Design & Development - Necromancy & Nethermancy

[Aegeri]

1) you don´t have the full picture

No, but I know enough that only negating resistance at level 10 for a specialized damage type is silly.

2) a normal wizard can use those powers too

Which is why there should be a nice, simple feat anyone can take to negate necrotic resistance. Otherwise we end up with an entire book of substandard powers for anyone outside of nethermancer/necromancer - for no reason.

3) who hoo action sink... as if a wizard does a lot with its move actions... he can sit around at range

Yes, the Wizard that is dead in my Eberron game and the one in my DS game on 1 healing surge totally agrees with this (not). Not to mention daily powers that require sustain minor (or other actions) to maintain.

Action economy for leaders and controllers is vital.

5) you dont know what the first level feature is

We know the resistance negation occurs at level 10 - that's the key one.

6) some people would complain that if necrotic resist solutuion is tied to the mage, there would be an equal amount of complains

There are very few complaints actually about the Pyromancers ignoring of fire resistance. Quite frankly, people prefer their characters not to suck more than other peoples sensibilities. The other thing is that fire has feat support anyone can take to make it viable. That's such a huge point it cannot be emphasized more.

7) just ignore necrotic resist... easiest thing... no feature needed in cb at all

I don't mind a bit of resistance, but when it's everywhere I would expect that specialist PCs - SPECIALIST - PCs or people who would like to use it for fluff/flavor reasons should have options for dealing with it.

You have still given not one coherent reason or argument as to why necrotic should be a special snowflake of damage types, not getting basic features everyone else enjoys. If I play a fire wizard I have great options - even before considering pyromancer. I go all radiant? Great options. I go for cold? Great options. I go for lightning? Great options. According to you I go for the worst damage type in the game due to its immense wide array of resistant monsters - so I do not *deserve* features that other damage types get. Often for less cost.

That's just daft.

10) thank you people at wizards. great design.

It's not great design. It's poor design to have the second most heavily punished damage type in the game, which is widely regarded as highly useless and then further punish it by not giving the options that make other damage types great/viable. There is no reason - based on any sound design in 4E terms - not to just give them an ignore necrotic resistance mechanic from level 1.

Personally if there isn't a feat that outright negates necrotic resistance in the book then that is just a tragedy.

9) i guess wizards should just stop communication... seems like wasted resources.... there is no one who thanks them for it

I wanted to address this last because it's rather laughable actually. I can remember that I was endlessly excited about Dark Sun last year. Every piece of information on the setting I devoured - absolutely devoured. The new mechanical crunch sounded great, looked great and seemed like fantastic additions to the game. I loved the previews of the new monsters from MM3 - it got me excited about DnD when I was getting a bit ground down by 3 hour prep times at epic. In fact, I've liked nearly all of the previews except maybe PHB3 - but psionics redeemed itself to me with psionic power anyway.

The point is that right now, I don't like what I'm seeing and hearing that much. I don't like that we've abandoned good design principles to go backwards into pure silly territory. No, it's not okay to arbitrarily punish player choices because of someones sensibilities. It's not good design. It never will be good design. If other classes get basic features that let them function from the get go - we have to ask ourselves "Why does this not deserve them?". In this case we're talking about the second most resisted damage type in the game (the first would be poison if you're wondering). Why punish it?

You know I like the idea of undead specific riders - but I hate the mechanics they are throwing at dart boards hoping something sticks. I actually like the at-will power - but the problem is that if you can't deal with the damage type all your powers do these powers are considerably weaker than they deserve to be. Nothing is imbalanced about a power that gives a specific narrow range of enemies a vulnerability on a hit. It's just a neat and flavorful thing - but you don't have to punish it by ensuring they can't easily penetrate necrotic resistance. In addition if you're not a necromancer/nethermancer, why bother with these powers if there isn't a feat/support to negate the resistance? I mean if there is one all you'll see is every nethermancer/necromancer take it and dump it at level 10.

We do not need 4E to turn into a game full of trap options that require system mastery to overcome. We don't need a player to understand that they should take a necrotic negating feat at level 1, then retrain it at level 10 just to get around something their class should have been doing from the start. If we don't have those necrotic negating feats, then boo-hoo to everyone else who needs to use necrotic damage eh?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

One coherent reason:

I like it. I believe it is great design. I believe it more intersting this way. I believe, if everyone ignores necrotic resistance, better leave it out at all. I want to thank WotC for designing different type of characters, that are not.

