D&D 4E Idea for Necromancer in 4e

[kigmatzomat]

You wouldn't actually need to make a whole lot of monsters immune to fear if you didn't set up fear as an effect that forced the enemy to flee. Fear-as-debuff has a lot more design space, I think, and it gets around the save-or-out-of-the-fight problem that fear effects posed in 3.x.

I'll agree with that. I'd be fine with "fear" being a type of modifier, or more appropriately a subtype of "morale." So necromancers would invoke morale penalties under the geas of fear.

I think, though, that you could give necromancers extensive powers over the undead to compensate for the fact that undead are traditionally immune to fear effects. You might be out of luck against constructs - with neither a normal life force nor a capacity to experience fear, the necromancer has a bit of a problem. It seems to me that necromancers are more frequently in control of golems than fighting them in fantasy, so there aren't a whole lot of examples to draw upon.

That's because historically golems were some form of undead. Flesh obviously so but the classic golem was inhabited by a spirit and spirits are a form of undead. Beyond semantics, there's not much difference between what animates zombie or vampires and whatever animates a chair or golem.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Dealing with the dead should never be white. At best we are looking at black arts used for noble causes, but it should never be forgotten that a "good" necromancer is walking a razor's edge for his abilities.

Mechanics wise, I'd say a white necromancer is an ajurer(necromancy). These are the wizards who have spells to lock out the undead, block their powers, make weapons hurt them, etc. They have access to the "dark" spells but generally don't use them to avoid that razor.

And IMO the difference between a white necromancer and a good cleric is that the white necromancer can more easily slide into the darkness while the cleric should get some warning signs from the weakening connection to their deity.

 

[Zaukrie]

Why can't we have some classes that are inherently evil? I'd prefer the necromancer to be more interesting, and more evil, and more deadly, rather than cleaning her up to make her playable.

 

[Xethreau]

IMO, all summoning classes should be rolled into one. Summoning itself is a powerful and broad enough field to be it's own class. They could also have some energy based spells which could be "excess energy from the summoned creatures." There could also be "spell" summoning and "ritual" summoning.

A Summoner might specialize in:
-Necromancy (and channel dark/negative energy)
-Allies of Nature (and use spells that look druid-ish)
-Elementals (and channel energy of the chosen element)
-Fiend Summoning (channel energy that debilitates or demoralizes targets)
.etc


Again, I am not sure how it would all work out, but that is at least what I would like to see.

 

[Rechan]

Why can't we have some classes that are inherently evil? I'd prefer the necromancer to be more interesting, and more evil, and more deadly, rather than cleaning her up to make her playable.

Since 4e is getting rid of alignment for the most part, I see no point in making something overtly evil in the first place.

But the necromancer as the cackling guy eating children and raising armies to invade towns with a big E for Evil on his forehead gets a little old. There are other options. Like Ye Olde Dr. Frankenstein.

That, and many, many DMs don't let evil characters in their games. Which sucks when you want to be something beyond Good for the sake of Good with an extra helping of Good.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is the first I've heard of the dearth of Necromancy in 4Ed. I'm dissapointed.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but if you're a Necromancer, you're evil.

As discussed elsewhere, not every culture would agree with you.

Some cultures actually have spiritual leaders who summon or control the spirits of the dead- sometimes willing ancestors, sometimes unwilling spirits of their enemies' fallen dead- to defend their communities. Some eternally preserve willing warriors to guard the tombs of their fallen leaders.

Some cultures & religions feel comfort in the presence of their ancestors' post-mortem presence, and call upon those spirits' aid as calmly as you'd ask a friend to help you move your apartment next weekend.

Heck, even within 3.X, there are examples of non-evil undead (Ghosts, the Shadows summoned by the Shadowdancer, and the so called Deathless).

IOW, Necromancy ≠ Evil

 

[Gloombunny]

That's because historically golems were some form of undead. Flesh obviously so but the classic golem was inhabited by a spirit and spirits are a form of undead.

So, wait, you're saying that the rabbi animated the golem by putting a ghost in it?

That's... not a version of the story I've ever heard.

 

[Traycor]

We've already got that guy. He's called "the Cleric."

Oh, you meant a more bookish type? "Cloistered Cleric."

LOL! You are absolutely right, and for some reason I didn't even see it. I guess a good necro could be made in 4E by playing a cleric and filing off those serial numbers.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Diablo and Everquest have been mentioned, so I'll throw out a video game reference as well as a potential starting point for a 4E necromancer...

Guild Wars has essentially four "talent trees" (called Attributes in the game) a class can choose to focus in (one of the first things I thought of when it sounded like 4E might use trees). The Necromancer's "trees" are Death magic (related to the undead), Blood Magic stealing health or sacrificing your own to help others), Hexes (self explanatory) and Soul Reaping, which gives you power back whenever a creature dies in your proximity (recharge of per encounter abilities?). Of course, there are dozens of spells for each of these "talent trees" which further define them.

For instance, Death magic is more than creating undead, but exploiting them or even lifeless corpses. If the necromancer has some condition on him, like poisoned, there is a spell to transfer it to one of your undead creations. They can sacrifice one of their undead creations to gain health back. And you can take control of someone else's summoned undead.

True, we know Hexes are being covered by the Warlock for PHB1, but just as the Wizard will have access to Enchantments but not be a master of them, perhaps there's room for either the Warlock or another class to be more Hex focused. Maybe a necro can only hex a target that they have hair or tissue of, or that they (or their undead minions) have first damaged in combat themselves.

I do truly hope that talent trees are indeed going to be used in 4E, since I think it will help players avoid making characters of the same class cookie cutter copies of each other (alliteration was all unintentional, I swear!) To have a necromancer that is more of a "blood mage" rather than undead master, for instance, could be interesting. "Blood" could even be a power source.

 

[Gloombunny]

I will probably get pelted by tomatoes for this but I would like to see a necromancer in the vain of the Diablo 2 necro.

I like the Guild Wars necro more, personally. Instead of minions, curses, and poison/bone conjuration, their spells are divided into death magic (undead minions and other ways to exploit corpses for fun and profit, plus poison/disease/putrefaction type stuff), curses (debuffs, and also ways to muck about with other people's magic), and blood magic (lots of ways to steal hp or sacrifice hp for various benefits, including to heal allies).

It sounds like the warlock in 4e has already claimed the curse shtick, but I think the areas covered by death magic and blood magic in Guild Wars have some good material for a necromancer class that could function with or without undead minions. Flesh golems could be a good way to let the white-hat necros play with minions too. (Well, maybe not minions plural. I see golems as being more along the lines of an animal companion than something you can have a whole squad of.)

edit: Damn, I took so long to write this post that Sir Brennen totally scooped me.