Players really want the Necromancer? (Forked: Non-published concepts you want)

[Jhaelen]

Actually, since there's no longer any magic schools I could do without any of the old specialist wizard classes. There's a lot of different power sources in 4E. It would be prudent to create new classes for new power sources that kill the old specialists and take their stuff.

E.g. I'd expect the psionic power source to eliminate the need for enchanters, beguilers and maybe even illusionists.

Since Necromancers are pretty iconic adversaries and BBEGs, I'd definitely want to have them available as monsters or even better monster templates but I don't see a pressing need for a pc class. If they're done as a PC class, they might use the Shadow power source, I guess.
I'm also indifferent to the name 'Necromancer', though it seems WotC is fond of retaining old class names even if they don't (or no longer) really fit what the class represents.

 

[Steely Dan]

There needs to be a Necromancer class, and an Illusionist class.

I believe those are all but confirmed as Shadow power source classes, I'm thinking the Necromancer will be a Leader and the Illusionist a Controller.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Actually, since there's no longer any magic schools I could do without any of the old specialist wizard classes. There's a lot of different power sources in 4E. It would be prudent to create new classes for new power sources that kill the old specialists and take their stuff.

E.g. I'd expect the psionic power source to eliminate the need for enchanters, beguilers and maybe even illusionists.

Since Necromancers are pretty iconic adversaries and BBEGs, I'd definitely want to have them available as monsters or even better monster templates but I don't see a pressing need for a pc class. If they're done as a PC class, they might use the Shadow power source, I guess.
I'm also indifferent to the name 'Necromancer', though it seems WotC is fond of retaining old class names even if they don't (or no longer) really fit what the class represents.

Actually, I'm hoping 4e will reintroduce necromancy as "Involving the dead" more then "HAH HAH WHO'S GOT YOUR XP? WHOOOOO'S GOT YOUR STATS? JUMP FOR THEM! JUMP!"

 

[delericho]

If the infernal pact Warlock is an acceptable PC, then I see no reason the Necromancer couldn't be.

Additionally, creating an NPC Necromancer will be considerably easier once the PC Necromancer exists - all the requisite powers will be out there, will have assigned levels, and so forth.

 

[Mercule]

I like having gray areas and meaningful moral perspectives in my games. Sometimes, it's interesting to play a character who is clearly not on a virtuous path to explore how he justifies it to himself.

There is also more than one way to interpret necromancy. I was unhappy with the 3e decision to label animate dead as "Evil" because my setting has a priesthood that follows the NG guardian of the dead. This church occasionally has people donate their bodies to the church after their death -- animate dead doesn't trap the soul -- giving many temples a couple of skeletons to do much of the manual labor and cleaning. This church is also a source for the occasionally recalled undead warrior for good.

Sure, the deathless were a later way to fill this role, though I never cared for the definition of undead as "powered by negative energy". The 4e definition of undeath as "powered by the animus" lends itself quite well to the idea of undead that are other than evil.

 

[roguerouge]

You're talking about a game (4E) where you can be a good person even though you have a pact with either Satan's bestest bud or the most utterly ruinous powers from outside the bloody universe! If you don't have a problem with that, I have no clue why you would have a problem with a good Necromancer, especially if he summoned undead beings "out of thin air" or from defeated enemies, rather than defiling friendly bodies.

Agreed on the first part, although one can certainly think that warlocks with those pacts are inherently... oh, let's use the term "problematic" and leave it at that.

But what I'm really interested in is the second issue:

As a DM I've seen three Necromancers played, two were NG, one was NN, back in 2E. All of them were great characters with atypical ethics (I've never gone with this "making mindless undead out of corpses is inherently evil" stupidity - and I was encouraged by source books like The Complete Book of Necromancers that I was right not to).

I'm curious as to how these necromancers handled whether their actions inflicted emotional trauma on the dead person's friends and family members, surely some of whom are innocent and not looking to be BBEGs some day. Or is that where the neutrality comes in?

 

[Particle_Man]

Personally I don't want to ever play a Necromancer. Ewwwwww.

But I must admit that not one, but two players of 3e, have played neutral cleric undead raisers (in fact it was one player's very first character in 3e), so there must be something to that archetype that some players gravitate to.

 

[Boarstorm]

We've got literary precedent for heroic necromancers in Garth Nix's Abhorsen trilogy, even.

Don't forget Gail Z. Martin's Chronicles of the Necromancer.

 

[Krensky]

Ahh, putting the "romancer" back into "necromancer," I see

Ewww....

 

[Kesh]

Really, the problem with the Necromancer is less flavor (as others pointed out, Warlocks have flavor issues that are overcome), and more that it's a "pet" class. There are a few powers in 4e that let you "summon" something for a few rounds, but you don't get to keep them out all the time. That may change when we get the druid, but I'm expecting that they won't have animal companions anymore.

Having a pet class means having more than one character to control in combat, which throws things off a bit. You get more play time, more opportunities in combat, etc. than anyone else. If a Necro can just bring 3 or 4 zombies with him, it gets even worse.

I'd say any 4e Necro will just pull up temporary undead for a few rounds, rather than permanant ones.