The character must be a specialist necromancer.
The character does not gain a famillair/bonus feats/slash i dont exactly know what the "loss" should be, perhaps there shouldnt be any loss. At anyrate, the gain: Necromancers may prepare turn or rebuke undead as a spell. It is always their highest level slot (it cannot be prepared at a lower level) and otherwise functions exactly as it normally would, but uses the wizards INT modifier for all effects.
Lets also go ahead and give the necromancer all cure/inflict spells as normal, seeing as they should be necromancy, not conjuration (********)... i mean (healing)
Opinions??
You want a Necromancer? Dread Necromancer from Heroes of Horror. THAT is a necro. They control twice the undead that clerics do :D Not to mention the undead swarms they can summon in a single round. Did I mention that they also become a lich at 20th level? and have the spells/day of a sorcerer? Enjoy :D
Not super interested in the dread necro. I dont care for most noncore prestige classes, id rather modify or create variants for existing classes.
Hope that helps,
TS
If you want necros to be better necros, a couple simple things to do would be to give them access to Animate Dead earlier (I've been known to argue that Animate Dead would be balanced as a 1st levels spell for any caster) and to boost the number of HD they can control. This in addition to adding cure/inflict/heal/harm spells to their spell list and creating more spell equivalents of turn/rebuke undead. (I don't think creating a new sub-system for arcane turn/rebuking is a good idea when we already have the perfectly good spell system.) As for the cost, I'm going to make a radical suggestion: no cost necessary! Animate Dead is a self-balancing spell and unless you boost HD capacity beyond that of a cleric, a necro isn't better at what he does than anyone else. Oh and don't limit all this stuff to just specialist necros; there's no reason why other wizards and sorcerers should be restricted from being decent necros.
Hope that helps,
TS
Im considering suggestion to my DM:
Creating turn/rebuke as a spell. Its really a conflict between two abilities/systems, and im siding with the spell system to keep wizards/sorcerers still spell oriented and spell flavored. The spell has to always be cast at your highest level to avoid metamagic cheese.
Inflict/Cure/Healing/Harming spells should become available to the necromancer and no longer "conjuration spells"
Animate Dead at first level. nuff said.
Im considering suggestion to my DM:
Creating turn/rebuke as a spell. Its really a conflict between two abilities/systems, and im siding with the spell system to keep wizards/sorcerers still spell oriented and spell flavored. The spell has to always be cast at your highest level to avoid metamagic cheese.
What happens if I don't have a highest level slot to burn, or if I only have to turn/rebuke a few commoner skeletons as a 10th level caster? You could make rules about knocking off two turn/rebuke levels per spell level, but at that point you might as well be using spells. Besides, making more turn/rebuke based spells gives you an opportunity to ignore the overly complex and often useless standard turn/rebuke mechanic.
Inflict/Cure/Healing/Harming spells should become available to the necromancer and no longer "conjuration spells"
How these spells were ever designated as conjurations is beyond me. Obviously, at least some of those designers are on serious drugs.
Animate Dead at first level. nuff said.
So...you like my idea or no?
What happens if I don't have a highest level slot to burn, or if I only have to turn/rebuke a few commoner skeletons as a 10th level caster? You could make rules about knocking off two turn/rebuke levels per spell level, but at that point you might as well be using spells. Besides, making more turn/rebuke based spells gives you an opportunity to ignore the overly complex and often useless standard turn/rebuke mechanic.
well, as my mechanic stands now you prepare turn or rebuke (one or the other) as a spell, so, you dont "burn them". So i dont really follow your complaint here, if you didnt prepare it for that day you didnt prepare it, youre just SOL.
I also dont understand what you mean by making more turn/rebuke based spells.
Not super interested in the dread necro. I dont care for most noncore prestige classes, id rather modify or create variants for existing classes.
