The Necromancer Speciality needs fixing

97 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ok, so I have mixed feelings about the Necromancer speciality. I really like the concept, and the feats are really flavourful and evocative....and I understand them wanting to restrict it to casters only....but as it stands now, there are two ways to meet the prerequisites for the speciality, and yet have the first level feat be completely useless to you.

Just a reminder for those who don't remember the Necromancer's first level feat, it's called Aura of Souls. As an action, you can capture the soul of one creature within 50 feet of you that has died within the last minute. You can have up to two of these souls and they fade after a minute. When you cast a necromancy spell, you can expend one of these souls to grant yourself advantage on one attack roll made for the spell, or give one target of the spell disadvantage on one saving throw made against the spell.

Problem One: Ok, pop quiz. Which classes are capable of casting spells? The Wizard, Cleric, and Sorcerer can all cast spells, and all have access to necromancy spells, so they work with Aura of Souls just fine.

But wait, the Warlock can technically cast spells too! Being able to cast ritual versions of spells still counts.

Thing is, not only are none of the spells on the Warlock list necromancy spells, but the only necromancy spell in the playtest packet that can be cast as a ritual is Speak with Dead, which requires no roll.
In fact, even if we gave the Warlock some necromancy rituals, he can't cast spells in battle anyways. He uses invocations! They don't get a spell school, nor do they count as spells, even if they do require making a "magical attack".

Problem two: High Elves. As a racial feature, all High Elves gain a cantrip. In other words, all High Elves are able to cast at least one spell. Which is exactly what the prerequisite for taking Aura of Souls is!

Problem is, there are no necromancy cantrips in the playtest. And if I'm playing, say, a High Elf Fighter or High Elf Rogue, that's the only spell I get. So once again, Aura of Souls is left useless.


Now, I don't like this. I don't like this one bit. Even if you disregard people using High Elves to create Fighter Necromancers, the idea that a Warlock shouldn't be able to be a Necromancer is horrible! A Warlock who sold his soul for knowledge so he can gain mastery over the undead is a very flavourful and resonant concept that I'm sure lots of people want to play.

My proposed solution is a simple one. Drop the necromancy requirement, and rephrase the feat like this:

"Whenever you cast a spell or make a magical attack, you may expend a soul to gain advantage on one attack roll or impose disadvantage on one of a single target's saving throws."

By including the "magical attack" phrasing, then a Warlock Necromancer can enhance his Eldritch Blast, or a Sorcerer Necromancer, on top of enhancing his necromancy spells can also enhance his Sorcerous Powers.

So, what do you guys think? Is this a good fix for the Necromancer Speciality? If not, how would you fix it? Or do you think it's fine as it is?
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
Please remove the requirement to cast spells.

Tweak the L1 feature to work with any attack.


If a specialty can grant limited spellcasting ability (cleric orisons, wizard cantrips), why can't this one do the same?  Why must there be other ability there already?

The fighter necromancer is an awesome concept, and I see no reason why it should be excluded.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Please remove the requirement to cast spells.

Tweak the L1 feature to work with any attack.


If a specialty can grant limited spellcasting ability (cleric orisons, wizard cantrips), why can't this one do the same?  Why must there be other ability there already?

The fighter necromancer is an awesome concept, and I see no reason why it should be excluded.



While I do agree with you that Figher Necromancers are an awesome idea, and that the casting prerequisite is lame, I'm a little afraid that it might be an impossible fight. Even before this playtest packet came out, there was tons of buzz about making Fighter Necromancers when an article somewhere first implied that a theoretical Necromancer theme would be restricted to casters. But despite the general consensus that Fighter Necromancers are awesome, it seems someone is determined to not let us play them. Which makes me sad.

That said, I suppose if we wanted to drop the casting requirements we could phrase it like this:

"Whenever you make an attack role, or a creature makes a saving throw in response to an attack of yours, you may expend a soul to gain advantage on one attack roll or impose disadvantage on one of a single target's saving throw."

...that probably isn't the most elegant way to phrase it, but it conveys the general idea.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
Just about nothing's an impossible fight, especially when it comes to something non-core like specialties.  Provide feedback.  Sure, it may be impossible to get them to use THAC0, but changing this?  Entirely within the realm of possibility.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Please remove the requirement to cast spells.


How in the heck do you get a Necro that can't cast spells? And what good would it be compared to one who can?
How the heck do you get a Magic User that can't cast spells?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
In 4E anyone could get the ritual caster feat, in Next anyone can take the Magic User. There are plenty of fantasy archtypes of martial characters doing things like this.

