After creating a High Elf wizard that will specialize in Necromancy, and following a discussion on RPG.net, I realized that while a necromancer can MAKE undead, he has no real way of DEALING with undead. Most necromancy spells deal necrotic damage, which theyre resistant to. It occured to me that perhaps there should be a Necromancy spell or ability similar to Destroy Undead.
thewoozle wrote:
They can dispel undead. The spell is called "meteor swarm". 
Other than that I they do get the defense in the tradition abilities but a specific spell might be nice. I think abjuration spells help cover options beyond just blowing them up.
Command Undead was useful in 3e. Wouldn't mind seeing it at 2nd level in 5e.
5E Necromancers gain Command Undead at 14th level. Admittedly, this is a long time to wait - however I think their reasons for doing so was due to the fact that Necromancers command undead through the force of their own raw power, while clerics command/destroy undead by borrowing the power of a divine being.
4e did garbage for necromancy altogether, completely dropped the ball on it. When they finally got around to it, the effort was half arsed to the point of being frankly embarassing.
Of course, this was following 3e, which, if anything, overdid it, so... eh.
As for necromance in 5e, I'm pretty content with the available core options.... for core. Necromancy being a somewhat off-the-beaten-path character theme, after all. That said, I dearly hope to see some future expansion of necromantic options. with skeletons and zombies now specific humanoid monsters rather than templates that can be generally applied to any creatures, there is once more need for something akin to the 2e spell 'animate dead animals', as well as potential variants for other creature types. Necromancy as a wizard school is missing spells on a couple spell levels (5th, and one other, ninth, maybe?). Some anti undead spells would also be fitting as the OP mentioned - bring back 'disrupt undead' or the like.
For other classes, cleric will be seeing the death domain in the DMG, but I would certainly see an undead themed patron (dead gods, one of the dark lords of ravenloft, or even the dark powers themselves), maybe an undead servant as a variant pact boon, and a return of 'the dead walk' as an invocation (min level 5, cast 'animate dead' using a warlock spell slot, cannot cast again until extended rest). One could also imagine a vampyric or otherwise undeath/necromancy themed sorcerer bloodline, a shadowdancer rogue build, a blackguard alternative to the paladin, a deathknight variant of eldritch knight with necromancy in place of evocation, necromantic backgrounds to give a touch of spoopyness to any character, necropolitans as a distinct undead playable race, etc etc etc.
Lots of room, here, I think. Lots of potential. I mean, I know the designers said they want to do fewer splats this edition, but fewer doesn't mean none, so I can hope, right?
Yeah, 4e did drop the ball on necromancy.
But, a lot of D&D assumes: a) necromancy is EVIL. Period. b) Necromancy is therefore not for PCs.
I don't know. Personally, I'd put some better necro stuff in at least a single well done splatbook (The 5e Book of EEeeevil!). 3e tried that, but by the end of 3e/3.5e it was so convoluted as to be almost useless.
It also gets weird when comparing cleric and wizard spells/powers, and all the associated fluff and crunch. Plus, the Warlock complicates things further.
IMO, a true Necromancer class (or subclass of wizard or cleric or warlock) should exist. But, yeah...lots of questions...Cleric/wizard/warlock? WTF?
Again, it's for NPC's and enemies...Not PCs. Anyone who really wants to play a necromancer wants to summon/create undead, I assume. That's an Evil act, there (According to canon). Plus being able to fire all sorts of curses and bolts (Warlock stuff now). Also, you have the strange relationship in D&D between healing/ressurection and hurting/condemning in cleric spells...Oh, one more thing: that born again christian rant that tried to take D&D down in the 80's...Hard to make 'evil' the 'protagonist' in print after that, even though it was 30 years ago.