Dread Necromancer is a base class, not a prestige class, and not even a cleric can compare with its necromancy abilities. Basically, it's a modified sorcerer with the work done for you. Besides, what undead controller doesn't want to become a lich at 20th level? :D
Dread Necromancer is a base class, not a prestige class, and not even a cleric can compare with its necromancy abilities. Basically, it's a modified sorcerer with the work done for you. Besides, what undead controller doesn't want to become a lich at 20th level? :D
when i said "base" i meant "core". Im not asking for class or optimization, im complaining that DnD didnt do necromancy right and am trying to fix that. I basicly ignore all non-core base classes.
And who doesnt want to become a lich? A wizard that can substitute blood for costly material components and needs a con score to do so. Screw being a lich.
Inflict/Cure/Healing/Harming spells should become available to the necromancer and no longer "conjuration spells"
The reason they're conjuration is because you conjure either positive energy or negative energy. It's tied into the whole cleric energy channeling thing. If you made them necromancy spells, you'd have to redesign how they work. For instance, instead of Cure 'degree' Wounds, keep the effect, make it necromancy, and call it Mend Flesh, 'degree' or some other name that ties more closely to how necromancy works. Replace "minor, light, moderate, serious, critical" degrees with "minor, lesser, no degree, improved, greater" degrees. The Inflict spells could be replaced by Rend Flesh or something like that. By doing this, you keep clerics working the same way while still giving a necromancer access to the same spells. It also ties a little more closely with wizard spell naming conventions.
when i said "base" i meant "core". Im not asking for class or optimization, im complaining that DnD didnt do necromancy right and am trying to fix that. I basicly ignore all non-core base classes.
And who doesnt want to become a lich? A wizard that can substitute blood for costly material components and needs a con score to do so. Screw being a lich.
Well, if you don't want to touch non-core base classes, and only want to make modifications, then why not use some of the non-core base classes as kind of a starting point or a source of ideas? Use the idea of the class instead of the class itself. Class abilities to augment necromancy? Give up bonus feats (or, better yet, make each ability optional, so any wizard can pick one or two of them up in place of one or two bonus feats). Moving some spells around and creating new ones? Just keep in mind that a cleric should be at least a little better when dealing directly with positive and negative energy. To use my last post, the "Mend Flesh" spells and such should maybe be d6 instead of d8 (but keep everything else the same). Turning? Insert into the Turn Undead/Rebuke Undead spell descriptions that metamagic cannot be used with them. You could also put a "turning level" restriction on them, based on spell slot used. For instance, turning level = caster level, but the max based on spell slot is, say, 2+2x spell level or just 4x spell level. You may also want to make a 9th level only turn undead spell that overrides this limit (to allow for epic progression).
Couple points though.
1. You say you don't want to mess with anything other then a core class. Well sadly there is no such core class called Necromancer. Necromancer even in 2.0 was a specialist wizard and I recommend you have a look at the 2.0 necromancers handbook for further information.
2. The bigger picture is this. Wizards have always had specialists and 3.5 lacks that true flavor. The system doesn't even come close to giving you the right feel/benefits to play a specialist properly. There are some suggestions in Unearthed arcana for specialists but its only the tip of the iceberg. My players and I have been grinding away at the necromancer, Evoker etc dilemma for a while. We are trying to give a player the real feel of playing a specialist wizard (Yes necromancer is one of the key specialists that started this) while not needing to come up with a huge set of changes that require us to rebuild the system to 3.521 or whatever it would be called hehe.
If I get a chance Ill post some of our ideas on how to have a specialist necromancer in 3.5(yes it is a specialist wizard whether you want to acknowledge it or not).
well, as my mechanic stands now you prepare turn or rebuke (one or the other) as a spell, so, you dont "burn them". So i dont really follow your complaint here, if you didnt prepare it for that day you didnt prepare it, youre just SOL.
Ah so you're saying that I could prep turn/rebuke as a 1st level spell as a 20th level caster? That's not bad.
I also dont understand what you mean by making more turn/rebuke based spells.
See Disrupt Undead, Undeath to Death, Control Undead and similar spells. Arcane casters can already turn undead, it's just that their ability to do so depends on a hodge podge of spells scattered through the levels. Unless of course, you were to write up a simple progression of turn/rebuke spells that did a better job of it than the RAW turn/rebuke mechanic. That's what I mean by "making more turn/rebuke based spells."
TS
Ah so you're saying that I could prep turn/rebuke as a 1st level spell as a 20th level caster? That's not bad.
Yep, it makes sense and all, at least in terms of making it into a magic spell, but theres one catch. If its always a lvl spell its subject to some potentially rediculous metamagic.
"I turn undead."
"Roll your turning check."
"I turn undead."
"How many?"
"All of them."
If you're gonna play a Necro, just hope that the DM doesn't make an opponent that's a Radiant Servant of Pelor.
"I turn undead."
"Roll your turning check."
"I turn undead."
"How many?"
"All of them."
LOL *adds it to the quote book*
have a
Yep, it makes sense and all, at least in terms of making it into a magic spell, but theres one catch. If its always a lvl spell its subject to some potentially rediculous metamagic.
Which metamagic effects? You could empower and maximize it, but that's not very abusive.
Anyway, just to demonstrate how easy it is to put turning into the hands of any caster (and with simpler, more flexible, more effective and more balanced mechanics), I present to you these spells from the TS Spell Book:
Cure Wounds
Necromancy
Level: 0+
Components: M, S, V
Casting Time: One standard action
Range: Touch
Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will half
Spell Resistance: Yes
This spell restores hit points to the target by channeling positive energy. The total hit points restored equals a base number, shown below, plus 1 per caster level, to a maximum shown below. Positive energy harms undead, so this spell has the opposite effect on such creatures.
I would leave the turning check as a charisma check personnaly. Clerics don't get to use their spellcasting (and generally highest) ability either.
Tequila_Sunrise... I question your sanity... isn't giving any kind of arcane caster the ability to heal FAR better than a cleric could ever hope to (even a radiant servant) a little on the... I don't know... munchkin side? I can see as good as or almost as good as... but those cure spells... that's just wrong. sick and wrong. UNLESS those are modified for the cleric as well... then it might be passable (though still a little overboard).
The TS Spell Book is meant to replace the standard hodge podge of published spells, so yes a cleric would be casting cure/inflict/harm/heal spells just as good as the wizards. (You'll notice that none of my spells mention which spell list they belong on; that's because I don't believe in pigeonholing casters into classic archetypes and so I don't have different spell lists for different classes.)
Tequila_Sunrise... I question your sanity... isn't giving any kind of arcane caster the ability to heal FAR better than a cleric could ever hope to (even a radiant servant) a little on the... I don't know... munchkin side? I can see as good as or almost as good as... but those cure spells... that's just wrong. sick and wrong. UNLESS those are modified for the cleric as well... then it might be passable (though still a little overboard).
Clerics are broken and stupid anyway, screw'em.
The TS Spell Book is meant to replace the standard hodge podge of published spells, so yes a cleric would be casting cure/inflict/harm/heal spells just as good as the wizards. (You'll notice that none of my spells mention which spell list they belong on; that's because I don't believe in pigeonholing casters into classic archetypes and so I don't have different spell lists for different classes.)
Kind of lacks a little of the flavor behind the classes... but makes sense
Clerics are broken and stupid anyway, screw'em.
Now that's an awfully negative view of things...
(though super healer clerics *are* rather boring...lol)You want a Necromancer? Dread Necromancer from Heroes of Horror. THAT is a necro. They control twice the undead that clerics do :D Not to mention the undead swarms they can summon in a single round. Did I mention that they also become a lich at 20th level? and have the spells/day of a sorcerer? Enjoy :D
Not super interested in the dread necro. I dont care for most noncore prestige classes, id rather modify or create variants for existing classes.
Dread Necromancer is a base class, not a prestige.
Aren't inflict spells necromancy already? Thats what i never understood. Channeling positive energy is conjuration, but channeling negative energy is...necromancy??? what?
Aren't inflict spells necromancy already? Thats what i never understood. Channeling positive energy is conjuration, but channeling negative energy is...necromancy??? what?
It depends on the edition.