Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 kanageddaamen Jul 21, 2014 9:00:33	So looking over the list of spells in the Basic rules, I noticed there is a startling deficit of Wizard necromancy spells (infact, I think there is only 1: Finger of Death)  Using just these spells, it seems impossible to make a necromancer (especially considering its missing what I would say is the bread and butter spell: animate dead,) even though the basic rules indicate the option to create one. This leads me to believe that the PHB will have a much larger spell list (particularly since a large number of the spells in Basic are Evocation spells, the one school it outlines) Can anyone confirm that the PHB will have an expanded spell list for wizards?  What about cleric spells?
#2 Plaguescarred1 Jul 21, 2014 9:17:02	I am pretty sure wizards and clerics will have more spells that the only seen in Basic Rules.
#3 mellored Jul 21, 2014 9:44:43	You can see a few spells mentioned in basic (like wish, under disintigrate), that arn't listed in basic.     So yea, there will be more.
#4 ArkPanda Jul 21, 2014 14:58:34	Plus they have to add all the spells for druids, warlocks, and the hybrid classes.  There will be a lot more in the final PHB.
#5 Nausicaa Jul 21, 2014 23:45:39	We didn't even see the top of the barrel. We're lacking some really classic and standard stuff like Transmutation spells, Summoning spells and Necromancy Spells. For instance, if you take a look to the Warlock class preview, you can see that we even lack some cantrips (Ray of Sickness).
#6 kanageddaamen Jul 22, 2014 6:12:35	I also noticed in an Art preview on a blog an image from the PHB for Cloudkill, also not there.  It looks like the spell list may be taking a big chunk of the PHB, which I am all for!
#7 Caliburn101. Jul 24, 2014 2:44:18	I am sure that the Necromancer abilites will include expanding things like enchantment spells into effecting otherwise immune undead.   That way the 'necromancy' spells in the game, purely for the necromancer, will be larger than it appears.
#8 ArkPanda Jul 25, 2014 11:52:13	Accoding to today's Table of Contents, there are 79 pages of spells in the full PHB.  The Basic Rules have 21 pages of spells.  So I think we'll have plenty to choose from for specialists.
(Reply to #8) Ashrym	ArkPanda wrote:
#10 malisteen Aug 10, 2014 1:09:29	Having looked at the players handbook.... yeah.  Yeah, necromancy is pretty thin on the ground.  Unless I'm missing something, Blight is the only 4th level necromancy spell for wizards, and there are no 5th level necromancy spells at all.  Magic Jar has been moved to 6th level, which I'm not entirely sure was necessary, given the rather significant risk of killing yourself by casting it.  Necromancer specialist wizards gain a bonus when killing living targets with spells which increases with necromancy spells, but since cantrips don't qualify, the first necromancy spell they can actually kill an enemy with is the aformentioned 4th level blight.  EDIT: wait, no, I was wrong there, Ray of Sickness deals poison damage, so you could kill something with that.   At least the cantrip chill touch seems pretty decent as a necrotic (not cold) damage spell that prevents healing with a respectable range, but thematically "Chill Touch" is kind of odd, since it's not a touch spell, and isn't even chilly.   Necromancy options in general are somewhat limited.  Clerics and Wizards can cast 'animate dead' as a third level spell, which is relatively well structured (one day of control per cast, with a number of creatures created/controlled based on spell slot used), and doesn't cost money.  But it only targets small or medium humanoid corpses, and only produces medium humanoid skeletons and zombies - specific monsters rather than templates.  So no skeletal steeds to ride, no zombie dragons, etc.  I'm not familiar enough with 5e yet to say whether they're at all useful.  Similar situation for create undead, but corporeal only (ghoul, ghast, wight, mummy is the full list iirc), again specific monsters and not templates, no idea if there's any use for them by the time you can make them, but at least control is included, and is per day per cast as with animate dead.  