Anyone?
- lvl * 1.5.
- casting time 10 min or the previous casting time (whichever is higner).
- Market cost, DM choice depending lvl and power of the ritual.
- Component cost, DM choice depending lvl and power or previous if relevant.
=> TADA ! a new ritual is born.
Of course it probably needs some adjustments to be DD4 proof, but most the 2nd and 3.x utility spell don't need them.
Now you can fabicate, build tower out of nothingless, create pocket plan, etc...
Edit : Oh ! Yeah ! You can of course animate dead. For summoning ritual I suggest more long terme summoning (2nd ed) than short term summoning (3.x).
We can probably expect some selection of necromancy-themed powers to show up in a Class Acts article in the DDI dragon, much as the recent illusionist powers.
As for the basic summoning/constructing/animating/pokemaster gimmick, that'll show up eventually, and Necromancer is almost sure to be one of the classes that runs the gimmick, but we're not sure yet what Wizards is going to make such abilities look like.
Where he should be... in the Monster Manual.
Amen.
Where he should be... in the Monster Manual.
Amen.
Nothing worse than the HURRDURR DAND'S ONLY ABOUT FIGHTAN MONSTERS crowd deciding that their "morality" (read: justification so they can kill without remorse) should restrict everyone else.
Nothing worse than the HURRDURR DAND'S ONLY ABOUT FIGHTAN MONSTERS crowd deciding that their "morality" (read: justification so they can kill without remorse) should restrict everyone else.
Have you ever had a Necromancer in your group?
I ran a morally ambiguous group once. Did the whole "bound together by fate" thing, so the Cleric of Pelor could be in the same group as the Dread Necromancer, with a Monk who cared for nothing but Law and a Ranger who got extra giggles if his arrows could pierce his opponent's skulls.
Now, we had fun, until the Necromancer starts forming an army. In my personal experience, summoning of ALL sorts causes problems. It's one thing to summon the single monster to protect you or aid a pal. It's another to have your own personal army.
If we can get a Necromancer that is a "master of necrotic arts" and not "summoner of undead things", then I'm all for it, actually. But summoning undead left and right clutters the table. If you get an evil Cleric and some other characters who can work with that army, great. But the one time we tried THAT, it focused things too heavily on the Necromancer, despite my efforts.
Personal Armies do not mesh very well with the 4-5 man party theme. As long as Necromancers fill that spot, I'll stand by them only appearing in the Monster Manual. It has NOTHING to do with whether they are good or bad or who gives a crap.
Next time think before you insult someone without knowing where they stand on the issue.
A bit disappointing, depending on your preferences... I think its unfortunate that the druid will likely be losing the animal companion and focus more on shapeshifting than spell-casting.. the shaman, perhaps the replacement nature caster, will likely not have an animal companion either.
If we can get a Necromancer that is a "master of necrotic arts" and not "summoner of undead things", .... Personal Armies do not mesh very well with the 4-5 man party theme. As long as Necromancers fill that spot, I'll stand by them only appearing in the Monster Manual. It has NOTHING to do with whether they are good or bad or who gives a crap.
This.
A) they will not refer to outside sources. Ie - summon/animation abilities will not refer to monster manual entries.
B) they will be designed such that they don't take more gametime then regular abilities (or at least, not much more).
We don't really know what B means exactly, but there are probably some safe assumptions:
Summon abilities will likely look a lot like the Bigby's Hand wizard powers - a sustained magical effect that occupies a space and makes simple, uncomplicated attacks. They'll probably either share the wizard's defences or all their defences will be the same for expediency, and they'll have a set hit point total (Wall of Ice shows that the developers feel such effects can be worth having to track another hit point pool), or pop in a single hit like a minion.
Animation effects may simply not exist - it's possible the Necromancer class will merely have summoning style powers and not have permanent servants that follow them around. If they do, they'll likely be extremely limited in number (I'd be shocked to see more then one per tier, and even more then one may be pushing it), and will likely require actions on the part of the controller to attack or act in other ways, to limit the number of actions that the controller and constructs get altogether.
