When do we get to playtest Animate Dead?

Necromancy is nearly absent from the wizard spell list in the playtest.   As it is my 2nd favored school (behind transmutation), I noticed missing immediately.  I know creating undead is hard to balance - but it is just so much fun, I hope Dnd Next will not gimp it like 4th edition did. 

Same. I imagine that it's swirling around the same in design limbo that a lot of similar features, such as summoning are, as they try to nail the sweet spot between sane-but-lame and crazy-but-crazy for companions in general.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I miss the "summon undeads" I but summoned creatures are canon fodder, human shields, and they can break the balance of power. 

- Rogue PC: I look for hidden traps.

- DM: OK, the door is a trap.

- Necromancer PC: No problem, I send a skeleton to open de door.



- DM: the basilisk wity petrifying gaze is near.

- Necromancer PC: No problem, the skeletors go there carry mirrors and the basilisk petrifying itself.. 


- DM: The orcs are arriving to the room with the pit.  

- Necromancer PC: OK, the trap is ready, the zombies hidden in the water (they don´t need breathing)  thrown the bombs with poisonous gas.  

- DM: The orc warlord cries to one of the zombies. This one faints by the orc´s bad breathing...

- Necromancer PC: Are you kidding? 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I also hope to see Animate Dead again, as well as summoned monsters. I think they can come up with a balanced compromise somewhere between the extremes of 3.x (where people could have legions of powerful minions and slow the game to a crawl) and 4e (which nerfed pets too much, IMO).
That is why animating undead and conjuring creatures should be left to evil spellcasters.   I always felt that summoning a creature to use as a meat shield was an evil act.
That is why animating undead and conjuring creatures should be left to evil spellcasters.   I always felt that summoning a creature to use as a meat shield was an evil act.



*Sigh*

For one thing, when you summon a monster, it's not a real creature, but an avatar, at least that's how it was in 3.x. For another, what if the things you're summoning are evil? I don't see why a non-evil person would have a problem with using demons as slaves and cannon fodder. If they die, you're just getting rid of more evil, so win win.

As for animated dead, they're mindless automatons. Once someone is dead, their body is just an empty shell. Animating corpses might be creepy, but it harms no one. You're not enslaving souls or anything like that. As with anything else, it's how you choose to use it. Even fireball can be evil if you use it that way.
I would not be surprised is summoning, animation, or related spells require concentration, and then add on rules later on for companions.
That is why animating undead and conjuring creatures should be left to evil spellcasters.   I always felt that summoning a creature to use as a meat shield was an evil act.



*Sigh*

For one thing, when you summon a monster, it's not a real creature, but an avatar, at least that's how it was in 3.x. For another, what if the things you're summoning are evil? I don't see why a non-evil person would have a problem with using demons as slaves and cannon fodder. If they die, you're just getting rid of more evil, so win win.

As for animated dead, they're mindless automatons. Once someone is dead, their body is just an empty shell. Animating corpses might be creepy, but it harms no one. You're not enslaving souls or anything like that. As with anything else, it's how you choose to use it. Even fireball can be evil if you use it that way.



*Sigh*

I completely disagee IMHO with that entire mindset.  Summoning a critter should be summoning a critter.  If it dies it dies and there is consequences.  Desecrating the body of the dead in any culture is consider evil.  It is the thing that starts war.

And I honestly feel IMHO that summoning avatars and what not is bull crap.

Sorry I bored you with my sense of aesthetics on fantasy roleplaying.


*Sigh*

I completely disagee IMHO with that entire mindset.  Summoning a critter should be summoning a critter.  If it dies it dies and there is consequences.  Desecrating the body of the dead in any culture is consider evil.  It is the thing that starts war.

And I honestly feel IMHO that summoning avatars and what not is bull crap.

Sorry I bored you with my sense of aesthetics on fantasy roleplaying.



Actually, different cultures have very different attitudes about dead bodies. Some bury them, some burn them, some leave them out for scavengers, some put them on display and some even eat them. The treatment of dead bodies has nothing to do with good vs. evil, it's nothing more than a cultural taboo. If anything, "desecrating" the dead is a chaotic act, if it defies a culture's laws and traditions. Some cultures may even take pride in calling forth their honored dead to defend them in battle.