"Hey we have a pyromancer and now want a necromancer" - "dude, it is just another ...mancer, just take the pyro thing use search and replace every instance of ire with necrotic"

If you want that, make it up yourself. Easiest thing to do with reflavouring.

To trap options:
there have always been "trap" options:
(riders on OA --- but my DM never provokes them etc.)

To stop communication:
Even if you liked Dark sun, there were so many Ampersand articles that made the community cry out loud. So many previews, that made the community outrage, just because they did not see the whole picture... this is not the first instance.
You could blame WotC for releasing only partial information. But I believe the problem lies in people having different opinions about what a preview is. And I believe it is a hopeless cause for WotC to try and make all people happy. You can´t.

And then people come and want to tell other people that the design decision is terrible. Instead of saying that "they personally don´t like it because they believe something"

This is exactly what made 4e´s start so terrible: miscommunication and misinterpretation of previews. And in my opinion this was what made some rules worse than they could have been. Because there was too much effort in making it fool(powergamer)proof. (Do you remember the preview paladin preferred tactics?)

 

[Walking Dad]

...

It is like the complaint that it isn't fair that a fighter focussed on brawling isn't any good against flying opponents. ...

Buy him a magical heavy thrown weapon. Suddenly he can attack flying monsters, using his primary ability. Did the same for my warlord and it worked.

The complaint is better directed at the Ardent (only melee, low dex and str).

...
"Hey we have a pyromancer and now want a necromancer" - "dude, it is just another ...mancer, just take the pyro thing use search and replace every instance of ire with necrotic"

If you want that, make it up yourself. Easiest thing to do with reflavouring.

...

I would really liked they would have done this as an official option. Right now they had 1 article about reflavoring and they didn't changed a single mechanic for it.
Currently it is legally impossible to make a pyromancer a cyromancer. Encounters doesn't allows it, nor the living worlds on EN World. Not everyone can meet with a closed group so they just can make things up. And that should never be the 'official' solution for a missing rule.

 

[Aegeri]

I believe, if everyone ignores necrotic resistance, better leave it out at all.

Characters who rely on specific damage types need to account for resistance - this is a basic and sound design principle. Otherwise such characters and options become sub par - for absolutely no good reason. Necrotic needs ways of negating resistance or it is an option not worth taking over other options.

And again, you still have yet to provide a sound design reason for necrotic being a special snowflake that deserves to be unfairly punished - especially compared to other damage types. You have no logic here beyond "I feel they don't deserve options everyone else can take, despite needing these options MORE than the other damage types that already get them". Your argument simply isn't based on any good design principle in the context of 4E - which is that generally speaking, all characters should be reasonably balanced and effective at what they do. If they need a feat or a class feature to negate necrotic to do this: So should it be that they have that option.

To trap options:
there have always been "trap" options:
(riders on OA --- but my DM never provokes them etc.)

So we need to add more trap options? You realize trap options are a bad thing and should be minimized in a well designed game. They do of course happen, but the less of them the better and surely this was supposed to be a lesson in essentials. This is why the pyromancer ignores fire resist from level 1 and many other feats were improved heavily. This is why the slayer/thief are incredibly effective at what they do - despite the deceptive level of simplicity.

And then people come and want to tell other people that the design decision is terrible.

Because in the context of Fourth Edition DnD as a whole it is. Yes you can make crappy options, trap races/feats and generally poorly designed elements for no real reason. People can defend them as supposedly useful in incredibly convoluted niche examples all they want.

Or - and this is MY preference - we make GOOD options that anyone can take, which make the game more fun and diverse for everyone. 4E has some total crap in it but it also has lots of really neat options across a wide variety of classes/characters. We should be trying to add to the good - not adding to the pile of completely mediocre as some new design goal.

 

[WalterKovacs]

No, but I know enough that only negating resistance at level 10 for a specialized damage type is silly.

There is one way to do it at 10. There is no information that says it is the ONLY possible way to do so. Also, before the pyromancer, most fire specialists had to take paragon options (feats, paragon paths) to deal with it.