But again, all humanoids, so limited utility, no travel use, etc; and all corporeal - as far as I can tell there are no PC spells or abilities in the 5e PHB that create, summon, control, or otherwise specifically interact with incorporeal undead.   while clerics can cast animate dead and create undead, there is no 'negative energy' cleric option - no rebuke instead of turn, and there's no death or undeath or blight type domain in the PHB for clerics.  Sorcerers don't have animate dead or create undead on their spell list, and have no necromancy themed build.  Warlocks can cast create undead, if they choose it as their only ever known 6th level spell, but have no access at all to animate dead, which seems odd and unfortunate.  If it was a ritual then they could pick it up via the book warlock's special invocation, but no, and there are no other invocations replacing the effect, nor is there a specifically necromancy themed warlock build.   So right now, necromancy is pretty much wizard's territory, getting free healing when they kill enemies with spells, bonuses to undead created with spells (though again, how useful they are is not something I feel comfortable voicing an opinion on), and at higher levels a 'save or join my party' control effect usable on one undead creature at a time, though intelligent undead are unlikely to fail, and undead of above average intelligence get new saves every hour.  The lack of any 5th level wizard necromancy spells, and the rather slim pickings at several earlier levels, aren't exactly encouraging of the theme, though.   I'm sure this will change with time.  I'd be surprised if we don't see undead themed builds for clerics (death domain), sorcerers (undead bloodline), and warlocks (pact with dead god or other powerful undead force) sooner or later, along with a 'dead walk' invocation, and some new necromancy spells, in particular some sort of lesser animate dead capable of producing non-combatant, non-humanoid undead to use as mounts or beasts of burden, and something to fill in the bare patches in 4th and 5th levels.  Maybe some sort of spirit wall, or a burning bones style buff to allied or controlled undead.  I don't know.  Or maybe monster manuals will make note of undead creatures that can be created by animate dead or create undead that aren't alread listed in the spell descriptions (ie, a skeletal warhorse with the note 'can be created via animate dead, using a pile of equine bones instead of humanoid bones'), or w/e.   EDIT: I just noticed that wizards don't get astral projection in 5e, so that leaves PHB necromancers without any 9th level spells as well.   Necromancy isn't the only school with gaps - divination lacks any spells above 6th level, enchantment has no 3rd or 7th level spells, illusion no 8th level spells.   Necromancy in general seems pretty narrow so far in 5th, though, especially with fear now falling under illusion.
#11 Ashrym Aug 10, 2014 1:04:41	Grim Harvest works with non-necro spells too, just with lesser effectiveness. Wizards use more than just their school spells.
#12 malisteen Aug 10, 2014 1:08:30	Yup.  Tried to say as much - a bonus to killing enemies with spells, the bonus increases if the spell is necromancy.  I was wrong though about blight being the first spell that could qualify for that extra bonus - ray of sickness deals poison damage now, and thus could kill something.  Didn't catch that at first.
#13 AaronOfBarbaria Aug 10, 2014 1:50:35	Regarding chill touch: The spell is named for "the chill touch of the grave" which was some line in some something sometime that I can't friggin' Google because all that comes up is WoW-related stuff.   ...and the description of the spell, a skeletal hand appearing and grasping at the target, makes it still a "touch" even though it is a ranged attack spell now.   As for Necromancy spells being lacking... I don't see it, but then I am viewing it from the perspective of comparative to other themes, and there are more levels with Necromancy spells (even attacks) than there are with lighting spells or cold spells (especially when you don't count the spells that are a number of different elements by choice or by random determination).