Maybe the player likes the concept of the Death Knight, I did. The whole concept of specialities are about allowing people to come up with cool unique characters. Maybe the person has a cool concept of a character who is haunted, Maybe they want to make someone like Death from Darksiders 2, or a Death Knight from World of Warcraft (Oh noes a wow reference damn mmo players)

You say why open it up, I say why restrict it? What gain is there in restricting it except fitting into a narrowly defined archtype thats already shown (by virtue of us having this thread) not to be universal.

I say if its not hurting anything why not?

 
The OP's solution seems to be valid, balanced and eloquent. 

On a side note if you want a fighter necromancer just take the high elf for your race. you know I always thought those high elves where up to something.  
It's a sad state of affairs when DMs measure their success in total party kills and players in the damage they deal. Red
To clarify my last comment, people apparently don't have a problem with a specialty granting magical powers in and of itself.  Anyone can take Magic User, whether they have spells or not, and they get two cantrips and therefore magical capability.  I then ask the question why can't Necromancer be the same?  Why must we demand other magical proficiency in order to start down the dark arts?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The OP's solution seems to be valid, balanced and eloquent. 

On a side note if you want a fighter necromancer just take the high elf for your race. you know I always thought those high elves where up to something.  


Concept taxes, especially ones that lock in something as character-defining as a race choice, are bad.  It should not be limited to spellcasters.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The OP's solution seems to be valid, balanced and eloquent. 

On a side note if you want a fighter necromancer just take the high elf for your race. you know I always thought those high elves where up to something.  


Concept taxes, especially ones that lock in something as character-defining as a race choice, are bad.  It should not be limited to spellcasters.



That's the most true part. The advantage control is not a huge deal, and would add another fun mechanic for fighters to play with. (i.e. kill, cleave, attack with advantage, etc etc).
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
Well, then, let's tackle this from a different point of view.

Maybe the problem isn't the Necromancer speciality, so much as the problem is Aura of Souls being the first level feat.

Perhaps a better alternative would be to make a new first level feat for Necromancers. Give it an Intelligence Prerequisite like Arcane Dabbler has, and have it grant necromancy cantrips. Then let it progress as normal, inserting Aura of Souls back into the feat progression at a later level or maybe just removing it all together.

At the very least, if they eventually do make some necromancy cantrips, use the "build your own speciality/cherry-pick feats" option to take Arcane Dabbler from the Magic-User speciality at first level, then progress along the Necromancer speciality like normal. You may miss out on Aura of Souls, but personally, I'd rather get the skeleton animating ability anyways.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
Aura of Souls isn't even that good.  It takes an action to suck up a soul, after all.

To limit the entire specialty to intrinsic casters only just because of a weak feature is a really bad idea.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Agreed, but should necromancy at first level grant access to a 1st level spell of the necromancy school and then at latter levels give the aura of souls and ability to raise the dead?

In other words, is when you think of necromancer do you think of someone who casts spells or not?

Magic user grants you the ability to cast spells and I think that is why it does not seem to be a problem, should necromancer do the same?

Should all specialties always have to be able to be taken by all classes?

I fell that necromancy is a specialty for existing spell casters a generic specialization and should be kept as so. without multi-classing rules I can not say that it is never going to be accessible to the fighter or rogue but I do feel that a necromancer is a spell caster and to make it just grant spells or to put spells in to its abilities may overbalance it or dilute it to the point of uselessness. I don't think that is impossible though. 
It's a sad state of affairs when DMs measure their success in total party kills and players in the damage they deal. Red
In other words, is when you think of necromancer do you think of someone who casts spells or not?


Yes, both.

There are many necromancers out there.  Some are the "traditional caster" kind - dark magicians who use foul powers to raise the dead.  Some, however, use the magic of necromancy in more subtle ways, using its power to enhance their own abilities - to steal the life from their enemies and increase their own strength, for example.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
+1 to opening it up.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Give it an Intelligence Prerequisite like Arcane Dabbler has

And there's something else that's completely arbitrary and needs to go away.

Give it an Intelligence Prerequisite like Arcane Dabbler has

And there's something else that's completely arbitrary and needs to go away.



If your going to cast arcane spells than you better have the Intelligence for it.

Anyways, I like the way the OP suggested working this, and I like the idea of the Specialization granting necromancy cantrips like the Arcane Dabbler feat.
I think what they did here, just hypothesizing, the magic-user and necromancer Specializations were meant to fill casting styles that are planned for the Wizard class. They discuss it a little in the third Penny Arcade podcast.
One way to progress the Specialization would be:
1st:  Death meddler: Gain two necromancy cantrips. (or 1 cantrip and 1 1st level necromancy spell, it is more specialized after all)
3rd: Aura of Souls
6th: Animate Servant: (just don't require an action to order the thing around) 
If your going to cast arcane spells than you better have the Intelligence for it.

Why? 
There is no current minumum INT for the entire Wizard class in DDN.    What harm is there in letting Dumb McStupid have two insignificant spells?
If your going to cast arcane spells than you better have the Intelligence for it.

Why? 
There is no current minumum INT for the entire Wizard class in DDN.    What harm is there in letting Dumb McStupid have two insignificant spells?



Moreover, there are already other ways to cast arcane magic besides from learning. Is it really necessary to have to wait for those other forms to also be opened up by specialties?

just putting this out there

if a character has terrible int, it allready effects them, because their save DC and to hit is going to be CRAP.
just putting this out there

if a character has terrible int, it allready effects them, because their save DC and to hit is going to be CRAP.


Pretty much this yeah.

And Int 8 doesn't necessarily mean a moron, just slightly below average. One or two minor spells shouldn't be that difficult.
Eh, I think the int 11 is there to show that the character at least has some level of intellectual curiosity.  Arcane dabbler is like a super scientist background, yeah you maybe technically can have a dumb super scientist, but it really does not fit the theme.  Not that I really care if they get rid of it, heck ditch all pre-reqs for all I care.  
Eh, I think the int 11 is there to show that the character at least has some level of intellectual curiosity.  Arcane dabbler is like a super scientist background, yeah you maybe technically can have a dumb super scientist, but it really does not fit the theme.  Not that I really care if they get rid of it, heck ditch all pre-reqs for all I care.  



unless you want to play someone who has a bit of inate power like a sorc, having a pre-rec is not needed for balance and hurts some RP potential

Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Eh, I think the int 11 is there to show that the character at least has some level of intellectual curiosity.  Arcane dabbler is like a super scientist background, yeah you maybe technically can have a dumb super scientist, but it really does not fit the theme.  Not that I really care if they get rid of it, heck ditch all pre-reqs for all I care.  



unless you want to play someone who has a bit of inate power like a sorc, having a pre-rec is not needed for balance and hurts some RP potential




It may not be needed for balance but it is a balancing feature and it may hurt some RP potential but it helps other RP potential.  It is less harsh than requiring the shield proficiency for the defender feats, and I'm sure I can spin some RP story about how I don't know how to use a shield generally but I seem to have a knack for smacking people with it causing them to lose moves and causing disadvantage. And why can't my clumsy fighter be a good ambusher etc.  

It is arcane dabbler not natural talent, maybe they will have a natural talent feat as well that does something similar.  The pre-reqs are  low enough where I don't think it would hurt to remove them, but they do add flavor to the feats and they are a small balancing factor.  The basic concept is a low pre-req for feats that are thematically tied to a certain class.  You want a thiefy feat give yourself a dex of 11.  It actually does make sense for all the non-magic feats and for the magic feats initiate of the faith and arcane dabbler we can;t really say if it makes sense because well its magic.  But since the thief like one has a pre-req the fighter ones have low pre-reqs, it makes game balance sense to have similar pre-reqs for the magic ones.  

All in all I think they could remove all the pre-reqs but I don't think it s a pure win to do so.
As for the main topic my main issue with the necromancer specialty is the design idea of using most/all your feats to be a necromancer.  It is a interesting way to do specialties I guess but I worry that it will make all necromancers feel the same.  Will you have room to make your necromancer seem different than the rest or is most of your feat potential just going to be a necromancer.  I think I'd rather have necromancer be a concept you can play without the feats and the feats are what help define how you are a necromancer.  Do you focus on undead, spirits, debilitation things like that.  But it is still too early to tell so I wont get worried yet. 
+1 for opening the concept up 
+1 against concept taxes

hey that makes already +2  
I do think that there should be some specialties that are restricted to certain classes. After all, there should be metamagic type feats that let you do special things with spells. I don't want those type of feats to be disallowed because every specialty, and thus every feat, needs to be available to every class. Wizards are unable to use the Guardian specialty (since they lack shield proficiency), and I don't hear alot of people complaining about that.

That said, I think the necromancer class should be available to fighters (or anyone else). The Death Knights in World of Warcraft are an excellent example of fighter necromancers. I think they should change Aura of Souls. It's not that great of a feat in the first place. One possibility is that they could have other options for what to do with the soul energy, such as being able to spend it to heal yourself or gain temporary hit points, for example. Then it would be useful for anybody.

This is a bit off-topic, but I also don't like the idea that it destroys souls. That kind of magic should be much higher level and is something so vile and evil that many characters won't want to do it. I think it would be better described as capturing the energy of their last breath rather than taking their soul. Then there's not really any moral implications, and we don't have to worry about things like whether or not the boss can be resurrected since the PC just ate its soul.
I do think that there should be some specialties that are restricted to certain classes. After all, there should be metamagic type feats that let you do special things with spells.

Sure, you put in restrictions if it makes sense, but there would be very few times that it would makes sense.

I mean, even "you can choose for your spells to do cold damage instead of the normal type" can be opened up to all attacks.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Wizards are unable to use the Guardian specialty (since they lack shield proficiency), and I don't hear alot of people complaining about that.

Ummm... because defender is a trap option?

Really, why do those even require having a shield?  They both seem like something a Defensive Lineman does all the damn time, and the closest those guys have to a "shield" is a jockstrap & cup.
The prereqs, restrictions, and conditions need dialed back on pretty much every feat.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but I'd like to point out that the Death Knight from Warcraft is sort of envisioned as an anti-paladin.

So if you really wanted to make this character concept, you could just use a war domain cleric with the necromancer specialty.

Just throwing it out there for anyone who actually wanted to do this within the rules.
I don't really have a horse in this race, but I'd like to point out that the Death Knight from Warcraft is sort of envisioned as an anti-paladin. So if you really wanted to make this character concept, you could just use a war domain cleric with the necromancer specialty. Just throwing it out there for anyone who actually wanted to do this within the rules.




also acording to the podcast with PA,

they have the Paladin class in the works. soon you won't even need to go with a cleric.
I prefer that the requirement to be able to cast spells be refined to read; The ability to cast 1st level necromancy spells or have a class feature that allows the use of necrotic energy.

Then give the sorcerer and the warlock specific pacts and bloodlines that use this energy type. 

No more non caster, or high elf necromancers.

 Period.
I am really stuck here. 

On one hand I have REALLY been on board with the idea that specialities can be open to any class. Fighters with Orisons and Clerics with Defender. It really helps create a breadth of options for character creation. Amazing.

But on the other hand, as much as I can make an excuse for necromancer being on a fighter or rogue, aura of souls really doesn't make sense powering something that is non magical.

Hence, I would keep the spellcasting requirement, but change aura of souls to be more open.

On a side note, Aura of Souls needs to be edited to prevent abuse by the  "Bag of Rats" strategy. Give the souls a 5 turn limit or so, that aughta do it. 
My two copper.
I do think that there should be some specialties that are restricted to certain classes.


I would be fine with it if they didn't pretty much go right out and say that Themes won't be class restricted.
No more non caster, or high elf necromancers.

 Period.

But on the other hand, as much as I can make an excuse for necromancer being on a fighter or rogue, aura of souls really doesn't make sense powering something that is non magical.

This is why we can't have nice things.
No more non caster, or high elf necromancers.

 Period.

But on the other hand, as much as I can make an excuse for necromancer being on a fighter or rogue, aura of souls really doesn't make sense powering something that is non magical.

This is why we can't have nice things.



Explain to me, I can't say in a logical fashion because we are talking about magic, how a "Soul" could make you attack better? Using it to fuel spells makes sense. It powering a physical weapon does not :P
My two copper.
Um... a lightsaber of the damned?

Or, "it just works"
The exact explaination of why and how is unimportant.  You being unable to justify it doesn't mean the option should be denied to everyone else.
The OP's solution seems to be valid, balanced and eloquent. 

On a side note if you want a fighter necromancer just take the high elf for your race. you know I always thought those high elves where up to something.  



The necro feat could give a necromancy cantrip, also. Might be too much for one feat...idk.


and no, having to play a high elf in order to be a fighter necromancer is not a good solution.



Jenks: What you talkin bout? Trivial. The soul interferes with the target's defense, or guides your strike.

I mean, that's basic fantasy stuff, man.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Aura of Souls isn't even that good.  It takes an action to suck up a soul, after all.

To limit the entire specialty to intrinsic casters only just because of a weak feature is a really bad idea.



Truth. Also, necromancer isn't, to me, an archetype that actually requires spell casting. Ritual magic, sure, but not spell casting.

I'd be down for Aura of Souls losing the magic requirement, and giving some ritual use similar to the warlock. Maybe could give two cantrips, which can be used as rituals, and aren't really direct attack cantrips.



No more non caster, or high elf necromancers.

 Period.



Why?


I mean, it's severely unlikely that I'll agree with you, because needless restrictions like that are...well, needless, but maybe you'll convince me, this one time.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Easy for the DM, Tlantl.... It goes something like this... "You have to have justification as to WHY you are able to do this, so I don't allow it in my game world unless there's a thematic reason it makes sense."

I tend to have players run feats and similar abilities by me if they are trying to pick them up and they don't come out of the PHB. If it was something core like HP, never go lower/more restrictive, but for things that are thematic like backgrounds and specialties, do what's right for your campaign. At about level 5 I would say that characters should be able to either take a more advanced specialty/background based on their current one, or they should be able to pick a new one that they could have acquired in the time they were adventuring. (Most of the PC's picking seafarer because they've been stuck on a boat is thematically appropriate, but the Dwarven 2-Handed Fighter taking Magic-User without a dramatic in story reason he would now be curious about the inner workings of magic is not.