Until you start facing paragon tier enemies, you are looking at about resist 10 necrotic. You can either completely ignore or half most resistances, and with your at-will, the vulnerable 5 makes up for it the next time anyone hits it.

Which is why there should be a nice, simple feat anyone can take to negate necrotic resistance. Otherwise we end up with an entire book of substandard powers for anyone outside of nethermancer/necromancer - for no reason.

Well, for ALL the wizards, they have access to a power that can get rid of 5. They may very well have feats that do more. [Ignore X amount of resist, modify the cantrip, maybe ignore completely at paragon tier via a feat or paragon path]. Basically something similar to the many ways that non-pyromancers [or sorcerors or evokers] have to deal with fire resistance.

Yes, the Wizard that is dead in my Eberron game and the one in my DS game on 1 healing surge totally agrees with this (not). Not to mention daily powers that require sustain minor (or other actions) to maintain.

Action economy for leaders and controllers is vital.

That depends on what they are doing. For example, conjuration's require sustaining via minor action. Permanent summons, like say ... what the necromancer gets ... doesn't require minor sustaining (it does get to move as a minor, true, but then again we don't know if the summoned undead deal necrotic damage, which would not require simultaneously needing to use both the cantrip and the minor action to command the summoned creatures).

Controller's CAN take powers that require using up minor actions to sustain, but unless those powers are tied to necrotic damage, it's going to be an issue of either having something worth sustaining or something that deals necrotic damage, and less often do you need both.

We know the resistance negation occurs at level 10 - that's the key one.

There are very few complaints actually about the Pyromancers ignoring of fire resistance. Quite frankly, people prefer their characters not to suck more than other peoples sensibilities. The other thing is that fire has feat support anyone can take to make it viable. That's such a huge point it cannot be emphasized more.

And there is no reason to believe a book dedicated entirely to shadow, in which EVERY new class is going to probably have necrotic damage would get generic feats to make it viable. In fact they spoiled some today. For ghosts with both necrotic resistance AND insubstantial, the ability to ignore the latter makes necrotic damage, even without any way to reduce that resistance, more damaging. And again, damage isn't the most important thing that wizards do [although pyromancers, by virtue of the kinds of powers that has fire attached to it, damage IS the only thing they do for the most part].

I don't mind a bit of resistance, but when it's everywhere I would expect that specialist PCs - SPECIALIST - PCs or people who would like to use it for fluff/flavor reasons should have options for dealing with it.

They have options. They don't have a "oh, you are a specialist, so you don't have to deal with it at all" class feature at level one like the pyromancer but they have a cantrip, feat support, a level 10 mastery, powers that try to offset the resistance with rider effects, etc ... Those are not options for dealing with it?

You have still given not one coherent reason or argument as to why necrotic should be a special snowflake of damage types, not getting basic features everyone else enjoys. If I play a fire wizard I have great options - even before considering pyromancer. I go all radiant? Great options. I go for cold? Great options. I go for lightning? Great options. According to you I go for the worst damage type in the game due to its immense wide array of resistant monsters - so I do not *deserve* features that other damage types get. Often for less cost.

Or, this book is introducing those options. But a blanket "ignore all resistance at level 1" isn't really an option. It's an "ignore all other solutions" option. Why make other options irrelevant with a single option?

The point is that right now, I don't like what I'm seeing and hearing that much. I don't like that we've abandoned good design principles to go backwards into pure silly territory. No, it's not okay to arbitrarily punish player choices because of someones sensibilities. It's not good design. It never will be good design. If other classes get basic features that let them function from the get go - we have to ask ourselves "Why does this not deserve them?". In this case we're talking about the second most resisted damage type in the game (the first would be poison if you're wondering). Why punish it?

What is the function of the wizard, the necromancer wizard? Is it deal as much damage as possible at all times? Or are they controllers. Does resistance to damage prevent the controller from imposing effects on monsters. Does reducing a monster to having no resistance or resist 5 make it so they can't deal any damage.

We don't know what the necromancer gets at level 1. We don't know what the feat support looks like. We don't know what most of the powers do. We do know an at-will will cause vulnerable 5 to all damage which for ANY heroic tier monster will quickly outstrip any necrotic resistance they might have had. And yet, the necromancer is going to be USELESS because he may have to spend a minor action to deal full damage (or 5 less instead of 10 less) against certain monsters, while still getting full benefit (if not EXTRA benefit) against the monsters it hits.