As for your "aesthetics on fantasy roleplaying", you're free to play the game any way you wish. But let's not argue for alignment restrictions to be put in the game and imposed on everybody by default. It does aboslutely nothing for balance (people will just play neutral or evil characters).
I would not be surprised is summoning, animation, or related spells require concentration, and then add on rules later on for companions.



I agree, having summon spells require concentration would be a great way of balancing them. As for animating dead, though, that's usually more permanent, so I don't think a concentration requirement would be appropriate there (unless, of course, the specific spell in question is meant to be temporary). I could see an in-battle version of animate dead that's temporary vs. a ritual version that creates a permanent minion.
I'd like to see pet-generating spells also having the option to direct the pets with the caster's action to obtain more powerful actions.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.


*Sigh*

I completely disagee IMHO with that entire mindset.  Summoning a critter should be summoning a critter.  If it dies it dies and there is consequences.  Desecrating the body of the dead in any culture is consider evil.  It is the thing that starts war.

And I honestly feel IMHO that summoning avatars and what not is bull crap.

Sorry I bored you with my sense of aesthetics on fantasy roleplaying.



Actually, different cultures have very different attitudes about dead bodies. Some bury them, some burn them, some leave them out for scavengers, some put them on display and some even eat them. The treatment of dead bodies has nothing to do with good vs. evil, it's nothing more than a cultural taboo. If anything, "desecrating" the dead is a chaotic act, if it defies a culture's laws and traditions. Some cultures may even take pride in calling forth their honored dead to defend them in battle.

As for your "aesthetics on fantasy roleplaying", you're free to play the game any way you wish. But let's not argue for alignment restrictions to be put in the game and imposed on everybody by default. It does aboslutely nothing for balance (people will just play neutral or evil characters).



Name one culture that allows strangers to desecrate the bodies of their loved ones.  I am not saying there isn't one, I just can't think of any, and would be beyond extremely rare.

And of course I can do in my campaign whatever I want.  But since summoning rules are not defined in this edition I would like it to be like in earlier editions where that when a summoned creature died it actually died not some avatar.  That makes using summoned creatures as meat shields for the purpose of dying an evil act.

Now I have got a doubt. Do you rebember the deathless monster type from Book of Exalted Deeds?

Could a no-evil umthakathi (=witch doctor, but I don´t like this last name) PC summon deathless minions? For example swordwraiths



Can baelnorn liches be "deathless" subtype?



Can a necromancer create flesh half-golems? 

Use summoned creatures like meat shields isn´t evil if summoned ones accept risks, they don´t feel pain and damage isn´t really irreversible..(only the true spirit come back to the planes, it isn´t destroyed and it can come back later).

I have thought about the module of "magic pets" like a sub-franchise, a future spin-off about figthing collectable monsters..

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creature_anime_and_manga
 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I think all options that grant characters control over secondary characters (summons, companions, followers, etc.) should be in a module.  All it ever does is slow down the game, unless you tie it to the action economy (you summon a creature and you can either act or command your creature to act), at which point it breaks immersiion for lots of people.

All it ever does is slow down the game


So does adding another player, but most people seem to think that having players is a good thing.

The game takes time.  That's the point.  To spend that time having fun.  The real question is whether the time you're spending is fun, and if companions doesn't add to the fun, then you shouldn't use them.

But "slows down the game" shouldn't be used as a negative, because everything slows down the game.  On purpose.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
A Charisma character (Bard) could draw living companions, for free.   A fighter could hire low level heroes.  A Paladin can lock a creature in an honour bound agreement.  A wizard spends spell components to animate dead.
All it ever does is slow down the game


So does adding another player, but most people seem to think that having players is a good thing.



The difference is that when you add another player, things take more time, but every player gets the same chunck of that time. When you add summons/etc, things take more time, and you are giving that extra time to ONE player.

But "slows down the game" shouldn't be used as a negative, because everything slows down the game.  On purpose.



"It slows down the game" has been used numerous times by forum posters as an excuse not to have certain elements in the game, such as martial maneuvers. I trust you'd be against that as well?



Personaly, I like pets and the like. I just want them to think long and hard about it before giving them to us.   
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
That is why animating undead and conjuring creatures should be left to evil spellcasters.   I always felt that summoning a creature to use as a meat shield was an evil act.



