Necromancers...Who else wants them?

[Felon]

Animating piles of bones is evil, but hacking and slashing monsters into piles of bones is heroic? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Wow, if you're not a lawyer, you really missed your calling.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution would have my client convicted for desecrating the dead. But consider this highly relevant fact: police officers use guns to shoot criminals. See where I'm going with that? I am to believe that training someone to use a weapon isn't inherently abhorrent, but defiling a corpse somehow is? Balderdash! Land of the free indeed!"

You even got XP for that load. I'd hire you next time I get caught digging up a grave.

In all seriousness, is the distinction really that unclear? Certainly you can use a sword in an abhorrent manner, but the mores embraced by civilized people do tend to condemn the idea that a person's remains are abandoned property that anyone can lay claim to and repurpose.

 

[mneme]

Ok, then...so, why should this not apply to a necromancer class?

I mean, look at how many controllers we have right now. That would be four.

Look at how many strikers we have...oh, right, that's eight.

If anything, the wizard is -too- broad, has too many portfolios. Why should a necromancer (or an illusionist) have access to the array of elemental attack spells the wizard has access to? Why, for that matter, should they be subject to the limits that that flexibility gives them?

When you get down to it, there just isn't that much overlap, in the 4e paradigm. You could make a pretty good necromancer by adding some more necromantic spells to the wizard toolkit -- but you could make a better, more interesting one by making it a separate class that focused on temp hps, critters, and focus on necromancy/radiance -- not the ultimate flexibility that is the wizard's primary stock in trade.

Similarly, with implements, it's easy enough to come up with a reasonable Necromancer implement set that's dissimilar -- or at least, a subset of, the wizard one -- Staff, Orb, Tome seems good, given the staff/orb association with controllers and the Tome association with summoning.

I'd probably build the class as Cha-primary, with Con and Int as the secondary stats (and a feature that gave Con to AC in light armor). Leather armor, since it's not a dexstat primary class, and access to social and knowledge skills (all controllers need knowledge skills; it's their niche even when they're not Int-primary, just like all strikers have stealth and all leaders have Heal).

 

[Felon]

If anything, the wizard is -too- broad, has too many portfolios. Why should a necromancer (or an illusionist) have access to the array of elemental attack spells the wizard has access to? Why, for that matter, should they be subject to the limits that that flexibility gives them?

When you get down to it, there just isn't that much overlap, in the 4e paradigm. You could make a pretty good necromancer by adding some more necromantic spells to the wizard toolkit -- but you could make a better, more interesting one by making it a separate class that focused on temp hps, critters, and focus on necromancy/radiance -- not the ultimate flexibility that is the wizard's primary stock in trade.

Similarly, with implements, it's easy enough to come up with a reasonable Necromancer implement set that's dissimilar -- or at least, a subset of, the wizard one -- Staff, Orb, Tome seems good, given the staff/orb association with controllers and the Tome association with summoning.

I'd probably build the class as Cha-primary, with Con and Int as the secondary stats (and a feature that gave Con to AC in light armor). Leather armor, since it's not a dexstat primary class, and access to social and knowledge skills (all controllers need knowledge skills; it's their niche even when they're not Int-primary, just like all strikers have stealth and all leaders have Heal).

Quick tip: strikers don't all have stealth. They don't actually have a universal skill, though bluff and perception seem pretty common. I get your gist anyway.

But not sure where you're going with that claim about the wizard being too broad though. Most 4e classes are pretty broad in nature. When you start getting specific in nature, that's when you start homing in on a build. A necromancer can come up with thematically appropriate reasons to toss around fire and cold, and he'd be no worse off than the infernal warlock rationalizing fey abilities. Probably better. Better be able to anyway, because just tossing around necrotic constantly would make a necromancer pretty lousy at combating the undead that he's supposedly a master of.

When you get down to it, there's plenty of overlap between a wizard and the traditional necromancer. Which there ought to be, because necromancers have traditionally been wizards.

Not saying it's absolutely undoable, but it needs a distinct mechanical axis, as well as a thematic one. Switching to Cha and dropping wands seems kind of thin.

You know what would be great? If controllers actually had a signature ability the way the other three roles do. Leader have some kind of healing "word", defenders have a way to mark, strikers have a damage boost. There are variations within the individual classes, but there's an axis. Controllers have no class feature to tinker with.

 

[Samir]

Wow, if you're not a lawyer, you really missed your calling.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution would have my client convicted for desecrating the dead. But consider this highly relevant fact: police officers use guns to shoot criminals. See where I'm going with that? I am to believe that training someone to use a weapon isn't inherently abhorrent, but defiling a corpse somehow is? Balderdash! Land of the free indeed!"

You even got XP for that load. I'd hire you next time I get caught digging up a grave.

So, hold up: you can kill things because some townsfolk told you they were bad guys, and then you can loot their bodies dry, and that type of slaughter and graverobbing is perfectly heroic, but the moment you animate the rest of them that's inherently evil?

For starters, we're talking about 4e concepts of good and evil, which are based primarily on the contrast between altruism and selfishness, per PHB#19-20.

In all seriousness, is the distinction really that unclear? Certainly you can use a sword in an abhorrent manner, but the mores embraced by civilized people do tend to condemn the idea that a person's remains are abandoned property that anyone can lay claim to and repurpose.