Large undead armies or undead pulled from a Monster Manual are almost certainly not going to appear in any class, paragon path, or destiny. If undead armies controlled by PCs are ever covered in 4e, I'd expect them to show up in an optional 'mass battles' supplement, which also goes over regular PC generals leading regular armies, and would be very abstracted, rather then 3e's style of individually statted soldier that a core spell lets you create in the hundreds. Oh, what a headache that was.
Anyway, I don't know anything, that's just a royal prediction. I also don't predict this class showing up before MMIV. I think we'll be waiting a while.
Have you ever had a Necromancer in your group?
I ran a morally ambiguous group once. Did the whole "bound together by fate" thing, so the Cleric of Pelor could be in the same group as the Dread Necromancer, with a Monk who cared for nothing but Law and a Ranger who got extra giggles if his arrows could pierce his opponent's skulls.
Now, we had fun, until the Necromancer starts forming an army. In my personal experience, summoning of ALL sorts causes problems. It's one thing to summon the single monster to protect you or aid a pal. It's another to have your own personal army.
If we can get a Necromancer that is a "master of necrotic arts" and not "summoner of undead things", then I'm all for it, actually. But summoning undead left and right clutters the table. If you get an evil Cleric and some other characters who can work with that army, great. But the one time we tried THAT, it focused things too heavily on the Necromancer, despite my efforts.
Personal Armies do not mesh very well with the 4-5 man party theme. As long as Necromancers fill that spot, I'll stand by them only appearing in the Monster Manual. It has NOTHING to do with whether they are good or bad or who gives a crap.
Next time think before you insult someone without knowing where they stand on the issue.
Actually, I've run a Necromancer in a group before. Lawful Neutral, but with good tendencies. He had one skeleton following him around, which was basically his familiar (Mortis Libris). He was a perfectly moral Cleric/Wizard that took the True-Necromancer Prestige class. His worshiped the goddess of death (I forget which one), who is very much not evil, and he could only (As a story line fluff) animate dead who gave him permission to do so.
His only failing point was a lust for knowledge. He was a firm believer that evil could not be destroyed if you didn't understand it. This ended up getting him killed in the long run, but it was a glorious death.
As for necros in 4th ed, they will probably be just like the necros of diablo II. Unfortunetly all the game mechanics of 4th ed feels like an online rpg on paper. This is just my opinon but 4th ed makes me sick. You used to beable to use your imagination more with spells, feats, skills, etc. Now it almost feels like the repetative blast u get from hitting a button. Much like WOW, City of Heros, Guild Wars etc.
That really doesn't sound too terrible, and the diablo comment strikes true.
An example: Change Mordekainen's Sword into Skeleton Guardian.
This is just my opinon but 4th ed makes me sick.
You would let a game affect your health?
I'm totally up for the Necromancer being a Shadow Leader – sapping energy from enemies and bestowing it on his buddies and what not (I would also like a little summoning).
Unless the power says otherwise, it does not occupy a space
It costs you a minor action to give it a move action, has a set move value
All its defences equal X (where X is your level + some set number)
Hit points equal to caster's healing surge value, destroyed at zero hp.
Attacks, other abilities, and durations described in the individual powers
Oh dear another D&D4E haters who makes constant MMO references but cant stay off the forums... shame that.
I'm not quite a 4th ed hater, but pretty close. I play it because my group wanted to test it out, but I cant say I'm even close to being sold or looking at purchasing one of their books yet. The new game lacks versatility, I know theirs only 3 core books out for it so far and their are at least 3 different class "branches" per class but I'm accustomed to the limitless potential of any charector in 3.5. That and just the mechanics of the new system aren't working for me, their are no real options with the different attacks and/or spells. They all have their line by line single effects leaving no room for a chaotic charector to have much fun.
Now that I have all that off my chest I can get back to giving the advice and thoughts I have on the necro that this forum was intended for.
Like others have stated the necro will likely be a debuff/blaster type of charector(that will hopefully have some summoning or raising capabilities). I'm sure they will reintroduce wave of fatigue, bestow curse, etc as encounter powers. Hopefully animate dead as either a daily power or encounter power, likely useable only on a single corpse or animates several with set stats. I can see a fear effect or a ranged inflict type of spell as an at will power.