Oh well. Maybe 3rd party support will put out a book of unmitigated evil at some point. That's another idea.
seti wrote:
We're well past the 80's hysteria. If we weren't they wouldn't be putting tieflings and fiend-pact warlocks in the PHB, as playing characters who get their power from literal in-character 'deals with devils' is sure going to raise more fundamentalist hackles than a character who has a couple skeleton buddies.
I disagree with the idea of a 'true necromancer' class, though, as much as I did love the dread necromancer in 3.5, which was essentially just that. Rather than have 'one necromancer to rule them all', I'd rather see several competing necromantic options spread out over several suitable classes to provide for some choice and variety. Honestly, I think the necromancer specialist already has the wizard angle well covered, at least in terms of class features. At first glance they look mechanically decent and theme-appropriate. More necromancy wizard spells would of course be nice (again, disrupt undead, animate dead animals, something at 5th and 9th levels), but I don't think we need a second whole build pointed in that direction.
As long as the cleric death domain isn't terrible (whether in terms of being bad or in terms of being too powerful for PC use), then the DMG should adequately cover necromancy builds for clerics, though, again, more spells would be nice. I do think it's ridiculous that the entire death domain got branded with the 'too evil for PCs' label in this edition. It's kind of absurd, when, again, we have warlocks who litrally sell their souls to devils for evil power, and aren't even stealing that power - from the fluff they're still expected to perform tasks for their evil patrons! So a chaotic evil fiendish warlock bound to the service of a demon lord, that's PC appropriate, but a lawful neutral cleric of the lawful neutral deity Anubis taking the suggested domain for his god is unacceptable? presumably because the domain includes powers that relate to controlling or creating undead, yet wizard necromancer who control and create undead are fine? Ugh. If anything, the domain they should have saved for the DMG was nature, as a variant to use in case the DM wants to run a 'core four classes' game with no druid. Because otherwise, who plays a nature domain cleric when they could have played a druid instead? Is it because the presumed rebuke-instead-of-turn mechanics allow the cleric to control way more undead than a PC should be able to? If so, then maybe rewrite that rule, eh? It's not like NPCs need specific rules to indicate how many other npcs they can hang out with.....
I... I think I got a bit off topic there?
Anyway, as long as the death domain isn't terrible, the DMG will have us covered for a cleric necromancy build. At that point, rather than more cleric or wizard builds, I'd rather see necromantic builds for warlock and sorcer, maybe for paladin(blackguard/bone knight), and eldridtch knight(dark knight/death knight) as well. Heck, why stop there? Why not get everybody in on the action? Maybe monk or rogue builds summoning/emulating the abilities of incorporeal undead (shadow monk is probably close enough, but a couple extra options for it couldn't hurt), a blighter or spirit shaman druids and soul-hunter rangers who see undead spirits as manifestations of the natural process of death and decay? A dirgecaster bard who can terrify foes or rouse the dead with his haunting music? A barbarian build whose rages are are the result of voluntary possession by the angry spirits of the vengeful dead? You could get everybody in on the action, with at least one necromantic build for all the classes who don't have one, plus several new spells for the classes that do. Throw in a few new undead monsters / companions, some backgrounds, a couple feats, maybe a playable undead race or two (reventants, shades, and necropolitans all spring to mind), rules for becoming a vampire or lich, DM advice on running games for necromantic characters (how to make their power seem forbidden or dangerous via extra costs or penalties or ways that things might 'go wrong'- some people like that stuff for roleplay purposes), some necromantically themed items (bone armor, undead grafts, etc) and advice on constructing and running necromantic NPCs (maybe label the book a 'DM' product, with the player options as things a DM could choose to make available to PCs in a themed campaign, or perhaps a box set with separate DM and PC pamphlets?).
Wrap it all up in a single product, and call it "the Art of Necromancy", referencing Kazerabet's famous tome from the 2nd edition's Complete Book of Necromancers?
Probably not likely, certainly not any time soon, but still, a guy can dream.
