Design & Development - Necromancy & Nethermancy

[Kelvor Ravenstar]

Retraining?

That would be nice, except retraining requires the powers to have both class and level. All cantrips are listed as Wizard Utility, hence no retraining for the wizard.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The Necromancer isn't a brand new class, it is a specialisation, and so should be treated like the other specialisations. It means someone that those paragons of necromancy who have mastered the school can ignore necrotic resistance and rot the flesh of wraiths, and good for them; but those who have specialised in illusion or enchantment or evocation and only taken a side order of necromancy haven't the dedication to do that - but they have other strings to their bow too (as, in fact, does the full on necromancer - he'll have his minor specialisation in evocation or enchantment or illusion or nethermancy, won't he!)

Quoting myself I'm afraid, because I'm still seeing people missing the point that necromancy is a mage specialisation and forms either the major or minor point of a class.

It is NOT like pyromancer, which appears to have been an (ill conceived?) attempt to produce a single note class.

 

[Aegeri]

There is one way to do it at 10. There is no information that says it is the ONLY possible way to do so.

I agree, which is why I've stated that it is essential the book has a feat for ignoring necrotic resistance. Otherwise Blackguard is going to be a pretty pointless striker, much like how the current Dark Pact Warlock falls well behind as well for similar reasons.

Also, before the pyromancer, most fire specialists had to take paragon options (feats, paragon paths) to deal with it.

At the same time, fire resistance isn't as common and not prevalent on one of the most common types of enemies in DnD.

You can either completely ignore or half most resistances, and with your at-will

Action sinks do not make up for it.

Not a bit.

Well, for ALL the wizards, they have access to a power that can get rid of 5.

They can retrain to get the cantrip and yes, you can retrain cantrips.

They may very well have feats that do more.

This is very much my hope that there is a feat that simply outright ignores necrotic resistance. One that scales 5/10/15 or 5/15/25 would do the same thing as well.

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

But summons then require actions to actually command - which you do address - but this doesn't actually mitigate the problem. Action sinks are bad and should be avoided - especially when as I KEEP mentioning, everyone else gets great options without the action sink.

Why the special punishment? I've yet to see a single coherent argument why this should be the case.

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.

If I had faith in the designers and admittedly, after seeing certain things from the book I am no longer convinced - I would agree. This should be a given. But I no longer assume it is a given anymore, because good design principles that guided much of 4E pre-essentials are clearly being abandoned now.

For ghosts with both necrotic resistance AND insubstantial, the ability to ignore the latter makes necrotic damage

This feat is absolutely terrible, you realize that right? It's immensely niche and insubstantial enemies are not exactly coming out of the walls left right and center. It's very very useful in its own niche, but again it's an extremely niche feat and it's usefulness will depend entirely on how much your DM uses these monsters.

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

The cantrip is a poor option - that's the problem with it.

feat support

I hope so, but I remain unconvinced.

a level 10 mastery

Which makes me still wonder why it isn't just given at level 1. You and UngeheuerLich argue incessantly they shouldn't just ignore Necrotic Resistance - yet they do. From level 10. Why not from level 1?

Thus far there hasn't really been a good argument anywhere as to why they get punished for 9 levels (Needing an action sink to make powers effective and not outright ignoring resistance) - yet it is okay to do it from level 10? Not to mention they make their own cantrip utterly pointless - just for the record.

This is a bit of a curious double standard in the argument. Again, it also asks the question of "Why do we need system mastery to understand a necromancer needs to take necrotic negating feats and then retrain out of them when they become pointless?". Again - not good game design for a class that is a SPECIALIST.

It's an "ignore all other solutions" option. Why make other options irrelevant with a single option?

Why do other options have this luxury (or frankly, don't need it), and yet necrotic is treated as a special snowflake that should be punished specifically?

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

Did you read the Design and Development article? You might want to, because a couple of necromancer powers are designed to deal heavy damage from the get go. Have a look at Finger of Death for example. Incidentally, I've said this before and I'll say it again, the best status effect in 4E without question is Dead.

We don't know what the necromancer gets at level 1. We don't know what the feat support looks like.

I agree.

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.

This is true, but what about as I keep saying other classes that aren't the necromancer who could use necrotic resistance negating feats? Do you anticipate many Warlocks and Blackguards MC wizard to get an at-will?

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.

Yes, needing to spend a minor action AND a standard just to deal the expected damage output of your powers - against a monster you are supposed to be effective again, is absurd.

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.

I would advise you to go check out the Design and Development article. Because um, some of the powers have that flavor as well if you didn't notice. Also it is good design to make sure the class that relies on the most heavily resisted damage type in the entire game deals with it. From day 1 and not with an action sink power.

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 totally should re-read the design and development article again

 

[I'm A Banana]

Quoting myself I'm afraid, because I'm still seeing people missing the point that necromancy is a mage specialisation and forms either the major or minor point of a class.

It is NOT like pyromancer, which appears to have been an (ill conceived?) attempt to produce a single note class.

Actually, it's pretty much the same thing as a pyromancer, since the pyromancer is a mage specialization that forms either the major or minor point of the class...

Pyromancers aren't their own class, they're a mage school, just like Illusion and Enchantment and, now, Necromancy and Nethermancy.