The "mores embraced by civilized people" is, by definition, an issue of society. Embracing those mores is following society. Rejecting them is spurning society. This has absolutely nothing to do with the 4e concepts of good and evil. This has to do with law and chaos.

As you say, the mores embraced by most civilized peoples hold a being's remains as sacred. It's a custom, or perhaps a law, but not itself a measure of "goodness" (per 4e). Is necromancy a lawful practice? Probably not. It's not exactly an orthodox means to an end, and some civilized societies would disapprove. That makes it chaotic. That doesn't make it evil.

We have to remember that we are talking about a game with four alignments that are at least somewhat well-defined by the rulebook.

If killing things (for admittedly altruistic reasons) and then looting their bodies is considered "Good" by the rulebook, then I'd be hard pressed to say that something like necromancy could possibly be considered "Evil."

 

[TarionzCousin]

Pretty much! Although mine (way back in 2e) sounded like Peter Lorre and had a skeletal squirrel for a familiar. One of the most fun throwaway characters I've ever played.

Aside from the skeletal squirrel, what was cool about this guy?

In all seriousness, is the distinction really that unclear? Certainly you can use a sword in an abhorrent manner, but the mores embraced by civilized people do tend to condemn the idea that a person's remains are abandoned property that anyone can lay claim to and repurpose.

Arguing morality in D&D is a lost cause. We will never all agree.

Per D&D, hiking for a week and locating a remote village of kobolds and killing them all is a "good" act because kobolds are "evil." Or something like that. I beg us all to not hurt our brains any more discussing this.

---------

Threadjacking aside, I am always in favor of more options, so I would be happy to see a Necromancer. In my 4E game, I would even allow Goodman Games' character classes (including the Necromancer) as long as the character wasn't going to do "evil" things to his/her party members.

No, I don't care if it was "just roleplaying in character." You stabbed Cliffy McCleric so you're out of the group. Roll up a new character.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

the mores embraced by civilized people do tend to condemn the idea that a person's remains are abandoned property that anyone can lay claim to and repurpose.

Not every civilization has that view, and many cultures and institutions have made exceptions:

The Skull Cathedral of Otranto: Where the Bones of 800 Martyrs Adorn the Walls
Humour Cafe: Bone Church In Czech Republic
The Bone Sculptor | Curious Expeditions

And those examples are from Western civilizations that, historically speaking, put a higher emphasis on the value of human remains than most other cultures.

 

[DracoSuave]

So, hold up: you can kill things because some townsfolk told you they were bad guys, and then you can loot their bodies dry, and that type of slaughter and graverobbing is perfectly heroic, but the moment you animate the rest of them that's inherently evil?

Is it evil....

Well... why is it then the only two major figures that go 'Undead r great' are a demon lord, and Vecna?

 

[Victim]

Why would a necromancer even bother animating the remains of normal folks? Those zombies/skeletons tended to suck. My dread necromancer was all over Hydras, Giants, and other monsters. You animate tons of stuff without desecrating the remains of civilized creatures.

An integrated pet class would be pretty sweet IMO. I don't really think a few summon undead powers for the wizard would cut it because there's some degree of anti-synergy between summoned guys and most wizard powers.

It is quite peculiar to hear someone say that, as the weight of D&D's history contradicts it. Arcane has always been the power source for necromancers--a wizard specialization--for all the previous editions. People's minds didn't seem to reject it for all of those decades. Moreover, in the current system the groundwork is already partially laid, as there are plenty of necromancy-themed spells in the wizard's arsenal. So clearly, the arcane power source is capable of channeling those dark forces.

Yeah, that's why clerics have been better at animating dead than wizards for most of the time. And why they made a special Dread Necromancer class to integrate the undead related abilities of clerics and wizards.

 

[Piratecat]

Aside from the skeletal squirrel, what was cool about this guy?

You mean, aside from the INCREDIBLY AWESOME skeletal squirrel and aside from doing a credible impersonation of Peter Lorre? 'Cause that was pretty damn fun.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMhS4LnqaA8]YouTube - Yeah, this is Peter Lorre speaking[/ame] - his mad scientist bit starts around 45 seconds or so.

The delight there was all in the roleplaying and not in the mechanics; I think 2e necromancers didn't have a lot of flavor. I was going for underdog and antihero, sort of Beast from Beauty and the Beast, or Quasimodo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I wanted to play someone who was neutral with some pretty vile personal habits, while making him a fun and likable member of the group.

To be able to take that personality and toss it onto a mechanically sound necromancer in 4e would be great. The great thing about 4e is that so many things are effects-based; you could slap a necromancer skin onto a different class like invoker, describe the powers completely differently while using the same mechanics, and still have a perfectly viable class. I think the archetype is strong enough to deserve its own controller build, though.

Morality-wise, thinking too hard about D&D morality makes my little brain hurt. I don't think a D&D necromancer should default to "good", but I can definitely see them as defaulting to Neutral.

 

[Samir]

Is it evil....

Well... why is it then the only two major figures that go 'Undead r great' are a demon lord, and Vecna?

This looks like guilt by association. "Vecna does it, therefore it must be evil." Vecna probably does a lot of things that aren't inherently good or evil. He might eat Wheaties in the morning. Does that mean I shouldn't eat Wheaties?