Gladius Legis
Legend
Oh, I did too, because I wanted to.well, I did.
Oh, I did too, because I wanted to.well, I did.
Butting in. I think you could easily justify a necromancer as a half-caster if they had sufficient magical abilities to compensate. For instance, if they get their zombie-making or dead-talking as class abilities instead of spells. In this case, their spells would represent the bulk of their non-necromantic magic.I feel I don't really agree with your vision of necromancer. To me it seems completely absurd to suggest that they would not be full casters.
it is a mere sorcerer the blood inheritor of talent, not someone who does what I need it to, and besides will and charisma are two very different things it is easy for you to swallow as you never care either way hence it slides right down your throat whilst I choke on it.I feel the same way. It looks like a psion, feels like a psion, and casts like a psion (even moreso if you use the Spell Points rule in the DMG). The only thing it's missing is a silent P in the name...and that's apparently a deal-breaker for lots of folks.
One of my favorites:
View attachment 142933
you could but is it a good idea?Butting in. I think you could easily justify a necromancer as a half-caster if they had sufficient magical abilities to compensate. For instance, if they get their zombie-making or dead-talking as class abilities instead of spells. In this case, their spells would represent the bulk of their non-necromantic magic.
Similarly I think of zombie making as normally a ritual exercise... not exactly active spell casting you do as much mid battle.Butting in. I think you could easily justify a necromancer as a half-caster if they had sufficient magical abilities to compensate. For instance, if they get their zombie-making or dead-talking as class abilities instead of spells. In this case, their spells would represent the bulk of their non-necromantic magic.
Is it a bad one? I mean, take a look at rangers and paladins. They are both flavorful and both generally rely more on their class/archetype abilities than on spells. If you want the necromancer to actually focus on necromancy, then more of their necromantic abilities should be class abilities.you could but is it a good idea?
General D&D usage: person who creates and controls undead.why have none considered my question what is it we mean by necromancer? as if we know that we know what it has to be built to?
Sabriel is the first book in the Abhorsen trilogy, by Garth Nix. It's about a young necromancer trying to rescue her father. I highly recommend it!what is that book about as not even my parent's collection has it?
Yeah, the inconsistencies of the schools causes future mechanics that depend on them to convolute as well.It also feels that the themes and processes for spell traditions are repeatedly broken for the sake of creating loopholes in earlier iterations of the game - e.g., a conjuration/transmutation spell that is effectively an evocation attack spell that the Conjurer/Transmuter can cast, etc. - and these oddities have been preserved mostly for the sake of tradition than consistentcy. Not to mention the bizarre refusal by WotC to make healing a type of Necromancy.