancy spell school. But does anyone in the game who heals people really want to be called a Necromancer? I think not.

Which is the reason why I think the term for the school of 'necromancy' should be changed to something else. One that potentially implies the entire group of lifegiving spells, deathbringing spells, and undead-bringing spells (like Biotics or Biomancy). That way... those casters who ONLY deal with the undead-bringing aspect can be called Necromancers like they should be and how they have always been treated.

 

[gyor]

Justing being honest, but the name Necromancy is going to stay as is. I just don't see them ingoring tradition on this one. Do see your point however.