Preview: December and Beyond

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh, it's easy enough to justify why necromancers can ignore necrotic resistance. It's just boring. Much more fun to give them a special ability tied to necrotic resist instead.

Strength from the Dead
Whenever you inflict necrotic damage to a creature with necrotic resistance, you gain temporary hit points equal to the creature's necrotic damage resistance.

 

[Dausuul]

Strength from the Dead
Whenever you inflict necrotic damage to a creature with necrotic resistance, you gain temporary hit points equal to the creature's necrotic damage resistance.

See, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. (I must spread some XP around, etc.) Although I would probably couple it with something that let you expend temp hp for some purpose--temp hit points aren't nearly as useful for a wizard as they are for, say, a fighter.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Strength from the Dead

Spoiler

Dausuul

Whenever you inflict necrotic damage to a creature with necrotic resistance, you or one ally within 5 squares of you gains temporary hit points equal to the creature's necrotic resistance.

Spoiler

Balance to taste.

 

[ravenheart]

Strength from the Dead

Spoiler

Dausuul

Whenever you inflict necrotic damage to a creature with necrotic resistance, you or one ally within 5 squares of you gains temporary hit points equal to the creature's necrotic resistance.

Spoiler

Balance to taste.

Make that once per round to avoid party-wide-temp-HP-bonanza by using an area necrotic spell against a group of enemies (Grasp of the Grave, anyone?). And maybe excluding automatic damage.

Otherwise, sweet.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Strength from the Dead

Spoiler

Dausuul

Whenever you inflict necrotic damage to a creature with necrotic resistance, you or one ally within 5 squares of you gains temporary hit points equal to the creature's necrotic resistance.

Spoiler

Balance to taste.

YES! This is even better!!! (And exactly what I was thinking as soon as I read your first post on it )

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

I'm fine with the book containing new builds - there ought to be a necromancy option for the essentials mage. There ought to be something for wizards. I think a "Dark Blast" build for Sorcerer would be good. I think a Blackguard build for paladin is fine and there ought to be an avenger build too IMO.

All that said I do think it would make sense to include a new class - "Shadow Mage" or something. Make it something with different mechanics like the shaman or the psionic classes. Give it 2 or 3 builds. No it's probably not going to get a ton of support in some generalized class book 1 year from now but it could be supported via Dragon and the character builder - isn't that what the whole online approach is supposed to enable or facilitate? Better support? Plus, if one particular book is the only way to get a particular class, that should be a selling point like artificer in the Eberron PG or Swordmage in the FRPG.

I'll wait and check the book out when its available. I don't know that my players are all that interested in it and that will drive some of my decision.

 

[tuxgeo]

Don't take this the wrong way but; the life side of death magic? Isn't that a cleric?

I look at that 2E Description and I see a writer desperately reaching to try and find a way to avoid saying "Necromancers raise the dead," because he's been told parents will read that and throw their kids books away.

Necromancers are dudes who raise the dead. If you want to be a leader who keeps people alive...that's a cleric.

Now, I can buy the idea of a Necromancer who isn't Evil, but *purely as a deliberate subversion* and even then I'd expect it to be a Faustian bargain. I agree with...whatever edition of D&D that just flat out said "Raising the dead is an evil act." Yeah. Seems that way to me. Certainly that's the association we make with the word Necromancer.

I haven't checked out the preview yet, but if Necromancers aren't dudes who raise a LOT of undead, even if only as minions (actually, probably IDEALLY as minions) then Ima be pissed.

Terminology: in 3E, the spell "Raise Dead" was a sort of resurrection thing: it brought people back to full life, not undeath.
However, also in 3E, the spells "Animate Dead" (Level: Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4) and "Create Undead" (Level: Clr 6, Death 6, Evil 6, Sor/Wiz 6) were both labelled "Necromancy [Evil]," and dealt with animating/creating undead servants: zombies, skeletons, ghouls, ghasts, mummies, etc.

Also in 3E, however, there was the spell "Spectral Hand" (Level: Sor/Wiz 2), which, although Necromantic, did not have the [Evil] descriptor, so Good PCs could safely use it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Honestly? Yes. Let me put it this way: What's the difference between a druid and a cleric of a nature god?

Other than the wildshape? It depends on your myths.

What's the difference between a Warlord and a Fighter with diplomacy?

Approach. The fighter controls the space around him, the warlord directs the battle. That said, if the Warlord was new to Essentials, he's probably be the third Fighter class, joining the Slayer and the Knight.

Do you honestly want a blackguard dealing radiant damage?

In some cases, yes! The spoiling of the best is the worst. And Blackguards are meant to be the worst. A mechanical reminder that this person should have been one of the greatest heroes going and having his blackness emphasised by the light he's producing deepening the shadows is only adding strength to the concept.

Or a paladin dealing necrotic damage?

I am grey. I stand between the darkness and the light. Between the candle and the stars. Some Paladins are like Polyanna or otherwise blessed. Others are so unswerving precisely because they battle with inner demons (both metaphorical and literal). This latter category sometimes doing necrotic damage is not wrong - it's the Paladin balanced over the precipice.

Do you really want a defender having unrestricted access to a strikers attack and utility powers, and vice versa?

Who said anything about unrestricted access to attack powers. And the utility powers horse already left the barn with the arrival of the Slayer.

Do Blackguards and Paladins share any bloody thing at all that would make them make sense as builds of the same class, mechanically? If not, then why shackle the dark knight archetype to an existing class when it could have flourished on its own?

With the greater flexibility of Essentials class design, these aren't shackles. They add rather than deny.

What material exactly is the necrotic damaging striker blackguard going to use from the radiant damaging defender paladin, and vice versa?

I don't know. But the concept of the Blackguard being able to use Divine Sanction is mechanically evil enough to make me shiver. Especially if the Blackguard gets his own version of Divine Sanction...

Even if mixing between them were possible and mechanically beneficial, why would you even want that in the game, thematically?

See above?

 

[Kerranin]

I think that some people are still thinking of pre-4e paladins, in 4e they are champions of their god (good or evil), and therefore not just the lawful-good types they previously were.

I think when we talk of radiant damage, we're not really talking about 'light' but more about the inner radiance of a god being exposed. That view does not preclude radiant damage for any alignment/god.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

As am I. Necrotic is bad by default - a disadvantage for any power that uses it. It'll be hard to fix it. More or less, every build that focuses on its use needs to ignore resistance by default, or the powers just need to be stronger then other powers because they come with the necrotic drawback, and then on top of that there need to be feats and items that make it better, equivalent to those supporting cold, psychic, and radiant.

...

Or we will have fun seeing all necromancer-mages using keyword changing items (like radiant daggers) and never actually do necrotic damage

Yes I'm the necromancy master and I will smite you with radiant bolts!