Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5167213" data-attributes="member: 59248">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).</blockquote>

Verification