No Animate Dead?

[Rith the Wanderer]

This is more appropriate for the house rules forum, but I thought I'd post my idea about how Animate Dead could work as a spell. I wanted to make something roughly comparable to Bigby's Icy Hand, but different. The skeleton doesn't need to be sustained, but it still requires the Wizard to spend a minor action to direct it. It also does less damage than Bigby's Icy Hand and can be attacked and destroyed.

Animate Dead
Wizard Attack 5
You strike the ground with a wave of black lightning and a skeleton warrior crawls from the ground to serve you.
Daily * Arcane, Conjuration, Implement
Standard Action
Ranged 20
Effect: You conjure a medium-size humanoid skeleton warrior in an unoccupied square within range, and it attacks an adjacent foe. The skeleton can help an ally flank. It lasts until the end of the encounter, for 5 minutes or until destroyed. The skeleton has a number of hit points equal to your Blooded hit point value, Speed 6, an AC and other defenses equal to 10 + your Intelligence bonus + 1/2 your level and resist necrotic 10. Directing the skeleton to move and/or attack or take some other action is a minor action for you. It can attack only once per turn. As a mindless creation, it takes no actions unless you spend a minor action to direct it. You can also direct a skeleton to take other appropriate actions, such as opening a door, picking up an item, and other such basic tasks. Assume it has a Strength score equal to your Intelligence score for determining how much it can lift, move or carry.
Target: One creature next to the skeleton
Attack: Intelligence + 3 vs. AC.
Hit: 1d8 + Intelligence modifier damage.

Um, excuse me but this thread is for bickering about how alignment is or is not dumb and whether or not 4e is a scheme by Wizards to take away our fun. Please take your constructive responses to the OP somewhere else.

Ahem...anyway, I actually really think this is a good idea for someone who wants to have the necromancer flavored wizard, although I do think many people aren't going to be satisfied without a permanent skeleton crew that can be up to twice their level in HD...er...level.

I think if I allowed this in one of my games I would make it permanently dazed though (one action per minor action only) as it doesn't go away if you stop thinking about it like the other conjurations.

 

[Hussar]

Any game that has Alustriel as the ultimate enemy is a good game, I say.

robertliguori - You're spot on, but I'm not sure Hussar is quite capable of understanding what you're explaining, because he's so completely caught up in the idea that casting a spell (even with no effect whatsoever) is somehow a moral action that he can't grasp that the very fact that's the case is what renders the morality invalid.

Wow, now there's some serious snark.

I'm quite capable of understanding what he's saying. The problem is, BY THE RULES, I'm right. Casting certain spells, because those spells have alignment tags, is, in and of itself, a moral action.

Why you cast, who you cast it on, when you cast it, is entirely irrelavent. Not only does RAW back me up on this, but subsequent publications do as well as has been shown in the FC1 and BoVD.

So, while I may or may not personally agree with RoberL, by the RAW, casting Animate Dead in 3e is an evil act. Full stop, end of story. Casting Holy Word is a good act.

You can tie the two effects together if you wish, but, by RAW, you'd be wrong.

 

[robertliguori]

Wow, now there's some serious snark.

I'm quite capable of understanding what he's saying. The problem is, BY THE RULES, I'm right. Casting certain spells, because those spells have alignment tags, is, in and of itself, a moral action.

Why you cast, who you cast it on, when you cast it, is entirely irrelavent. Not only does RAW back me up on this, but subsequent publications do as well as has been shown in the FC1 and BoVD.

So, while I may or may not personally agree with RoberL, by the RAW, casting Animate Dead in 3e is an evil act. Full stop, end of story. Casting Holy Word is a good act.

You can tie the two effects together if you wish, but, by RAW, you'd be wrong.

Hussar, allow me to introduce you to an internet neologism called bang notation. It's very useful for clarifying the use of terms of art during discussion.

Let's say that I'm in a discussion about the role of deities in a D&D universe, and that the discussion has wandered from FR to Eberron to the implied core setting and back. Since all of the three settings have different rules for clerics (and thus mean subtly different things whenever the concept of cleric is referenced), it's difficult to make a blanket statement that is true and useful. So, rather than complicating our sentence structure, we simply modify the word 'cleric', prefixing a modifier and an exclamation point to clarify our meaning.

Examples:

ForgottenRealms!Clerics are required to worship a deity.
Eberron!Clerics are effectively all domain clerics; what they believe is more important than what (or if) their god actually is.
Core!Clerics can go either way.

Now, let's try this again with morality. D&D introduces the concept of morality as a planar force, tied generally but not always to what we consider morally-correct action. Morality has an existing and contradictory definition; it is not generally considered morally correct to set off baby-killing effects within range of babies, even if those effects would be considered morally good elsewhere. Because we have this disconnect, we can refer to D&D's inherent morality system as Planar!Good and conventional morality as Conventional!Good.

Now, Animate Dead is Planar!Evil. This is not a statement that is generally disputed. But if you want to actually discuss what this means in terms of conventional morality and not sound like a crazed Raptoran cleric going on about disloyalty to the elemental force of Air, you need to tie Planar!Evil to Conventional!Evil.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is more appropriate for the house rules forum, but I thought I'd post my idea about how Animate Dead could work as a spell. I wanted to make something roughly comparable to Bigby's Icy Hand, but different. The skeleton doesn't need to be sustained, but it still requires the Wizard to spend a minor action to direct it. It also does less damage than Bigby's Icy Hand and can be attacked and destroyed.