I agree that there should be a spell or spells that allow necromancers to actually handle undead more. Addtionally, I am also considering the pro's and con's of swapping out the 6th level Undead Thrall ability for something else in order to address this issue and in order to (for my purposes) better accommodate non-evil necromancy.
In a campaign where the fluff of animating undead is considered very borderline or definitely evil (i.e. not just spooky to the commonfolk but, say, binds a soul to the undead creature), the Undead Thrall ability kind of makes the subclass evil as a default, doesn't it? I guess maybe it's supposed to, but what if a player wants to play a non-evil necromancer? I would probably be less conflicted if the ability were more of a grey area benefit.
On the one hand, playing a non-evil necromancer with the Undead Thrall ability kind of reminds me of Dark Sun defiling in that you would always have that temptation to use it because it's so easy, and I actually find that intriguing. On the other hand, is having a major class feature disincentivized un-fun and unfair for the player? Again, this is assuming that a non-evil necromancer would focus on other necromantic spells but would avoid animate dead most if not all of the time.
One possible solution I thought of would be to substitute the ability for something else. (It's just that none of the other subclasses have swappable abilities so it feels a bit shoehorned and maybe unbalanced..!) I thought about:
1) Reversible (e.g., Undead Thrall or Undead Thrashing). Being able to reverse the ability as desired, i.e. something heading towards what the OP brought up with banishing undead. For example, maybe the necromancer can create an additional zombie or skeleton OR can target one additional zombie or skeleton (or other similar CR undead) when casting a spell; that way they could animate an extra one or blast attack an extra one. Or maybe subtract their proficiency bonus from undead enemies' attacks, or reduce their hit points, or banish/turn/disrupt them?
2) Speak with Spirits. Substituting an ability to speak with spirits or channel their traits might be interesting (think mediums, vestiges, willing possession, etc.).
3) Undead Companion. Substituting a ghostly spirit, non-evil flesh golem, or summonable corpse companion could be very flavorful (sort of like an undead animal companion but not specifically an animal).
4) Life Transfer. Substituting an ability to transfer life from one thing (plant, animal, undead?) to a willing ally in order to heal or grant temporary hit points might be distinct enough from the cleric (or not).
If this is off topic, I can start a separate thread. Otherwise, please share your thoughts.
I think that I will solve the issue of controlling large numbers of undead using magic items.
All necromancers who wish to follow the undead army path eventaully need to create a special magic item: a necrophage. This item is to the necromancer what a phylactery is to a litch. It is essential to their power and dominion over the undead.
At this point it is now just a matter of setting the difficulty of creating this item and that will determine the level most necromancers must reach before unlocking this power.
It provides a greate McGuffin to drive PCs wanting to stop a BBEG. And it involves minimal alterations to the base rules.
DM: Peaking around the corner, you see a skeleton standing guard next to a closed portcullis that blocks the way you wanted to go. Suspended from the wall nearby it is a rusty gong. The skeleton has a hammer in its bony hand and it stands there silently, eternally vigilant. What do you do?
Necromancer: As I slip around the corner to face it, I want to speak a word of necromantic power that may cause the skeleton to forget what it was commanded to do temporarily. Then my comrades can try to destroy it quickly and quietly.
DM: Okay, as you are still something of a novice, the outcome of this action is uncertain. It sounds like you're making an Intelligence (Arcana) check to properly recall and speak the word of necromantic power. The DC is 15. If you succeed, the skeleton will not recall its commands for a round, but will defend itself - after which it will remember its commands and try to ring the gong. If you fail, it will ring the gong immediately before your friends can get around the corner. Agreed?
Necromancer: Agreed! *rolls*
A necromancer's ability to influence undead isn't confined to his class features. This is handled through the basic conversation of the game by saying what one wants to do and having the DM fairly adjudicate it. Hopefully you have a DM that won't just say "No."
malisteen wrote:
iserith wrote:
AH_schulerta wrote:
iserith wrote:
spelley wrote: