NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6500291" data-attributes="member: 23484">I'll preface this by saying that during the play test, my views on Necromancy were quite unpopular on these boards; I know that, but I continue to believe there's so much more potential in D&D Necromancy than they pursued. Part of the reason, I feel, is a hangover anxiety form the scaremongering of the 80s: people are unwilling to consider anything called "necromancy" as anything other than evil. with that as preamble:* in the earliest play test, any spell caster could become a "necromancer" (it was like a background or feat); you only needed to be able to cast a spell. But it was so poorly written, that it was intolerable. But the idea was cool.* a good case can be made that all healing spells properly belong in the necromancy school. They backed away from that too, but it creates an inconsistency. As it is, raise dead and resurrection (the most powerful, positive life magic) are necromancy, as is inflict wounds but not cure wounds.What I wish we saw was EITHER "necromancy" (i.e. a school of life/death magic) not tainted with evil, OR an unambiguous statement that only evil spell casters can use spells from that school (thereby putting Raise Dead into a really interesting moral place in the game; cf. Revenge of the Sith and Darth Plaguis). I also wish that they had kept necromancy specialization as (now) a feat, so that clerics or wizards (or others) could qualify, not just wizards.But I get neither -- necromancy is a school of wizard magic, that has an imprecise evil taint. For me, that's the least interesting of all possible results. I understand how we get here, but it aggressively limits the sort of cool things one might want to do with a life/death magic specialist.</blockquote>

Verification