Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="humble minion" data-source="post: 1045401" data-attributes="member: 5948">An evil, animating-type necromancer has minions, true (but not until 7th level).  The doubling of Aniimate Dead's controlled undead hit dice limit is a nice bonus.  Dispel magic does not un-animate created undead.  Or I would be even grumpier...  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Because you can conjure creatures that have wagonloads of spell-like abilities.  And how does a necromancer stay away from the thick of combat when his enemies are hunting him (which they will!)?  Teleport...  Speak with Dead is not a Wizard spell.  Still clerics-only, darnit.  But necromancers should not be stereotyped as isolated-tower-with-undead-servants-and-evil-plot types, in my opinion.  Why shouldn't a civilised kingdom have a court necromancer to clone the Royal family in case of assassination, to research possible ways of using arcane magic to heal (and therefore helping the crown gain more independence from the churches), to help defend against assaults from undead, and to scare the living hell out of neighbouring kingdoms by the mere fact of his existence?Zombies and skeletons will wilt before serious opposition.  And sometimes you need to be able to breathe water!  (Sinking ship, for instance...)No arguments here - evn though a disproportionate number of necromancy spells seem to be rather marginal attack spells like Chill Touch, Blight, Contagion and so on.  But even an eeeevil necromancer has to somehow survive until he can actually start animating things.I said: I mean come on. Evil Necromancers are supposed to terrorise fantasy worlds. How can they do this if they can't summon demons, or teleport, or make their minions look like fair damsels, or put the king under their spell, or level city walls to let their rotting legions in, or even erect spell defences worth a damn. If any of these evil wizards chose necromancy because of the forbidden power it offered, they would probably have been better off getting a good nights sleep, drinking a nice mug of hot chocolate, and having another look at Conjuration instead...I'm regretting writing this last paragraph (or at least not putting a <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> after it.  I was only half serious here - I'm perfectly accepting of the need for a necromancer to sacrifice something to specialise, but I believe that 3.5e asks too much.  I'm not equating 'necromancer' with 'megamage' - I'm trying to resist your equation of 'necromancer' with 'evil sod who wants to rule a world populated only by unliving vassals'.  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.</blockquote>

Verification