Why would it be good design to make the necromancer JUST like the pyromancer? Pyromancers and evokers are focused on damage, especially to large areas, where resistance can quickly make it useless. Hopefully, Necromancer powers aren't like that, damage spread over a large area with nothing in the way of rider effects apart from ongoing or conditional damage.

You know I like the idea of undead specific riders - but I hate the mechanics they are throwing at dart boards hoping something sticks. I actually like the at-will power - but the problem is that if you can't deal with the damage type all your powers do these powers are considerably weaker than they deserve to be. Nothing is imbalanced about a power that gives a specific narrow range of enemies a vulnerability on a hit. It's just a neat and flavorful thing - but you don't have to punish it by ensuring they can't easily penetrate necrotic resistance. In addition if you're not a necromancer/nethermancer, why bother with these powers if there isn't a feat/support to negate the resistance? I mean if there is one all you'll see is every nethermancer/necromancer take it and dump it at level 10.

(a) not all nethermancer powers are necrotic
(b) Gaining the vulenerable on a hit at the 'cost' of doing less damage on the initial hit is not much to pay, especially when feats, class features, or powers [like the cantrip] can reduce or completely ignore the resistance in the first place.
(c) mages have spellbooks. They don't have to prepare powers all the time, and if only ONE of their powers is 'weak' because of vulnerability it's not as bad as if ALL your powers are that way. And, depending on the rider effects, they may be good enough against undead that it doesn't matter if they don't deal as much damage as it would against a non-undead enemy. A mage that can use something like refocus to bring it out at the right moment might decide to use it then.

There are wizard powers that deal no damage at all. Not dealing damage is not the worst possible thing for a wizard to do.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

[MENTION=78116]Aegeri[/MENTION]: Just because it is a trap in your game, in other games it could be useful. Why do you go out and call badwrongfun?

 

[Kelvor Ravenstar]

What irks me is there is no way currently by RAW (as far as I can find) for PHB1 Wizards to get the new cantrips (Suggestion, Disrupt Undead, and Spook).
I have a player with a tome of readiness Wizard in my campaign would will want to get some of these shadow powers, but will be heavily reduced in effectiveness unless he can get access to Disrupt Undead, or other methods of bypassing necrotic resistance come up.
Perhaps the Wizard reformatting that should have appeared in Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell and will now by a DDI article some months hence will allow Wizards to choose their Cantrips?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

What irks me is there is no way currently by RAW (as far as I can find) for PHB1 Wizards to get the new cantrips (Suggestion, Disrupt Undead, and Spook).
I have a player with a tome of readiness Wizard in my campaign would will want to get some of these shadow powers, but will be heavily reduced in effectiveness unless he can get access to Disrupt Undead, or other methods of bypassing necrotic resistance come up.
Perhaps the Wizard reformatting that should have appeared in Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell and will now by a DDI article some months hence will allow Wizards to choose their Cantrips?

I agree, and suspect that this is precisely what will happen when that update sees the light of day.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What irks me is there is no way currently by RAW (as far as I can find) for PHB1 Wizards to get the new cantrips (Suggestion, Disrupt Undead, and Spook).
I have a player with a tome of readiness Wizard in my campaign would will want to get some of these shadow powers, but will be heavily reduced in effectiveness unless he can get access to Disrupt Undead, or other methods of bypassing necrotic resistance come up.
Perhaps the Wizard reformatting that should have appeared in Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell and will now by a DDI article some months hence will allow Wizards to choose their Cantrips?

Ok, this is the same issue as eldritch strike: a new option appears, but no way to trake it... except if it is worded like the alchenist feat:

you may take it instead of a different cantrip.

 

[Klaus]

What irks me is there is no way currently by RAW (as far as I can find) for PHB1 Wizards to get the new cantrips (Suggestion, Disrupt Undead, and Spook).
I have a player with a tome of readiness Wizard in my campaign would will want to get some of these shadow powers, but will be heavily reduced in effectiveness unless he can get access to Disrupt Undead, or other methods of bypassing necrotic resistance come up.
Perhaps the Wizard reformatting that should have appeared in Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell and will now by a DDI article some months hence will allow Wizards to choose their Cantrips?

Retraining?