#14 malisteen Aug 10, 2014 6:58:34	The chill touch comment wasn't a complaint, just poking fun.  My first impression of the spell is that it's pretty cool and decent, likely a staple spell for any 5e necromancers I play.  If it actually were a touch range spell, I'd likely think much less of it, as melee isn't exactly a great place for wizards to be.  For instance, I'm pretty skeptical of bestow curse and vampyric touch, though they could easily win me over in practice.  So anyway, yeah, chill touch, pretty neat spell, but also fun to make fun of.  My group has already given it the unnofficial flavor text:    "Not a touch.  Isn't chilly.  And the Necromancers wonder why no one trusts them" ~ Bartleby Blastfurnace, Sr. Evoker   As for comparing Necromancy to cold or lightning spells; You're comparing an entire school / sub build to particular subthemes of another school.  Instead of comparing to 'cold spells', try comparing to 'evocation'.  If you want to compare to just cold spells, then you should be looking at just a sub theme of the school, like 'spells that manipulate undead', of which I count two (though I could be missing some, I hardly have the book memorized, as displayed by my missing ray of sickness's poison damage), or 'spells that deal necrotic damage', which has a few more, but that 'cold spells' still doesn't compare all that disfavorably to, especially when you consider that necromancy really doesn't have that many subthemes within its purview, especially now that fear spells have been given to illusion instead, and that's a problem with 5e necromancy, not a strength.  It's a narrower school than the others.   Not the narrowest, or the one with the fewest spells.  Again, divination has no wizard spells at all above 6th level, and is arguably even more narrow in its utility, while enchantment and illusion ahave level gaps of their own.  I believe all have spells that can be prepared in higher spell slots, so you can still cast spells of those schools in the given levels, even if you don't know any specifically of that level.  And this is only the first book of the edition, expansions and supplements will come in time.  I'm sure that eventually every school will have spells of every level, and that even sub themes like 'lightning evoker' or 'undead manipulator' will have a sufficiently hearty spell selection to get the theme accross.  I'm also confident that sorcerer, cleric, and warlock will eventually get more necromancy focused sub themes and builds.  Even without, the cleric's still alright, and the Warlock really just needs 'The Dead Walk' as an invocation back.   Again, I'm not complaining, we've only just started the edition, so it's not like I was expecting 5e necromancy options to rival those of 2e or 3e right out of the gate.  Necromancy is more common as an npc gimmick, player necromancy is rightfully a bit more obscure.  The necromantic options in 5e's PHB are comparable to the core options in 3e or 2e, and already eclipse the whole edition's worth of necromancy options in 4e.  While I enjoyed 4e for what it was, it completely failed to deliver on this theme, early on promising that the dark arts would be an entire power source unto themselves akin to 'martial' or 'arcane', which an entire dedicated necromancer class, but then pooing out before they got that far, and leaving us with a garbage wizard subtheme that didn't even try to deliver on the concept.  I liked the 4e Blackguard and Executioner, but Heroes of Shadow as a whole still had to be the biggest letdown of the entire edition.   I'm rambling off topic now, though.  Basically, yeah.  Necromancy: a bit more narrow than most other schools, a bit less options, certainly some gaps, and in need of conceptual expansion after illusion stole fear.  But not terrible overall, perfectly adequate for an initial offering of a more obscure, slightly less PC friendly school, and easy to expand in the future.  And besides, it's not like specializing forces you to give up other schools in 5e, so it's not a big deal if you can't grab a different good spell of your school for each spell you prepare.
#15 Undrhil Aug 10, 2014 14:41:18	Necromantic energy has always paired up as being cold or chilly.  Chill touch works fine.  I think they are trying to prevent cross-keyword spells: necromancy spells with elemental damage, for instance.   The Cleric death domain is probably in the DMG, along with some other domains, which puts them squarly in the lap of the DM to decide is players can use them, which is what should be the case.  As it is, unless a ruling for Adventure League says otherwise, there will be no death domain clerics in the living campaign.  Necro Wizards are allowed, though.   Also, if you want your Warlock to have a feel of a Necromancer, you can always multiclass Wizard for a few levels and get the Necromancy school.  Do any of the features say that only apply to Wizard spells?
#16 malisteen Aug 10, 2014 17:30:30	The school features are fine for straight wizards, but they're not really worth reaching for as a multiclass that is primarily something else, especially warlock which doesn't stack casting as well as other dual caster multiclasses.   Mostly it isn't class features, but the archetype-defining spell 'Animate Dead' which necromantic leaning warlocks lack, and five levels of wizard just to access it is probably too much.  As it is, you can still play a perfectly functional, perfectly spooky warlock, and just not have real necromancy until create undead at level 11, but mostly necromantic warlocks are just waiting for the re-introduction of a 'The Dead Walk' invocation.  Those who want to homebrew can probably just allow it as an invocation, make it min 5th level, and can only control one casting's worth of undead at a time, do prevent all-day spamming.   Again, I'm not complaining.  The necromantic options are more than adequate for PHB (though I personally would have included death domain in the PHB, saving it for the DMG doesn't make any more sense to me than doing the same for the necromancy specialist wizard, or fiendsh warlock or any other 'darker' build option), and I'm sure supplemental material for the theme will be available sooner or later.
(Reply to #14) AaronOfBarbaria	malisteen wrote: