Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 9158686" data-attributes="member: 23484">I see the problem of necromancy differently.I agree with Remathilis that 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 <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/necromancer-archetypes-for-pcs.408283/#post-6500291" target="_blank">own rants from years before</a>, 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 9158686, member: 23484"] I see the problem of necromancy differently. I agree with Remathilis that 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 [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/necromancer-archetypes-for-pcs.408283/#post-6500291']own rants from years before[/URL], 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification