D&D (2024) A Revised Necromancer Subclass?

[Kobold Avenger]

I'd personally want a Wizard that deals with spirits of the dead, and shadowy dark/necrotic energy, but that's more of a "Nethermancer" or Shadowcaster (which sort of is covered under Shadow Sorcery).

 

[NaturalZero]

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.

One of the earliest characters i played was a Necromancer wizard. I was literally unable to have even half my spell list be necromancy because the PHB list just does not support it. Not only that, but there's nothing stopping a wizard with a totally different subclass from specializing in that AND having my same core necro spells. The wizard chassis is a sort of vacuous tofu sort of nothing frame for flavor.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not unless you're turning the warlock into a full caster.

The issue with the Necromancer is threefold;

1. There aren't enough necromancer spells, and they are mostly concentrated at levels 3-7.
2. The vast majority of them are evil/icky, and not suitable for certain DMs or groups.
3. The room for white/benign necromancy is swallowed up by clerics.

The first problem can be solved by adding more necromancy spells that fit at low levels, and that broaden a necromancer to being able to fight undead without being forced to be a divine caster. You can solve a lot of problems with an expansion of spell lists with targeted appropriate new spells.

Having a warlock as necromancer mostly deals with issue 1. You've got an undead familiar as a companion, and warlocks not keeping lower level spells means that the gaping weakness here in wizards isn't so much of a problem. (Of course this is making a virtue out of a necessity).

Don't see a problem with issue 3 if we're using a warlock or sorcerer with spell list extensions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One of the earliest characters i played was a Necromancer wizard. I was literally unable to have even half my spell list be necromancy because the PHB list just does not support it. Not only that, but there's nothing stopping a wizard with a totally different subclass from specializing in that AND having my same core necro spells. The wizard chassis is a sort of vacuous tofu sort of nothing frame for flavor.

The wizard chassis would be improved if it was a bland tofu. That's what the sorcerer is, and this allows the sorcerer to put loads of flavour in the subclass. The wizard chassis has the flavour of the Spellbook and "can learn any spell". This flavour goes about as well with many thematic casters as orange juice does with milk, with the two obvious ones being the Necromancer (as discussed) and the Illusionist.

The Illusionist is my third choice of classes for an illusionist behind bards and warlocks; part of this is stat synergy as illusionists should try to convince people that their illusions are real. (By the same token Enchanter should stay with Int; you don't need brute force so much when you have charisma). But more importantly being a wizard locks out the "illusionist who doesn't also have a raft of 'real' spells and is relying on illusions. Wizard specialisations are aesthetic choices rather than character capabilities. And (although it isn't actually necessary) they are barely even aptitudes in most cases; you aren't actually any better at casting spells in your specialisation in about half the schools.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I see the problem of necromancy differently.

I agree with Remathilis that

The issue with the Necromancer is

2. The vast majority of them are evil/icky, and not suitable for certain DMs or groups.
3. The room for white/benign necromancy is swallowed up by clerics.

The solutions to these have been floated and rejected. But, since one can't be a longtime poster on this board without calling up one's own rants from years before, I'll say that:

a. placing all healing magic under necromancy (possibly renamed) would have been an interesting and consistent choice, that removes the automatic taint of evil, but recognizes there is a risk with any investigation in life/death magic. As it is, the school for healing spells was changed, to Abjuration, which I am fine with.

b. introducing a consistent subclass progression, so that cross-class subclasses could become a possible design space, would allow a necromancer subclass that could be taken up by clerics, wizards, sorcerers, or warlocks (or spore druids, wicked bards, broken paladins, whatever). Each would feel different in play, and the subclass could give an undead pet, access to some new spells, and enhanced summons/raided dead followers without prejudice to the base class. As it is, that was floated and rejected, and so the possibility of cross-class subclasses fades away.

I don't really thing there aren't enough spells. I can imagine clerics or wizards (or even other possibilities) both wanting to be necromantic, but it's not going to be part of this game.

I do think we might still get a wizard/necromancer in the DMG (along with other non-heroic subclasses for Paladin and Cleric), but it'll never have the potential it might have had, in my view.

 

[Dausuul]

Necromancers as they stand suffer from a some significant play hassles:

1. Any necromancer worthy of the name commands a horde, not a singular undead servant; but tracking a bunch of undead minions can slow battle to a crawl. On top of that, it presents major balance challenges, where fights swing hard one way or the other depending on whether the enemy has AoEs. If they don't, you overwhelm them with action economy; if they do, all your minions can get blown out in an instant.

2. Raising and replacing your minions requires a steady supply of humanoid corpses, which may be thin on the ground if you're not facing humanoid foes. It also takes a couple days to recover from a wipeout.

