Community

First of all, FINNALLY I CAN BE A NECROMANCER THAT DOESN'T SUCK! 

I loved the possibibilty of being a necromancer. an acutal necromancer. I really hope that in the future, this is progressed and you can choose more spells and feats that are relivent to this guy. for instance, perhaps better/ more zombies? or maybe even raise dead rituals! 

second: the character sheet sucks.
I hope that this is just the sheet for the packet, and it is gonna be worked on later/ done later

thirdly: the skills are too specific 
with a lot of the skills, they are way to vague. a lot of them are really just situational and will not be used majority of the time. I understand the lore stuff, but make them more useable(multipurpose would be a word)

fourth: the combat system is really tight!
I enjoyed the combat and the things I had at my disposal. though spells are somthing. charm and necro spells are completely awesome. but I feel that mages can be kind of interchangable. maybe being able to specialize would be cool!  

Hey there,

This isn't really a session report, so I'll be moving it to Playtest Packet Discussion.

Thanks,

Monica

Oct 3, 2012 -- 5:17AM, miketow123 wrote:

First of all, FINNALLY I CAN BE A NECROMANCER THAT DOESN'T SUCK! 

I loved the possibibilty of being a necromancer. an acutal necromancer. I really hope that in the future, this is progressed and you can choose more spells and feats that are relivent to this guy. for instance, perhaps better/ more zombies? or maybe even raise dead rituals! 

I'm sure you know that there's more to being a necromancer than just raising undead. In fact the origin of necromancy had everything to do with conviening with and handling spirits. Talking to dead souls and what have you. I think we need a little more of that

The Necroscope!

I'm sure you know that there's more to being a necromancer than just raising undead. In fact the origin of necromancy had everything to do with conviening with and handling spirits. Talking to dead souls and what have you. I think we need a little more of that [/quote]


yea, I know that, but I'm just really exicted about them even including this stuff. there is some talk to dead stuff and things, its just more of the cleric style. I think that in order to be  a full necromancer, you would have to be a multiclass of wizard and cleric. 

I don't think it requires a multi-class approach. In my opinion there should be multiple paths to the same end but each would do things a bit differently. There should be a necromancer (Wizard) and a cleric of undeath (or false life) and I think it might even make a good warlock pact.

Death isn't really on the same playing field with gods if even gods may die. It should be a higher universal force. So having a warlock make a pact with death seems like a good option that isn't really an overlap with clerics in my opinion.

Your actual mileage may vary.

I have a feeling this is one of my friends/players and if I'm right we've been trying to make him a good necromancer in 4e for quite a while and he's right the necromancer background is a great start. Also the Skeleton  "Stinky" was awesome.

As for mages feeling pretty interchangeble/generic IIRC one of the devs mentioned plans to add specializations to Wizards...my guess is something similar to the 4e Mage or possibly by spell school

On the note of the wizard/cleric I personally cannot wait for them to unveil multiclassing its the one major thing I missed from 3e...aside from how broken it was but some house rules alliviated that.

Oh and the skills yeah I found myself getting my players to make alot of stat based rolls due to the lack of proper skills and it slowed down some encounters a bit when I had to make up a roll. For my personal campaign it would be less of an issue cause for better or for worse I tailor skill challenges based on what my players have (allowing me to make it harder or easier) but trying to use a pre-made campaign or something and it would fall apart

Personally, I think the Necromancer specialty is too limited in it's scope. If they made it more inclusive, to be used by anyone instead of "spellcasters domain" then I think it would go a LONG way to hitting multiple archtypes instead of one or two. For example, I wanted to make a Necromonger Knight, a dark warrior who called upon the spirits of the dead and the bodies of the Undead to help kill his enemies. But I can't do that unless I go down the Cleric or Sorcere road. But I don't want all the crap that comes along with Spellcasting and just want to play a regular Fighter.  

