Wizard Specialization [Rant]

[frankthedm]

3.0 changed necromancy to be the 'eeeevil' spell school, instead of the school of spells that affected life force, as it was in previous editions. So nothing particularly new there.

Unfortunatly when arcane casters 'affect' something, its usually in a destructive or controling manner, and in a world where the soul is real, i am gonna say messing with that is a bit worse moral-wise than messsing with the victims body or mind.

 

[hong]

Part of my reaction stems from the fact that the PC necromancer I was referring to was not going to animate except in extreme circumstances - partly as an aesthetic choice, partly as a nod to the way my GM wants the campaign to run (no "Zombie! Trigger that trap!") So am aware that I'm putting extra limitations on myself here in addition to the mechanical ones. I'd just like necromancy to be more about the primal forces of flesh and bone, life and death rather than simply undead-creation and eeeeevilness.

So start your own campaign, where necromancy is treated that way. It really is that simple.

 

[humble minion]

Necromancy is often called "the black art" (which is confusing with niger, Latin for black), which has the traditional focus of communicating with the spirits of the dead in order to predict the future.

In D&D, it is defined as the manipulation of the power of death, unlife, and the life force. It is used to creature undead creatures. In no way should it be "about the primal forces of flesh and bone."

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Spells like Contagion, Blindness/Deafness, the various Exhaustion/Fatigue spells and so on have direct effects on biological processes. So logically, why shouldn't Bull's Strength, Bear's Endurance, Darkvision, or even Cure Disease or Haste be necromancies? (I'm exaggerating for the sake of argument here - obviously there are play balance matters involved as well) They all deal with manipulation of the body and life force, increasing its efficiency. Far more than Fear, for instance, unless you basically decide necromancy means 'scary evil stuff', a definition that I think misses the point of the school. Necromancy, like any potent power, should have great potential for abuse, but also should be a powerful tool for good if used responsibly.

The act of raising a corpse to do your bidding is not a good one. And that is why good necromancers do not work out too well.

True enough. I don't mind having my character handicapped by this - it's my choice, and it's part of the concept. But the current necromantic spell list seems to be put together from a list of 'frightening icky stuff' rather than a logical examination of which spells actually belong in a school that emphasises the mastery of life and death.

 

[Jens]

If you want to mmodify things, you might get inspiration from the Complete Book of Necromancers. It's good stuff.

 

[Al]

Actually, necromancers aren't the ones that got really messed up. They got a lot of cursey type spells, the waves of fatigue/exhaustion, symbol of death, animate dead improved, create undead and a slew of other new stuff.

No, the real suckers are specialist abjurers and illusionists. Abjurers get Break Enchantment, Mordy's Private Sanctum, Dimensional Lock in exchange for some of their nicer low-level spells getting nerfed (Shield, Prot. from Arrows) and are now treated as equivalent to the "big three". Illusion gets an extension in the top end of the Shadow Conjuration department and Scintillating Pattern, and is also 'promoted'.

Necromancers did fine (enchanters didn't do too badly, picking up the Power Words)- save your pity for the abjurers and illusionists!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But the current necromantic spell list seems to be put together from a list of 'frightening icky stuff' rather than a logical examination of which spells actually belong in a school that emphasises the mastery of life and death.

Hmm. This is an interesting thread. I must note, though, that I've never seen necromancy, in the traditional fantasy literary sense, to mean a "mastery of life and death" so much as a mastery of unlife and death. And dark and sinister, yes.

I do think you have a point, in that Fear seems like it might fit better as an Enchantment. But Bull's Strength, unless the flavor text were re-written to change the target's flesh into stronger, more resilient zombie flesh, doesn't fit for me at all. Necromancy isn't about dealing with life-force in a positive way. It's about playing with the barrier between life and death, and bringing things back to life, often in a sick and twisted way. It's about utilizing negative energy, which is the antithesis to positive energy--the energy of life.

I understand your feelings, though. We all have our own views about what the schools mean and which spells should be in them. My own pet peeve is the Conjuration school, half of which I think belong in other schools but were only put there to bolster the school's spell selection. (I mean, really, what's the difference between an evocation, and "conjuring" energy? How does one "conjure" healing? Ugh.)

 

[Pbartender]

I don't think Necromancer is nearly as as off as people might think.

I recently sent a 6th level Necromancer (backed up by several 1st level warriors) against a 6th level party... I can honestly say, he did much better than I expected.

Spectral Hand in conjunction with Touch of Idiocy spelled big trouble for the spellcasters, and Ray of Enfeeblement (which no longer requires a Fortitude save) kept the tanks under control, and Ray of Exhaustion took care of the archer. Once the PCs were suitably "cursed", he used his Spectral Hand to toss a couple of Vampiric Touches their way.

In the end, he ran away, because his mooks were slowly getting clobbered, but he certainly gave the party a run for their money.

 

[Pickaxe]

When you take into consideration that clerics and druids get more spell slots per day than wizards anyways, the extra spell slot per day is not a game-breaker.

Actually, druids are the major spell-casting class that gets the fewest spell slots; no domains, no specialization, no sorcerer-type slots.

Back on the topic of specialization, I tend to think that 2 schools is in fact too much, but I've never played a high-level campaign. The change itself smacks of the rumored "Nerf the Wizards!" campaign that many say drove the spell revisions.

My interest in this whole discussion really stems from conversations I've had regarding sorcerers vs. wizards. One side of the argument is that the extra spell slots of sorcerers aren't such a great advantage, given the relative ease with which one can make scrolls. The other side is that sorcerers don't give that much up in spell diversity (at least at high levels) and make up any deficiencies through magic items (especially if these are readily purchased).

The interesting thing here is that both of these arguments point out problems with specialists. The advantage of the extra spell slot is diminished by the ease of creating scrolls. And the specialist is even limited in how he can overcome the loss of two schools through magic items. I haven't played any high level wizards, but I have played a generalist and, to a lesser extent, a diviner (no necromancy). For a while, I was regretting not specializing the first character, as it seemed like an extra slot per level was too good to pass up. But I decided not to specialize, because I had better flexibility and better opportunities to take advantage of magic item creation (which is important in our campaign). A specialist would end up cutting himself out of making all sorts of items.

Maybe a 20th level specialist of any school would convince me otherwise, but I still think 2 schools is too much.

--Axe

 

[Staffan]

Actually, druids are the major spell-casting class that gets the fewest spell slots; no domains, no specialization, no sorcerer-type slots.

Actually, they do get slightly fewer spell slots than non-specialist wizards... but only regarding low-level spells at really high levels.

If you read down the columns for wizard spells, you'll note that they go 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, and then 4s the rest of the way (that's one 1, two 2s, three 3s). For clerics and druids, it goes 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5 and then 5s the rest of the way. Though really, having an extra 1st level spell at 11th level probably doesn't change balance that much.

 

[jmucchiello]

I do think you have a point, in that Fear seems like it might fit better as an Enchantment.

Absolutely. I wrote as much in Joe's Book of Enchantment many moons ago. (/cheap plug)

I mean, really, what's the difference between an evocation, and "conjuring" energy? How does one "conjure" healing? Ugh.

Evocations violate the laws of thermodynamics: they create enegy from nothing. Conjurations move energy from one plane to another. Conjuration (healing) is actually a gate to the positve material plane.