*Sigh*

For one thing, when you summon a monster, it's not a real creature, but an avatar, at least that's how it was in 3.x. For another, what if the things you're summoning are evil? I don't see why a non-evil person would have a problem with using demons as slaves and cannon fodder. If they die, you're just getting rid of more evil, so win win.

As for animated dead, they're mindless automatons. Once someone is dead, their body is just an empty shell. Animating corpses might be creepy, but it harms no one. You're not enslaving souls or anything like that. As with anything else, it's how you choose to use it. Even fireball can be evil if you use it that way.



*Sigh*

I completely disagee IMHO with that entire mindset.  Summoning a critter should be summoning a critter.  If it dies it dies and there is consequences.  Desecrating the body of the dead in any culture is consider evil.  It is the thing that starts war.

And I honestly feel IMHO that summoning avatars and what not is bull crap.

Sorry I bored you with my sense of aesthetics on fantasy roleplaying.




I agree.   In 2e, I do recal reading that a party could be summoned by a high level mage.    


Using allies and "magic pets" means a module about skirmish ( +7 PCs), and almost all monsters had to be designed like potential creatures of a D&D "collectable fighter monsters" sub-franchise like Pokemon or Digimon.

 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I think all options that grant characters control over secondary characters (summons, companions, followers, etc.) should be in a module.  All it ever does is slow down the game, unless you tie it to the action economy (you summon a creature and you can either act or command your creature to act), at which point it breaks immersiion for lots of people.




Yeah. If you allow the wizard to summon skeletons, then you should be allowing the ranger to have an animal companion and the fighter to bring a bunch fo hirelings. It would make sense to put all that stuff in its own module.
Name one culture that allows strangers to desecrate the bodies of their loved ones.  I am not saying there isn't one, I just can't think of any, and would be beyond extremely rare.



The people in Tibet practice what is called "sky burial." The leave the corpse out on a mountaintop for scavengers and the elements to consume. Some people would consider that practice to be grotesque. The Capuchin Crypt in Rome, Italy, is decorated with the bones of monks. As I said, there are and have been cultures that practice everything from burning the dead to cannibalism. There are cultures that consider the practice of conducting scientific experiments on dead bodies to be a vile and unthinkable act, and yet we in western civilizations do that all the time. Different cultures have very different ideas about what constitutes "desecration."

There's also the simple fact that necromancers don't always go around digging up graveyards for corpses to animate. That's a good way to get chased out of town by pitchfork-wielding mobs, after all. But what if my necromancer only animates the corpses of monsters? Who in town is going to care that I "desecrated" the body of some orc or ogre?

And of course I can do in my campaign whatever I want.  But since summoning rules are not defined in this edition I would like it to be like in earlier editions where that when a summoned creature died it actually died not some avatar.  That makes using summoned creatures as meat shields for the purpose of dying an evil act.



All you accomplish by doing that is preventing many good characters from using those spells. As someone who likes playing summoners, I feel strongly that these spells, and all others, should be morally neutral. Why do you want to eliminate so many people's character concepts?

Besides, even if you got what you wanted, and summoned creatures that died stay dead for real, what would the consequences be? These are beings from some far off plane of existence, not from our world. So you summon some demon and it dies. Who is going to care? There are billions more where that came from, and if anything, other demons are probably celebrating because they got to take the dead demon's stuff.
Name one culture that allows strangers to desecrate the bodies of their loved ones.  I am not saying there isn't one, I just can't think of any, and would be beyond extremely rare.



The people in Tibet practice what is called "sky burial." The leave the corpse out on a mountaintop for scavengers and the elements to consume. Some people would consider that practice to be grotesque. The Capuchin Crypt in Rome, Italy, is decorated with the bones of monks. As I said, there are and have been cultures that practice everything from burning the dead to cannibalism. There are cultures that consider the practice of conducting scientific experiments on dead bodies to be a vile and unthinkable act, and yet we in western civilizations do that all the time. Different cultures have very different ideas about what constitutes "desecration."

There's also the simple fact that necromancers don't always go around digging up graveyards for corpses to animate. That's a good way to get chased out of town by pitchfork-wielding mobs, after all. But what if my necromancer only animates the corpses of monsters? Who in town is going to care that I "desecrated" the body of some orc or ogre?

And of course I can do in my campaign whatever I want.  But since summoning rules are not defined in this edition I would like it to be like in earlier editions where that when a summoned creature died it actually died not some avatar.  That makes using summoned creatures as meat shields for the purpose of dying an evil act.



All you accomplish by doing that is preventing many good characters from using those spells. As someone who likes playing summoners, I feel strongly that these spells, and all others, should be morally neutral. Why do you want to eliminate so many people's character concepts?

Besides, even if you got what you wanted, and summoned creatures that died stay dead for real, what would the consequences be? These are beings from some far off plane of existence, not from our world. So you summon some demon and it dies. Who is going to care? There are billions more where that came from, and if anything, other demons are probably celebrating because they got to take the dead demon's stuff.




I am saying that good people can summon critters.  But summoning anything against its will is evil AND summoning anything and sending it off to die for your own personal game is evil.


As for your examples of Tibet and Rome I don't even see those as examples of body desecration.  So I don't see where you are going with those points.

I am saying that good people can summon critters.  But summoning anything against its will is evil AND summoning anything and sending it off to die for your own personal game is evil.



You're right, enslaving an innocent creature and sending it off to die would be an evil act. That's why it's a good thing that you only summon a creature's avatar, so no harm is done. You may not like that, but by taking that away, you're forcing summoning to be an evil-only thing. Why do you hate the idea of good summoners so much that you would want to do that?
  
As for your examples of Tibet and Rome I don't even see those as examples of body desecration.  So I don't see where you are going with those points.



My point is that every culture has different attitudes about how to "properly" treat dead bodies. You may not find the examples I gave offensive, nor do I, but there are some people who would, just as you find the idea of animating a corpse offensive.

I am saying that good people can summon critters.  But summoning anything against its will is evil AND summoning anything and sending it off to die for your own personal game is evil.



You're right, enslaving an innocent creature and sending it off to die would be an evil act. That's why it's a good thing that you only summon a creature's avatar, so no harm is done. You may not like that, but by taking that away, you're forcing summoning to be an evil-only thing. Why do you hate the idea of good summoners so much that you would want to do that?
  
As for your examples of Tibet and Rome I don't even see those as examples of body desecration.  So I don't see where you are going with those points.



My point is that every culture has different attitudes about how to "properly" treat dead bodies. You may not find the examples I gave offensive, nor do I, but there are some people who would, just as you find the idea of animating a corpse offensive.




really, really an avatar of a creature like its a god? dnd has fallen and it cant get up, what the heck is that crap

monster summoning 1:

Within one round of casting this spell, the wizard magically conjures 2d4 1st-level

monsters (selected by the DM, from his 1st-level encounter tables). The monsters appear

anywhere within the spell's area of effect, as desired by the wizard. They attack the spell

user's opponents to the best of their ability until either he commands that the attacks

cease, the spell duration expires, or the monsters are slain. These creatures do not check

morale, but they vanish when slain. Note that if no opponent exists to fight, summoned

monsters can, if the wizard can communicate with them and if they are physically able
perform other tasks for the summoner.

where does it say avatar? if they are slain their bodies get sent back to where they were summoned from.

I am saying that good people can summon critters.  But summoning anything against its will is evil AND summoning anything and sending it off to die for your own personal game is evil.



You're right, enslaving an innocent creature and sending it off to die would be an evil act. That's why it's a good thing that you only summon a creature's avatar, so no harm is done. You may not like that, but by taking that away, you're forcing summoning to be an evil-only thing. Why do you hate the idea of good summoners so much that you would want to do that?
  
As for your examples of Tibet and Rome I don't even see those as examples of body desecration.  So I don't see where you are going with those points.



My point is that every culture has different attitudes about how to "properly" treat dead bodies. You may not find the examples I gave offensive, nor do I, but there are some people who would, just as you find the idea of animating a corpse offensive.




What I am saying is that summoning an avatar of a creature is pure cheese (in my opinion, not a personal attack).  It's cheap and is a way of letting players do things without consequences.  Ordering people into battle should be a big decision because they may die.  Hecj why not have a spell so the wizard can summon me into battle so I don't really have to die.  That should be a great way of appeasing players who don't like character death.  Maybe the wizard can learn to summon himself.  I summon myself, hee hee, you can't kill me now.  That is just silly to me.
Again about deathless:

 

  • Evil clerics can turn or destroy deathless creatures as good clerics turn or destroy undead. Good clerics and paladins can rebuke, command, or bolster deathless creatures as evil clerics rebuke, command, or bolster undead.

  • Deathless creatures gain the same benefi ts from consecrate and hallow as undead do from desecrate and unhallow, and they are hindered by desecrate and unhallow as undead are by consecrate and hallow. Hide from undead and undeath to death also work against deathless. Detect undead and deathwatch reveal deathless and allow the caster to distinguish deathless creatures from undead. Evil casters can be stunned by overwhelming auras of deathless creatures as good casters can be stunned by overwhelming undead auras. Use the “evil elemental or undead” line in the detect evil spell description when deathless are in the area of a detect good spell. Deathless are healed by disrupt undead and damaged by unholy water, as undead are damaged by disrupt undead and damaged by holy water. Deathless are not affected by disrupting weapons. Spells that have greater than normal effect against undead creatures—including chill touch, magic stone, searing light, sunbeam, sunburst, and wall of fire—do not have these enhanced effects against deathless creatures. Deathless take only 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels from searing light. Spells such as command undead, control undead, create undead, create greater undead, and halt undead do not affect or create deathless creatures.




Crypt Warden


Sacred Watcher

Both pictures from "Book of Exalted Deeds" art gallery.

My opinion is when a summoned creatures (for example a celestial dog) is defeated, it doesn´t die really but it comes back to its original plane (and it can fight other day when it was summoned again). If clerics can use divine magic to summon celestial creatures, it can´t be a evil action because is a power allowed by deities. 

And concentraion checks should be necesary to give complex orders...(for example a druid in a cage could summon a crow to get the keys) or using senses of the summoned creature (for example a bird to explore).

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Outside of the summoning side of things, I hope we see a lot of debilitating effects for necromancers. Granting disadvantage, attack and damage penalties, weakness and stuns. Sort of a classic controller playing off of entropy as well as summons. Throw in some life drain and spirit communication/projection for flavor and call it a day.

Just a few onions short of a patch.

Deathless critters is a concept that does not work for me.  I just don't understand them from a literature or mythological point of view.  It seems like a very metagame critter to get around unpleasant things in roleplaying games.  So for me it doesn't work.  Just my opinion and aesthetics.
Deathless critters is a concept that does not work for me.  I just don't understand them from a literature or mythological point of view.  It seems like a very metagame critter to get around unpleasant things in roleplaying games.  So for me it doesn't work.  Just my opinion and aesthetics.



Its kinda just a lame idea for people complaining that they want to be lawful good and summon undead too.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.


Vivacious dire tiger.

Vivacious template (Planar Handbook) 

Special Attacks: A vivacious creature retains all the special attacks of the base creature, although those relying on physical contact do not affect nonethereal creatures. It also gains the following special attack.


Positive Energy Ray (Su): A vivacious creature can fire a positive energy ray once every 1d4 rounds with a range of 60 feet.


With a successful ranged touch attack, the vivacious creature infuses a target with positive energy equal to 1d4 + its Cha modifier. This attack damages undead and heals living creatures. Creatures that exceed their full normal hit points from this effect need to make Fortitude saves as if in a positive-dominant environment.


Special Qualities: A vivacious creature has all the special qualities of the base creature. In addition, it gains the following special qualities.


Fast Healing (Ex): Vivacious creatures regain hit points at a rate of 5 hit points per round.


Limited Spell Resistance (Negative Energy) (Ex): A vivacious creature has spell resistance equal to 15 + Hit Dice (maximum 35) against any spell or spell-like ability that uses negative energy, including inflict spells.

Can you imagine a spellcaster summoning vivacious creatures to fight undeads?

And summoning creatuares might be a joker card, for example a sorcerer with summon monster II can use a vivacious owl to heal allies, or to kill a (sleeping) living monster with 100% hitpoints (and regenetion power) using saturation of positive energy.  

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I actually designed an entire 4e necromancer class, though I never published it (didn't feel like doing spells up to lvl 30 and PP/ED's for it). 

What I learned is:

1) The way to curb the most egregious abuses of using undead as fodder, or otherwise situationally spamming them to drive the DM nuts, is to just make an associated cost for their death. In my draft, a necromancer imbued inert material (flesh) with pure shadow energy, forming a vital link to their undead 'minion.' There was a finite limit on how many minions one could summon (though I think in 4e, I made them special 'conjurations' for the sake of mechanical ease) before one spread their life energy/soul/whatever too thin. As you grew in power, you could obviously summon more minions but I think, with feats, Paragon Paths, etc. the upper limit of minions was 9 at a time (that's with Paragon Level feat 'Extra Minion' granting one and Hordemaster Epic Destiny granting two more above the standard 3-6 [depending on level]). Moreover though, because there was this bond, the death of a minion resulted in HP loss for the necromancer, not huge, but enough to keep you from spamming them carelessly. You could implement this other ways too, by sapping healing surges/hit die instead of just HP.

2) Another thing to do is to tie them *partially* to the action economy. In my case, I gave them different speeds/methods of movement depending on a daily choice of which 'Aspect of Death' the necromancer decided to embody. So, you could have slow-moving (1+1/tier squares) but high damage dealing groups of Zombie minions, fast (3+1 tier squares) and more tactically oriented Skeleton minions, or medium-paced (2+1/tier squares) fly speed (hover) and phasing Shade minions. On top of this, you moved all your minions (or one minion twice) during your move action, and I think I made powers with an 'undead' keyword that allowed you to attack through multiple minions at once, (the 'target' and 'special' lines became important here, to prevent stacking damage from multiple sources and incentivizing certain tactical formations that simplified combat choices respectively). 

3) I also gave minions a default action based on their type, which was encompassed in a class power called Undead Sentinel. Basically, it gave minions something to do when you weren't directly commanding them. So for example: if a creature tried to leave a space adjacent to a Zombie minion, the minion could make an OA which would slow them on a hit (allowing the minion to catch up to them even with their slow speed next round), if the same thing happened with Skeleton minion, on a hit, the target granted CA to you until the end of your next turn, and with the Shade minion, on a hit, the creature would be allowed to complete its movement, but the Shade would then teleport up to your Cha modifier toward the target.

I never got to playtest this much, but I did discuss all of these mechanics at length with the people at the Shadow Done Right wiki, many of whom are respected members of these boards, ultimately, we differed on certain points and I couldn't devote the time needed to the project so I eventually dropped out and just kept tinkering on my model, but these were just some thoughts/examples I thought I'd share.

Oh yea, a few other things:

I made a lot of Daily summons for more powerful undead, who would often act as 'lords' to the minions, granting them bonuses and such. Likewise, they came with an intrinsic nature that caused them to keep attacking their last target or otherwise move one to the next closest one. 

Many of the utilty powers augmented the minions in some way (flaming skeletons, virulent zombies, etc.) but some pulled in other influences (Diablo 2 necromancer comes to mind) with things like Bone Wall/Cage.

Necromancers are honestly one of my favorite classes, but they are extremely hard to get right. I sincerely hope they playtest the balls out of it before they make a decision one way or another. I DON'T think the necromancer should require the 'companion creatures' module to be effective or use basic summoning/minions. Creating greater undead or having cohorts and stuff, I'm fine leaving to that module though.

I like necromancy to be a powerful but risky source of power. Toying with the boundaries of life and death should have some risks for the caster. Ravenloft has an interesting way to deal with it, but of course not all campaigns are Ravenloft, so something else might be devised for the wizard or cleric to at least think twice before using the dark arts.

At the very least, if there are no set rules for risks with necromancy, some sort of social impact should be role-played by the DM. Not many societies (even evil ones) would accept a necromancer around working his magic to raise the dead into wicked creatures, even if his goals aren't directly harmful for that society. 
I do like summoning critters for things like Animal Messenger and Faithful Hound.  But I think summoning can be balanced by casting time and material components, or negotiating a pact.  A pact can be many things besides just gold, it can be completing a quest, gathering an item.  You get item X you can summon me for 1 task or whatever.  And that has a very sword and sorcery feel to it.  That way you are not binding it against its will but making a deal with the critter.








DON´T RUN AWAY, WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS!!



I suposse whe have to wait until the module about henchmen and "magic pets".

And I suspect the temptation of use D&D franchise to create a spin-off about colectables fighter monsters like Pokemon or Digimon is too hard.

---

Do you rembeber the no-undead goop ghoul from Dragon Magazine #198? A necromancer with imagination could make wonders with it.