Oct 7, 2012 -- 12:31PM, Diffan wrote:

Personally, I think the Necromancer specialty is too limited in it's scope. If they made it more inclusive, to be used by anyone instead of "spellcasters domain" then I think it would go a LONG way to hitting multiple archtypes instead of one or two. For example, I wanted to make a Necromonger Knight, a dark warrior who called upon the spirits of the dead and the bodies of the Undead to help kill his enemies. But I can't do that unless I go down the Cleric or Sorcere road. But I don't want all the crap that comes along with Spellcasting and just want to play a regular Fighter.  

Well from what I gather the specialties and background are just quick and simple way to build characters (will work great for last minute players) my guess is that you can still choose feats and skills at will if you wish so you could make your Death Knight, I also can't wait to see how they handle Multi-classing as that will open alot more oppurtunities to tailor your character to a story (ie. An exiled Paladin becomes a Fighter or hell a wizard...freedom is one of the main things 4e lacked despite being my preferred edition)

Oct 7, 2012 -- 12:47PM, Failedlegend wrote:

Oct 7, 2012 -- 12:31PM, Diffan wrote:

Personally, I think the Necromancer specialty is too limited in it's scope. If they made it more inclusive, to be used by anyone instead of "spellcasters domain" then I think it would go a LONG way to hitting multiple archtypes instead of one or two. For example, I wanted to make a Necromonger Knight, a dark warrior who called upon the spirits of the dead and the bodies of the Undead to help kill his enemies. But I can't do that unless I go down the Cleric or Sorcere road. But I don't want all the crap that comes along with Spellcasting and just want to play a regular Fighter.  

Well from what I gather the specialties and background are just quick and simple way to build characters (will work great for last minute players) my guess is that you can still choose feats and skills at will if you wish so you could make your Death Knight,

Your correct, however I have a problem directly with the Aura of Souls feat requiring spellcasting and only working for the few Necromancy spells there are. I'd like that specific feat to be more inclusive to other options besides specific necromantic spells for spellcasters. I'd like them to drop the spellcasting requirement entirely. I'd like for them to use the feat to gain advantage on your next attack roll (not next necromancy spell's attack roll) or perhaps disadvantage against an opponents attack roll against you as a Reaction. To me, this gives the feeling that one is using the souls (or perhaps "ghosts") as a distraction in combat.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 12:47PM, Failedlegend wrote:

I also can't wait to see how they handle Multi-classing as that will open alot more oppurtunities to tailor your character to a story (ie. An exiled Paladin becomes a Fighter or hell a wizard...freedom is one of the main things 4e lacked despite being my preferred edition)

I think the options were extreamly limited with the CORE books of 4E when they were released back in 08'. I'm sure that helped spin a negative light against the whole system instead of waiting for more, and better content. In the years after I feel 4E made some HUGE strides to help people branch out their characters from a mechanical point of view. Additional Multiclass feats, better Paragon Multiclassing feats, Hybrid rules, etc. Imagin how the reaction would've been different if they came out with Hybrid at the onset of the CORE rules? I think it would've gone over FAR better with those rules instead of what we were presented with.

But lets hope that they don't fudge up the Multiclassing rules in D&D:Next like they did with 3E.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 4:48PM, Diffan wrote:

But lets hope that they don't fudge up the Multiclassing rules in D&D:Next like they did with 3E.

I'm actually going to have to disagree with you there the 3e multiclassing system was great it was the people who walked around with charters that had a level structure of 6/2/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 that ruined it...honestly a simple limit of 3 or 4 classes would make all the difference

As for 4e when I said it was limited I meant that you couldn't really change your characters direction except at Creation, Paragon and Epic whislt in 3e If my Lvl 3 Fighter decided to become a battlemage because of some reason or another I just could. I wasn't a bad system I just liked the 3e one better, mind you overall I preffered 4e and 5e seems to be on the path of melding everything great of both editions together else well as some older stuff...now they just have to pull it off

As for the negative view of 4e, thats mostly just ignorance...admitedly I loathed 4e until I tried it and now I'm loving it.