Players really want the Necromancer? (Forked: Non-published concepts you want)

[Rechan]

I just want rules for necromancy as a DM.

What rules?

"Monster Power does x damage and y condition. Describe as necromancy-ish."

"Monster power buffs/heals/assists undead in some fashion. Describe as necromancy-ish."

Bam, done. Necromancer.

 

[Korgoth]

I just want rules for necromancy as a DM. Screw the players. Necromancy is for Bad Guys.

What if the PCs are the bad guys? Or at least the not-squeaky-clean guys?

 

[jdrakeh]

What rules?

"Monster Power does x damage and y condition. Describe as necromancy-ish."

"Monster power buffs/heals/assists undead in some fashion. Describe as necromancy-ish."

Bam, done. Necromancer.

Well, specifically, I'd like some rules for raising armies of the dead. No edition of D&D thus far has had workable rules for that (you'd die from old age before raising several thousand troops with the Animate Dead spell).

 

[Barastrondo]

I just want rules for necromancy as a DM. Screw the players. Necromancy is for Bad Guys.

Anything that you're dead-set against letting players have doesn't really need rules, though. Just something like:

Screw The Players (standard; encounter)

The necromancer makes as many undead as the DM wants him to. He also gains the effect Infinite Oregano.

Infinite Oregano

The necromancer can add oregano to taste.

 

[Rechan]

Well, specifically, I'd like some rules for raising armies of the dead. No edition of D&D thus far has had workable rules for that (you'd die from old age before raising several thousand troops with the Animate Dead spell).

Why does there need to be rules for raising an army for a villain?

He just has them. Handwave it.

 

[jdrakeh]

Why does there need to be rules for raising an army for a villain?

He just has them. Handwave it.

Because I'd like his actions to be plausible inside the confines of the rules, I guess. I think that HarnMaster has spoiled me.

 

[Oni]

I really want a necromancer. I've played a few over the years and have enjoyed them. I like my heroes with a little bit of a dark twist. Dark doesn't necessarily equate to evil or villainous.

Besides in terms of fluff, Hallowfaust was my favorite book to come out of 3E.

 

[Boarstorm]

Well, specifically, I'd like some rules for raising armies of the dead. No edition of D&D thus far has had workable rules for that (you'd die from old age before raising several thousand troops with the Animate Dead spell).

The Dark Sun fanboy in me is screaming in rage right now. I mean, come on, Doom Legion? Raise as many as 10d20 skeletons and zombies. Isn't that enough?

 

[The Highway Man]

Really?

See, this surprises me. I saw a lot of people complaining about Necromancers before 4e came out. They popped up about as frequently as summoners/illusionists.

The Necromancer that WotC would put out is for PCs. And honestly. most DMs wouldn't let me play a necromancer.

A corpse defiling, soul-taunting, undead making user of the black arts.

That's right! After all, what DM in his right mind would allow a PC to play an unnatural Oath Breaker giving up on the world of the living to make pacts with outsiders and bear magic from them?!

Wait... you do. That's called a "Warlock" (waer-log = oath breaker).

Truth is, there are many ways in which the Necromancer could be a playable character concept. Not necessarily a corpse defiler. Perhaps a magic user interested in ancestors, spirits, and thus able to make corpses talk, move around, come back and fight and so on.

The fact that a DM would put such a tight definition on a character concept like Necromancer would be quite appalling to me as a player. I would question the DM's use of his own imagination, and that's a very bad start for any game I'd play in.

 

[Rechan]

Because I'd like his actions to be plausible inside the confines of the rules, I guess. I think that HarnMaster has spoiled me.

Then you're going to be unhappy.

NPCs do not work like PCs do. And I really don't see them bending over backwards to give rules minutia as to why NPCs can do something.

The 4e philosophy is: they're an NPC, therefore, they do what ever you want them to do.

The fact that a DM would put such a tight definition on a character concept like Necromancer would be quite appalling to me as a player. I would question the DM's use of his own imagination, and that's a very bad start for any game I'd play in.

This assumes that the powers granted to the PC necromancer facilitate other definitions. They may only focus on a narrow potential, instead of the wide breadth many here can think of.

And I have seen quite a few posts about DMs who do not like thier players playing infernal warlocks/Tieflings.