Critisism is welcome and expected, feel free to branch on to powers and to rip on my personal opinon. I love it
.I know theirs only 3 core books out for it so far and their are at least 3 different class "branches" per class but I'm accustomed to the limitless potential of any charector in 3.5. That and just the mechanics of the new system aren't working for me, their are no real options with the different attacks and/or spells. They all have their line by line single effects leaving no room for a chaotic charector to have much fun.
This is another problem I have with people on this forum, unfarily comparing 4E to the whole of 3.5E, that had 8 years to give you all the options you wanted, This new version has had what 2 months? of course it isnt going to stack up if you compare it that way.
Are you tell me there limitless potential in just the 3.5 PHB? I very much doubt it has more than 4E, I'm not saying 4E has more, just that its about the same.
My main issue is if you dont like the game why come to the forums and tell us about it... most of the people here have or are going to play 4E so as time passes by you'll find your views more and more alienated.
Its like me going onto the White Wolf form and saying "World of Darkness Sucks" of course no one there is gonna agree with me, you may have the same problem too.
your entitled to you opnions but your not preaching to the converted and alot of what you have to say (no matter how good a point you make) falls on deaf ears as your attitude towards the suject matter means nothing you say is gonna be anything good, and I for one dont like negativity all the time.
Show
Please, everybody, neither and none of you need to have the last word on the 3e v. 4e debate, especially in this thread, please take it elsewhere. Here we're talking specifically about when and where we might eventually see a 4e necromancer class, and what it might look like. 3e, or comparisons between 3e and 4e have nothing to do with it.
Edit: alright, I tried asking politely, time to try reporting / sending private messages
Edit: alright, I tried asking politely, time to try reporting / sending private messages
Both the illusionist and the necromancer archetype seem in theory to best fit the controller role, and, truth be told, there's no reason why they can't both be controllers, even though they're in the same power source. After all, both rogues and rangers are martial strikers.
Necromancer with area debuffs and negative conditions, ranged necrotic attacks, and one or more summoned undead as mobile walls/threats fits easily into the Controller party role.
A necromancer could also be done as a leader - with healing powers fluffed as the caster reanimating injured flesh. The class would still focus on debuffs (using them to about the same effect as party buffs), but would impose fewer negative conditions. It would likely have a lot of temporary HP powers in the tradition of false life. I don't see this as the most likely path, because summoned minions, a fairly fundamental part of the concept, don't really seem to bring much to the role.
A necromancer could also theoretically be a striker - with high damage single target necrotic attacks in the style of old death spells. Summoned minions could help enhance his damage (imagine a summoned undead which attacks for a small amount of damage, but also imposes a vulnerability to necrotic damage that the necromancer can then exploit with a lance of dark energy on the following turn), or cover his escape to keep him moving (I'm imagining 'trade places with a summoned undead' utility powers). This could work very well, but I still think it's not as good a fit as the controller version.
A necromancer defender is probably the hardest to imagine, but giving the caster undead themed durability and backing him up with one or two undead sidekicks who can impose marks for him with their attacks could result in a very effective necromancy themed defender.
So yeah, they could do it however they liked, but the controller is probably the best fit for the concept as it has previously been imagined.
I agree that this is the least likely place to see him, but it's still a fun thing to think about.
Still, the minions is a problem (it should be a relatively central theme of the class). Best use of summoned undead I can think of for a necro-leader is to give the necromancer range tuch or close burst one buff/healing/temp hp abilities, but let them be delivered through a summoned undead as well.
It's also possible that we'll see more then one necromantic-themed class. We'll likely see around four Shadow source classes in core books (though possibly not all appearing in the same PHB). I'm imagining illusionist and necromancer controllers, an illusionist style striker (invisibility, insubstantial, psychic attacks, etc), and a necromancy themed defender/bone knight kind of character like we've been describing here (bone armor, touch attacks that slow and mark, summoned undead that block movement, make opportunity attacks, and maybe also mark).
I also expect incorporial undead used to bring the necromancy and illusion together as a theme. Maybe not that illusion classes actually summon them, but an illusiony striker with powers that make them like incorporeal undead could work. I'm hoping they integrate them well enough that it doesn't feel like they're giving two completely different power sources the same name.
