i agree 100% most of the changes are excellent, but the bread and butte of the Necromancer is the Undead thralls feature and it ONE minion is not worth my Concentration when i could be casting Slow, Web, hypnotic Pattern, Black Tentacles etc... if the feature allows Summon Undead to be cast with no Concentration, then its a solid feature, but i still prefer the 2014 Undead Thralls feature. But again, li,ke you said, the res of the changes ARE SOLID UPGRADES.
That’s the problem is they are shipping it as “Necromancer”. If they had just called it death wizard, decay wizard, or something along those lines it would sell the fantasy more
A necromancer is a wizard who specializes in necromantic magic. Just because your vision is that of some undead hordemaster, does not mean that your vision is the only correct vision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
That is the most common version, more importantly the version they previously attempted to deliver, so it’s what most past and future players would expect. Also it’s not just hordes missing from this subclass. You don’t control undead better with this version. Even if it’s just one. There is nothing that makes your undead better until 14th level.
Why do wizards require more knowledge of the rules than druids? Also, your subclass is a one time choice, so even if it's overwhelming for them, they just choose and it's done.
There are far more spells for wizards than for divine casters. While I haven't taken the time to count them all, it is my understanding that there are 350 official wizard spells and 158 Druid spells and 119 Cleric spells.
Also, officially, there are two subclasses of Druid, one specializes in wild shape and the other in casting. Players have the option to focus on wild shape or spellcasting as a Druid in combat, they don't need to master both skill sets. Clerics have the ability to just go into melee or use some other weapon, they aren't wholly dependent on spells.
Wizard subclass abilities are often multiplicative to their spells. In a sense, they often don't expand the class's power linearly. They add power geometrically to spells.. For example, arcane ward, illusory reality, expert divination, etc. multiplies the way spells can be used. Every wizard class has at least one such multiplicative power (a power which can be added to a collection of spells - typically those in the wizard's school - individually to increase each spell's power).
That means there's just more options to learn for wizards than divine casters in order to play them strategically / tactically.
While I agree that having a lot of spell options (and three "places" that those spells can go for a PC that has learned a spell) makes Wizards complex for beginners, I would disagree that Druids are less complex, on average. Wizards have more variety, true, but that variety makes it so that a beginner can do a little research online and easily pick pure blasting and protection spells if they wanted. Since most of the protection spells have a range of Self, the decision points are fairly simple once a player understands Area of Effect for their blast spells. An effective Wizard in most parties doesn't need much more than that unless the DM is trying to run a difficult campaign. However, Druids have almost all concentration spells, with few good "one and done" options. And, most of their spells change the environment, which is more complex because you Have to think about terrain and positioning more carefully to be effective at helping the party. And if a player wants to go the Moon Druid route for more powerful wildshapes, they need to study the beasts and their abilites as well as match concentration spells that are best for each particular kind of beast. So for new players, Druids are every bit or more difficult to play well compared to a Wizard who is a generalist or an Evocation specialist.
Why are y’all debating class complexity? Dnd isn’t that complex, and Wizards don’t make any more choices than any other class. Clerics and warlocks have just as much complexity. Cleric subclasses can affect spells and give bonus spells. Necromancer isn’t missing because WotC felt that giving Wizards 9 subclasses in the PHB made them too complex. It’s missing because they wanted things to be even because that was a major complaint about 2014 PHB. They most likely didn’t choose Necromancer for the PHB because it needs a lot of work to stop it from being a turn hog with an army of undead, while still feeling like it gives you an army of undead, and since it’s often considered evil it’s hard to make it one of 4 options. With the horror themed playtest im shocked they didn’t show us a new version of the Necromancer.
Two things that are different can be true at the same time. The devs could have excluded Necros from 2024 for both the reasons that 2014 Necro was a turn hog AND because managing a spell list on top of multiple minions on a combat map makes things more complex, not just for the player, but also for the DM, whose job is to keep things running smoothly.
Though to the point about class complexity, Clerics are definitely easier to play than a Wizard. They get better armor and shields, they can switch out any spell with a long rest, and they have very few objectively bad options within their spell list. Wizards manage three groups of spells effectively: spells in the spellbook, spells they have prepared for that day, and the spells they Want to get which matches their subclass/play style. Because the Wizard spell list is so varied, there are a lot of ways to optimize unless you want to focus on blasting. Blasting is very straightforward. In comparison, battlefield control is complex, but actually a lot effective than blasting in most situations. Clerics have very few control spells needing concentration outside of Spir Guardians and .... Insect Plague...I guess. So it's a lot harder to make mistakes with a Cleric than it is when playing a Wizard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
i agree 100% most of the changes are excellent, but the bread and butte of the Necromancer is the Undead thralls feature and it ONE minion is not worth my Concentration when i could be casting Slow, Web, hypnotic Pattern, Black Tentacles etc... if the feature allows Summon Undead to be cast with no Concentration, then its a solid feature, but i still prefer the 2014 Undead Thralls feature. But again, li,ke you said, the res of the changes ARE SOLID UPGRADES.
That’s the problem is they are shipping it as “Necromancer”. If they had just called it death wizard, decay wizard, or something along those lines it would sell the fantasy more
A necromancer is a wizard who specializes in necromantic magic. Just because your vision is that of some undead hordemaster, does not mean that your vision is the only correct vision.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That is the most common version, more importantly the version they previously attempted to deliver, so it’s what most past and future players would expect. Also it’s not just hordes missing from this subclass. You don’t control undead better with this version. Even if it’s just one. There is nothing that makes your undead better until 14th level.
While I agree that having a lot of spell options (and three "places" that those spells can go for a PC that has learned a spell) makes Wizards complex for beginners, I would disagree that Druids are less complex, on average. Wizards have more variety, true, but that variety makes it so that a beginner can do a little research online and easily pick pure blasting and protection spells if they wanted. Since most of the protection spells have a range of Self, the decision points are fairly simple once a player understands Area of Effect for their blast spells. An effective Wizard in most parties doesn't need much more than that unless the DM is trying to run a difficult campaign. However, Druids have almost all concentration spells, with few good "one and done" options. And, most of their spells change the environment, which is more complex because you Have to think about terrain and positioning more carefully to be effective at helping the party. And if a player wants to go the Moon Druid route for more powerful wildshapes, they need to study the beasts and their abilites as well as match concentration spells that are best for each particular kind of beast. So for new players, Druids are every bit or more difficult to play well compared to a Wizard who is a generalist or an Evocation specialist.
Two things that are different can be true at the same time. The devs could have excluded Necros from 2024 for both the reasons that 2014 Necro was a turn hog AND because managing a spell list on top of multiple minions on a combat map makes things more complex, not just for the player, but also for the DM, whose job is to keep things running smoothly.
Though to the point about class complexity, Clerics are definitely easier to play than a Wizard. They get better armor and shields, they can switch out any spell with a long rest, and they have very few objectively bad options within their spell list. Wizards manage three groups of spells effectively: spells in the spellbook, spells they have prepared for that day, and the spells they Want to get which matches their subclass/play style. Because the Wizard spell list is so varied, there are a lot of ways to optimize unless you want to focus on blasting. Blasting is very straightforward. In comparison, battlefield control is complex, but actually a lot effective than blasting in most situations. Clerics have very few control spells needing concentration outside of Spir Guardians and .... Insect Plague...I guess. So it's a lot harder to make mistakes with a Cleric than it is when playing a Wizard.