They're not necessarily single-note, but the idea behind a focused character is that you want to be focused, so you choose things that enhance your focus. The githyanki pyromancer I played used entirely fire spells (many of which were evocations as well -- that was his minor school) for the 20 or so encounters I played him for, and I found him to be lots of fun (though he was not a very effective controller per se: mostly they were a passive way of getting enemies to break up formations, stand far apart, avoid flanking my allies, and not stand in certain spaces, because otherwise, they would get hurt). One of those encounters featured a wave of about 40 or so devil minions, who had fire resistance. Another featured a tiefling solo -- again, heavy fire resist. A third was a demon solo: variable resistance. The adventure wasn't even particularly fire themed. I would have been an exceedingly frustrated player in each of those instances without the ability to ignore resistance.

Necromancers, as far as I can see, are facing a similar problem, and the design of the class tried to take that into account. Only, they took it into account in a way that I think is interesting, but less than ideal. A necromancer who is not using his school's powers to do necrotic damage, or who is using his school's powers on those with necrotic resist that AREN'T undead (the variable resistance of the demon comes to mind) are going to be legitimately frustrated, I think. These are corner cases, but a broad, simple rule like "Ignore Necrotic Resistance" would have avoided those corner cases, and would have avoided using the powers like a kludge.

I think the pryomancer is a pretty good example of what a specialist should be able to do. I don't think I'm going to be as impressed with the Necromancer (though we shall see!).

As a caveat, it is true that a pyromancer and a necromancer probably "control" differently. A pryomancer controls via damage: do this thing, get hurt; don't do this thing, get hurt; move there, get hurt; don't move here, get hurt. Fire spells don't often have a lot of control potential outside of damage. If damage is mitigated, control is mitigated, and the pyromancer can no longer fullfill his role in the party.

Necromancers might not rely so heavily on damage punishments for their control. Damage might be more icing on the controllery cake, with effect lines that are severe, and damage lines that aren't that great to begin with, and nifty other things they can do instead of damage. This might mean that a necromancer who isn't doing any necrotic damage can still be a great controller. A pyromancer doesn't have the same option, as much.

 

[Aegeri]

Your points are all excellent Kamikaze, but variable resistance doesn't apply to necrotic damage (and to be honest, with demonomicon you nearly always want to replace it). There are some demons that are necrotic resistant, which are also not undead but they are pretty rare.

 

[Incenjucar]

A necromancer significantly differs from a pyromancer in that its theme includes psychic, cold, untyped, fear, and possibly poison, acid, and even disease as major flavor points.

A necromancer is NOT simply a necrotic-using sorcerer with a few summons.

 

[gyor]

I'd like to add that powers that deal mixed damage ignore resistances unless the foe has resist to both. So like the blackguard maybe the necromancer has some mixed powers like cold necrotic like say a chill of the grave power. Or a spell that hurls a flaming skull at an enemy that deals both necro and flame.

As well the ghost scorpion fighting style feat should help with incorpreal undead at least.

Oh and wasn't there some kind of metal weapon death ore or something that ignored necro resistance as well. Just take the feat that allows you to use daggers as implements and use a death ore dagger or what ever it is called.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Which makes me still wonder why it isn't just given at level 1. You and UngeheuerLich argue incessantly they shouldn't just ignore Necrotic Resistance - yet they do. From level 10. Why not from level 1?

Wrong:
I never said ignore resist is not Ok, as a mastery feature it is acceptable. But not at novice level. As the evocer thatuses different kinds of elemental damage gets it at level 10.

Why does it make sense?
Because it is the capstone feature that only a dedicated necromancer can achieve, not a nethermancer or illusionist that dabbles in necromancy.

From a game perspective:
If you are a specialist, you can dedicate all your feats on one thing. Which means that you will become more powerful. I actually would not mind a feat that makes you ignore necrotic resistance, but I want you to pay some cost for your ability to specialize so narrowly.

Maybe, as others said, it is just not needed, as you may as well have powers with dual damage types (like it was said in the design and development article) that just circumvent that resistance.

And adding vulnerabe 5 on undead creatures sounds a) flavourful and b) extremely powerful.
And I repeat myself and say: non undead creatures with necrotic resistance, like devas have a good reason to resist necrotic. A necromancer beeing very able to deal with undead sounds right, a level 1 necromancer ignoring necrotic resistance from half-angles not so.

Just as a side note: that blank pyromancy ignore resist at level 1 seems too early too, but scorching burst is bad enough as it is.

 

[Walking Dad]

A necromancer significantly differs from a pyromancer in that its theme includes psychic, cold, untyped, fear, and possibly poison, acid, and even disease as major flavor points.

A necromancer is NOT simply a necrotic-using sorcerer with a few summons.

To be fair, psychic and fear are now Nethermancy and not every Necromancer will also be a Nethermancer.
What is the cold power you refer too? I maybe have missed the preview.

 

[Raikun]

I houseruled out the blanket "ignore fire resist" effect of the Pyromancer in my game. It's just ridiculous IMO.

Part of being a specialist to me has always included the concept that in some areas he should excel and others be weak; and the current incarnation of the Pyromancer doesn't do that; instead it opts for a feature that just keeps the class on par with the others in all situations.

I had to do some tweaking with the Pyromancer to achieve what I think a specialist should be, but it was well worth it. Being able to pierce the fire resistance of, say, a red dragon makes sense. Being able to set a fire elemental on fire, however, doesn't.

So, yeah, I like this implementation of the specialist FAR better than the Pyromancer, from what I see so far.