I'm not quite a 4th ed hater, but pretty close. I play it because my group wanted to test it out, but I cant say I'm even close to being sold or looking at purchasing one of their books yet. The new game lacks versatility, I know theirs only 3 core books out for it so far and their are at least 3 different class "branches" per class but I'm accustomed to the limitless potential of any charector in 3.5. That and just the mechanics of the new system aren't working for me, their are no real options with the different attacks and/or spells.
Yes, because, there was SO much versatility in 3.5 edition. Every single rogue of the same level didn't look exactly the same. Every single fighter of the same level didn't look exactly the same. truly, you are correct. 4e is less versatile then 3.5 edition.
Lets see. More feats, and thus more feat options for 4e? Check. More abilities for most classes, and thus more abilities to choose from (thus creating more unique character builds per class)? Check. Every character can learn to use rituals, aka non combat spells? Check.
The only thing about 4e that is less versatile is the multi-classing...
Yes, because, there was SO much versatility in 3.5 edition. Every single rogue of the same level didn't look exactly the same. Every single fighter of the same level didn't look exactly the same. truly, you are correct. 4e is less versatile then 3.5 edition.
Well in 3.5 you could play a rogue /wizard multiclass who hid himself in the shadows and attacked with his wand of scorching rays. This wasn't built in the character from the beginning, but just something the player discovered.
In 4e you have a lot more powers, but most of the powers can just be used in one pretty predetermined way.
While indeed there are more options to build your character, you have less freedom to discover special usages of items/weapons/skills/feats than in 3.5
So, indeed for people who have fun in discovering loopholes in the rules and use things in a way they wheren't intended to be used, 4e is less fun than 3.5.
There are many other threads for arguing about 3e vs 4e. They aren't this one. Please, please, PLEASE keep the off topic argument out of this thread!
I'm guessing Shadow would be the most appropriate power source. It would be kinda neat to see a Necro with all the poisons and necrotic afflictions, as well as some basic shadow/stealth moves. (of course, a shadow-sourced Assassin/Ninja type class should be better at this, but I personally don't see why all Shadow-source characters can't have some of the stealthy aspects of the Shadowfell)
Maybe some wraith-like abilities. Stealth so far of a distance, then hit with a wraith attack.
Well, I know I would like to see the Necromancer in either another PHB (a book covering several power sources, with several classes) or a "Power Source: Shadow" book (like a Complete book, I guess, but for a new power source). Personally, I'd rather NOT have it show up in an undead book. Nothing ruined Heroes of Horror for my group worse than having people flip through it for stuff they might add to their character, and then seeing and skimming over material that was "DM eyes only". If it's something the party wouldn't know about, it should be in a separate book from stuff for the party.
I agree. I would rather have DM/Monster supplements be more distinct from player supplements then they have been in the past. Most likely we will not be seeing any new classes in the upcoming undead book (although how much, if any, PC material will make it in there is anybody's guess at this point). Almost certainly we'll see the Shadow power source introduced in one or two PHBs down the road - probably after psionic, so I wouldn't be shocked if we have to wait for PHB IV or PHB V. After the shadow classes are introduced, we'll likely also see a Shadow splatbook, in the style of the martial splatbook due out later this year.
I'm guessing Shadow would be the most appropriate power source. It would be kinda neat to see a Necro with all the poisons and necrotic afflictions, as well as some basic shadow/stealth moves. (of course, a shadow-sourced Assassin/Ninja type class should be better at this, but I personally don't see why all Shadow-source characters can't have some of the stealthy aspects of the Shadowfell)
Necromancer is already pretty much confirmed as Shadow power source (see the worlds & monsters preview book). How much stealth will be thrown in is still uncertain. A 'power of darkness' necromancer may or may not have stealth aspects thrown in, but I can see the shadow power source as a whole leading towards the stealth, mobility, and high single target damage of the striker role. Not that all shadow classes will be strikers, but I could see the non-striker shadow classes leaning that way in the same way that the arcane classes so far seem to lean towards controller and the divine classes seem to lean towards leader.
to Stogoe
Never, although I am done asking. At this point, I'm simply going to keep reporting posts on both sides of that silly argument until the thread is clean and stays that way.
Thanks in advance.