I have thought about a variant of undead, withouht links to necrotic energy or necromancy but the far realm, a parasitic abomination, something like necromorphs from saga Dead Space (or some infected mutants from saga Resident Evil or House of Dead).

Other variant is a plant, like infected from "the last of us", a mixture of zombie and wood creature from Manual of Planes.

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

wow i see alot of stuff from new editions and its really not good. if i cast monster summoning 1 i am not going to get all these crazy invincible undead garbarge. im getting a few goblins, one or two orcs ect. they follow orders and then get ported back. if they die then thats something the dm has to deal with and usually its not a big deal.
That is why animating undead and conjuring creatures should be left to evil spellcasters.   I always felt that summoning a creature to use as a meat shield was an evil act.



The dead are already dead, so what's the problem? 
That is why animating undead and conjuring creatures should be left to evil spellcasters.   I always felt that summoning a creature to use as a meat shield was an evil act.



*Sigh*

For one thing, when you summon a monster, it's not a real creature, but an avatar, at least that's how it was in 3.x. For another, what if the things you're summoning are evil? I don't see why a non-evil person would have a problem with using demons as slaves and cannon fodder. If they die, you're just getting rid of more evil, so win win.

As for animated dead, they're mindless automatons. Once someone is dead, their body is just an empty shell. Animating corpses might be creepy, but it harms no one. You're not enslaving souls or anything like that. As with anything else, it's how you choose to use it. Even fireball can be evil if you use it that way.



*Sigh*

I completely disagee IMHO with that entire mindset.  Summoning a critter should be summoning a critter.  If it dies it dies and there is consequences.  Desecrating the body of the dead in any culture is consider evil.  It is the thing that starts war.



No.  It's considered to be wrong.  Wrong =/= evil.  Only in a few specific cultures is it actually evil.




I think all options that grant characters control over secondary characters (summons, companions, followers, etc.) should be in a module.  All it ever does is slow down the game, unless you tie it to the action economy (you summon a creature and you can either act or command your creature to act), at which point it breaks immersiion for lots of people.




Yeah. If you allow the wizard to summon skeletons, then you should be allowing the ranger to have an animal companion and the fighter to bring a bunch fo hirelings. It would make sense to put all that stuff in its own module.



Yep.  All that should happen.

where does it say avatar? if they are slain their bodies get sent back to where they were summoned from.



"A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again."
PHB v3.5, p. 173

I don't recall where I remember having that explained to me as summoning a creature's avatar, rather than summoning it for real, as with calling spells, but in any case, the creature doesn't truly die, so there's no reason to consider summoning a creature and letting it die for you to be an evil act.

wow i see alot of stuff from new editions and its really not good.



Yes, how dare any of us like anything from any edition other than 1st!
The idea that a summon is an actual individual creature from a real location that you warp in to fight for you and that really dies when killed is ridiculous. Let's run down why:

- If it is just some animal from somewhere, why does it fight for you?
- If it is an animal that is specificly tied to you and loyal to you, when exactly did you go about getting it?
- If the animal dies for real and is tied to you and loyal as above, where does a new one come from when it dies?
- Since you don't have to summon the same type of creature each time, where do all of these totally loyal creatures keep coming from?
- Can somebody find the creature that is totally loyal to you and kill it? Then what happens when you try to summon it?

I thought up a few better, less absurd ways for summons to work:

- "Summons" are actually magical creations. Not really creatures that exist in the world, they are "summoned"  from magic and are totally loyal to the caster. When they are "killed", the magic simply fades. The creature was never truely "alive". A different type can be made each time because they are simply a magic creation.

- Summoned creatures are special creatures linked to the caster. When not summoned to aid their master, they reside in a pocket realm waiting to be called. If it is defeated, it is banished before it can be killed and must rest in it's pocket realm until it recovers. The caster may only summon that creature, or any others they may have linked to them. This method works best when summoning is a major class ability rather than just some random spell any agic-user can take. In my opinion, this should be how pretty much 100% of spells work rather than every Wizard being able to emulate every Wizard that ever existed, but that's not very "traditional".
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
About summoning nature´s ally:

Really the creature is a second "body", like using druid wildshape to creater a clone, a living surrogates, the mind of creature is really the spellcaster´s primal brain. They aren´t constructs nor they aren´t outsiders exactly, only extra flesh created like a prolongation of spellcaster´s body.




"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Sign In to post comments