Animate Dead
Wizard Attack 5
You strike the ground with a wave of black lightning and a skeleton warrior crawls from the ground to serve you.
Daily * Arcane, Conjuration, Implement
Standard Action
Ranged 20
Effect: You conjure a medium-size humanoid skeleton warrior in an unoccupied square within range, and it attacks an adjacent foe. The skeleton can help an ally flank. It lasts until the end of the encounter, for 5 minutes or until destroyed. The skeleton has a number of hit points equal to your Blooded hit point value, Speed 6, an AC and other defenses equal to 10 + your Intelligence bonus + 1/2 your level and resist necrotic 10. Directing the skeleton to move and/or attack or take some other action is a minor action for you. It can attack only once per turn. As a mindless creation, it takes no actions unless you spend a minor action to direct it. You can also direct a skeleton to take other appropriate actions, such as opening a door, picking up an item, and other such basic tasks. Assume it has a Strength score equal to your Intelligence score for determining how much it can lift, move or carry.
Target: One creature next to the skeleton
Attack: Intelligence + 3 vs. AC.
Hit: 1d8 + Intelligence modifier damage.

I like this idea. Spiritual Weapon might also be a good spell to compare to, IIRC. In fact, you could (without looking at it at the moment) use it and just change the flavour text and damage type.

 

[hamishspence]

Necromancers

If a Necromancer class comes out, and Animate dead is one of its powers (per encounter?) should it work like the clerics various summons? as a temporary creature? Warlock The Dead Walk did, in 3rd ed, unless you paid the extra for gems. (clarify that enemies can't move through it)

Such might minimize summoning problems. Adding a necromancer multiclass feat would also be good (wizards and clerics would need to take a side order of necromancer to use undead.) Might make for standalone class, yet still allow clerics and wizards limited necromancy powers.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Wow, now there's some serious snark.

I'm quite capable of understanding what he's saying. The problem is, BY THE RULES, I'm right. Casting certain spells, because those spells have alignment tags, is, in and of itself, a moral action.

Why you cast, who you cast it on, when you cast it, is entirely irrelavent. Not only does RAW back me up on this, but subsequent publications do as well as has been shown in the FC1 and BoVD.

So, while I may or may not personally agree with RoberL, by the RAW, casting Animate Dead in 3e is an evil act. Full stop, end of story. Casting Holy Word is a good act.

You can tie the two effects together if you wish, but, by RAW, you'd be wrong.

And the rules are stupid in this regard. Casting a spell itself should not be good or evil. Those are relative moral terms. Casting HolyWord to aid your allies while they slaughter babies is riduculous.

 

[silentounce]

And the rules are stupid in this regard. Casting a spell itself should not be good or evil. Those are relative moral terms. Casting HolyWord to aid your allies while they slaughter babies is riduculous.

Honestly, the easy way to do this is simply to not let the spell happen. The god refuses to power it. A good deity would not let his powers be used in this way. In my campaign, there would be no castings of Holy Word in that area, or it just wouldn't effect innocents (children).

 

[Lurks-no-More]

And the rules are stupid in this regard. Casting a spell itself should not be good or evil.

Why not? If we assume the existence of absolute, objective alignments (as by-the-book 3.*e does), I see no reason why not.

Those are relative moral terms.

Again, in by-the-book 3.*e, Good and Evil are not relative terms.

 

[hamishspence]

Tipping the balance

I think that was the reason given for the dubiousness of using evil magic in the cause of good "it causes a fundemental shift in the balance of the multiverse"

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, allow me to introduce you to an internet neologism called bang notation. It's very useful for clarifying the use of terms of art during discussion.

Let's say that I'm in a discussion about the role of deities in a D&D universe, and that the discussion has wandered from FR to Eberron to the implied core setting and back. Since all of the three settings have different rules for clerics (and thus mean subtly different things whenever the concept of cleric is referenced), it's difficult to make a blanket statement that is true and useful. So, rather than complicating our sentence structure, we simply modify the word 'cleric', prefixing a modifier and an exclamation point to clarify our meaning.

Examples:

ForgottenRealms!Clerics are required to worship a deity.
Eberron!Clerics are effectively all domain clerics; what they believe is more important than what (or if) their god actually is.
Core!Clerics can go either way.

Now, let's try this again with morality. D&D introduces the concept of morality as a planar force, tied generally but not always to what we consider morally-correct action. Morality has an existing and contradictory definition; it is not generally considered morally correct to set off baby-killing effects within range of babies, even if those effects would be considered morally good elsewhere. Because we have this disconnect, we can refer to D&D's inherent morality system as Planar!Good and conventional morality as Conventional!Good.

Now, Animate Dead is Planar!Evil. This is not a statement that is generally disputed. But if you want to actually discuss what this means in terms of conventional morality and not sound like a crazed Raptoran cleric going on about disloyalty to the elemental force of Air, you need to tie Planar!Evil to Conventional!Evil.

Well, you can play silly buggers with definitions all you like. In 3e terms, aligned spells are inherently aligned. What you do with those spells is irrelevant. It doesn't matter.

That's the only point I'm repeatedly having to make.

And the rules are stupid in this regard. Casting a spell itself should not be good or evil. Those are relative moral terms. Casting HolyWord to aid your allies while they slaughter babies is riduculous.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. The relative intelligence of the rules aside, I'm simply stating that THAT'S what the rules say.

And, in 3e terms, there is no relative morality. Morality is absolute. You can have beings which, regardless of any action they take, are inherently Good or Evil (angels and demons). A LG demon is still Outsider [evil].