Almost certainly we'll see the Shadow power source introduced in one or two PHBs down the road - probably after psionic, so I wouldn't be shocked if we have to wait for PHB IV or PHB V. After the shadow classes are introduced, we'll likely also see a Shadow splatbook, in the style of the martial splatbook due out later this year.
Well, we get Martial Power this fall, PHB II with Arcane/Divine/Primal sources in the spring, and Arcane Power shortly before/after PHBII (can't remember, too lazy to check, irrelevant anyways)
Logically we'll get Divine Power next summer (roughly), before the PHBIII. Possibly Primal Power before PHB III too. (or at least at roughly the same time)
With that, they'll average 2 Power books for each PHB. So I would suggest they do a PHB III for "Psionic and Shadow Heroes". Maybe add in a 3rd power source, with one class, maybe two. (go back and fill gaps left over after PHBII, like a single Martial Controller class or whatever; generally speaking, have it focus on Psionic and Shadow) Then, you've got the Psionic Power and Shadow Power books to come out before the PHB IV.
I would (optimistically) look for the Necromancer to appear alongside the Psionic classes and other Shadow classes in the PHB III.
While psionic and shadow in PHBIII might work, I could also see them doing Psionic and Ki, and leaving shadow for PHBIV. Alternatively, I could see them doing only one new power source at a time, in which event we also probably won't see shadow before PHBIV or later. Remember, once they're out of good power sources and sensible classes they'll have to start stretching for PHB material, and when that happens sales of new PHB series books will wane, and WotC will have to start considering a new edition, so pacing the release of new power sources, especially ones that are likely to be popular, is worth serious consideration on their part.
I personally think the best shot we have of seeing a playable, and official, necromancer class in the next two years is the playtest articles in dragon. That's actually a possibility that hasn't been mentioned too much yet in this thread. Sadly, I don't even think we'll see that in the next year, as there's so much else to be released first that I doubt they've even started designing the necromancer.
Have you ever had a Necromancer in your group?....
My character Bodyknock (hence my forum name) was a gnome necromancer that I played through 17th level. He was a lot of fun to play, and he did have some undead pets following him around, mostly in the form of non-animated undead that he cast Command Undead on since it lasts for such a long time. Generally speaking the undead he created with animate dead weren't that useful in combat, though, because by the time he could cast that spell they tended to be one-shotted by the monsters we were facing. Add to that the fact that he had to have the right kind of onyx onhand to animate a corpse, and the fact that you can't exactly walk into most villages and cities with a squad of skeletons and zombies behind you, and he mostly ended up animating things for out-of-combat purposes like carrying stuff and guarding our party's main keep.
In fact, my DM told me that what he liked least about my necro wasn't animating and controlling undead. It was the debuffs. Between Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement and Sudden Maximized Enervation, he had to essentially have two versions of every monster prepared for every fight. It's that sort of extra bookeeping that led WotC to remove stat and level debuffs from 4th edition, replacing them with things like the weakness and slow condition or with straight out damage effects.
The good news, though, is that 4th edition does currently have all the general mechanics necessary for necromantic-looking attack spells. Basically it already has spells that do necrotic damage, that does ongoing poison or necrotic damage, that lowers defenses, weakens the enemy or causes the enemy to run away. So creating a character that can do necromantic-style attack spells isn't that hard. All you're really missing, therefore, is the ability to animate or summon undead.
If you wanted to create your own 4th edition necromancer using the current rules, you could start with either a warlock or wizard, depending on whether you want to focus on single-target or area-effect attacks. Then you take powers that focus on lowering opponent's defenses, slowing them and such, rather than powers that just do damage. At that point you just redefine how the power looks in roleplaying terms to make it sound "spookier", and you've got a character that is relatively close to a negative-energy casting necromancer. I'd also recommend looking at some of the spells in the Dragon article that provides heroic tier illusion spells for wizards. You could describe those illusions in necromantic terms and have some cool necro spells. For instance, Illusory Ambush could be described as summoning ethereal undead specters that harass and sap the will of their target, which is what causes the psychic damage and the attack penalty.
Hmm, in fact, maybe for giggles I'll try and work up a sample necro. If I do I'll try and remember to post it here.
Next time think before you insult someone without knowing where they stand on the issue.
Fair enough.