3. Because the horde takes a while to build up and has to travel overland, there are a lot of places you can't have your minions (e.g., city adventures). And since they represent a big power investment, that leaves you severely weakened.

4. You don't get to actually do your class's thing until level 5.

Notably, none of these has anything to do with the necromancer subclass -- they are due to the 2014 implementation of Animate Dead. All could be solved with two spells: A level 1 summon that creates some weak but useful minion(s), and a revised Animate Dead that creates a zombie swarm (mechanically a single summon using the swarm rules).

Both should use the same basic format as the other recent summon spells, and they should benefit in some way from the availability of corpses but not strictly require them. Perhaps if you don't have enough corpses, the casting time goes from 1 action to 1 minute as you call ancient dead from deep in the earth. This would go a long way toward easing the play hassles of necromancy, while keeping the essential concept.

Just adding these two spells in the 1D&D PHB would make necromancers much more playable even without a dedicated subclass (not to mention putting warlock, cleric, and sorcerer necromancers on equal footing with wizards).

 

[M_Natas]

It's probably just barely too late to do this in the 2024 PHB, but slapping a "general" tag on a small core of wizard spells and then granting access to the rest via specific subclasses (or good old fashioned killing an enemy wizard and taking their spellbook) could enable specialization and also give the subclasses a lot more personality.

I had that Idea, too.
Like, every wizard can learn all level 1 and level 2 spells, but from level 3 on they need to be specialised in that school of magic. Like, let's say, every wizard can pick one specialisation at level 1 and an additional one when he picks a subclass, and maybe a third one at level 11 or so.
Or we could implement a proficiency for schools of magic system for Casters. Like, without proficiency, you can learn level 1 and 2 spells, with proficiency you can learn level 3 to 6 spells and with expertise level 7 to 9 spells from a school of magic. As a Wizwrd you pick a proficiency of one school of magic at level 1 and you gain an additional proficiency at level 3 and later expertise at level 13?.
You could also use feats to earn proficiency and expertise.

 

[Remathilis]

Having a warlock as necromancer mostly deals with issue 1. You've got an undead familiar as a companion, and warlocks not keeping lower level spells means that the gaping weakness here in wizards isn't so much of a problem. (Of course this is making a virtue out of a necessity).

Don't see a problem with issue 3 if we're using a warlock or sorcerer with spell list extensions.

You can already build a necro-warlock using various supplements. The undeath patron from Van Richten, there is an invocation in Tasha's they gives animate dead, summon undead and shadow are on the warlock list, etc. But the eldritch blasting, two-spell casting doesn't fit the concept of necromancer for everyone. And it still leaves out white/gray necromancy unexplored. Not every necromancer wants to just raise a family in peace, some want to fight the undead.

 

[tetrasodium]

I had that Idea, too.
Like, every wizard can learn all level 1 and level 2 spells, but from level 3 on they need to be specialised in that school of magic. Like, let's say, every wizard can pick one specialisation at level 1 and an additional one when he picks a subclass, and maybe a third one at level 11 or so.
Or we could implement a proficiency for schools of magic system for Casters. Like, without proficiency, you can learn level 1 and 2 spells, with proficiency you can learn level 3 to 6 spells and with expertise level 7 to 9 spells from a school of magic. As a Wizwrd you pick a proficiency of one school of magic at level 1 and you gain an additional proficiency at level 3 and later expertise at level 13?.
You could also use feats to earn proficiency and expertise.

And what else are you going to give them? Wizard is lacking in features like the other casters get because of the not particularly exclusive spell list. Making them into what sounds like the caster with the shortest spell list clashes with that.

 

[M_Natas]

And what else are you going to give them? Wizard is lacking in features like the other casters get because of the not particularly exclusive spell list. Making them into what sounds like the caster with the shortest spell list classes with that.

It would be an overhaul of the whole wizard class. Now that the base design is weaker, the subclasses can make up for it, so the wizard subclass need to be stronger and can get more mechanical and theme fitting powers.
You can have a necromancer wizard, who gains necromancer spells (of course there need to be more of those) and for example an undead familiar and a choice between a frankenstein like big creature pet that he can adapt with different body parts or a zombie/skeleton hord (one stablock like a swarm statblock) that scales with level and then some other necromanctic abilities. Like, I don't know, I'm just spitballing here: For the theme of life and dead a Necromancy Wizards gets 1d8 instead of 1d6, and get healing spells, but in order to use healing spells he has to pay in hit points (or take hit points from a willing donor).
So we weaken the base class of the wizard, make him less versatile with his spell selection and now we have design space in the subclasses to do cool stuff.