One of my players wants to be a necromancer in our next campaign, I would love to allow that, but i have been looking and i cant find anything that would allow my player to build this in anyway. i suppose i have two questions. Did they take it away all together except for the spells, and if not what books may have it so i can gain that class.
One thing that no one has appeared to mention is not the myriad mechanical problems with having a small army of undead available, but the fact that said army would be "frowned upon" in civilized circles, and would typically end up with the army either dead, or the citizens running screaming from it. Eventually, the good folk will hunt down and kill the necromancer. And lets not even begin to see what happens if there is a lawful good Paladin or Grave Cleric nearby or in the party.
Just tell that player "No."
Not all necromancers have to have hordes of undead following their every step. If the only response to a player wanting to be a necromancer is "no," what's with all the previously mentioned necromancy subclasses?
What's with that subclass, or others? A badly thought out design. 5e is riddled with badly designed subclasses, be it mechanically, or thematically. There are literally over 100 subclasses in the game. I am quite confident to say half of them are never considered by players.
And a necromancer is DESIGNED to have just that, a horde of Undead.
Let's look at the subclass features:
At 6th level, you add the Animate Dead spell to your spellbook if it is not there already. When you cast animate dead, you can target one additional corpse or pile of bones, creating another zombie or skeleton, as appropriate.
Whenever you create an undead using a necromancy spell, it has additional benefits:
The creature's hit point maximum is increased by an amount equal to your wizard level.
The creature adds your proficiency bonus to its weapon damage rolls.
Starting at 14th level, you can use magic to bring undead under your control, even those created by other wizards. As an action, you can choose one undead that you can see within 60 feet of you. That creature must make a Charisma saving throw against your wizard spell save DC. If it succeeds, you can't use this feature on it again. If it fails, it becomes friendly to you and obeys your commands until you use this feature again.
If a group actually does play their PC's correctly, then Lawful Good Paladin's will kill on sight Necromancers. And Grave Clerics, well: "At 1st level, you gain the ability to occasionally sense the presence of the undead, whose existence is an insult to the natural cycle of life"
So no, Necromancers are NOT compatible with many other subclasses, and thematically, would be hated by virtually all good NPC's.
It should be noted OP, this user is stating as absolute something that is decidedly not an absolute. Maybe in their games that’s true, but that doesn’t mean it is true in every game. Nor should it be - the magic of D&D is you can do what works for you, your players, and your world.
Do what works for your world and what makes sense for your world. That can be open acceptance of necromancy. It can be fear of necromancy. It can be a mix of different cultures with different views on it. It can be whatever you want. The possibilities are endless.
Tell me how a Grave Cleric and a Necromancer operate in the same group when the Necromancer fires up a group of Undead as minions, when it is built into the Grave Cleric subclass to obliterate Undead? Or better, when any Cleric uses its Channel Divinity Feature of Turn Undead, and suddenly all the Necromancer's minions are scattered as well? Or at 5th level, when those zombies and skeletons are not only turned, but destroyed. Or is the DM now supposed to not have Undead attack a party, to avoid these mechanical conflicts?
Easy. Neither player being an ass and the players recognising that the greater good might involve working with someone you personally find objectionable. It really isn’t hard—the real world works that way also.
You did not answer the question within the confines of the game mechanics, and instead deflected to some nebulous concept. Tell me, precisely, within the game mechanics, how a Grave Cleric and Necromancer operate within the same party?
Simple. There's no actual mechanical requirement that the two subclasses have an adversarial relationship. This isn't 2E where the rules state that a paladin can lose their powers just for traveling with an evil character. And it's hardly as if Turn Undead is the only option Grave Clerics have, especially in a group high enough level that a necromancer would have a "horde" of undead following them around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You did not answer the question within the confines of the game mechanics, and instead deflected to some nebulous concept. Tell me, precisely, within the game mechanics, how a Grave Cleric and Necromancer operate within the same party? Tell me, precisely, within the game mechanics, when a party is attacked by low CR undead, how a Cleric when it uses its Channel Divinity to Turn Undead, turns "those Undead, but not these Undead".
You are correct. In the specific instance of a necromancer and a cleric facing off against undead, they interfere with each other.
This is far from a unique circumstance in the world of D&D (fireball and melee characters, for instance), and can be worked around. Most likely by the cleric not burning a channel divinity on the turn, unless the numbers favor doing so.
And if you are stating that PC's (not the players) recognize that working with someone they find objectionable, well, sorry, in many cases, that is simply impossible, within the structure of the game. There is ZERO chance a Lawful Good Paladin, or any LG PC for that matter, will work with a CE PC that kills/steals/tortures on a whim, or even for a "good reason".
Everything but the specific case is a roleplaying circumstance, and cannot be answered outside of a specific table.
Also, you jumped from "necromancer" to "CE PC that kills/steals/tortures on a whim". Almost nobody's gonna work with somebody like that, regardless of alignment.
You can do whatever you like at your table with the mutual consent of everyone there. Literally, whatever you want.
I'm not entirely sure why there's a discussion on this. I'm also not convinced that this is for the benefit of the OP, and if it's not, then we've moved off-topic.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I am once again posting a reminder that telling other people not to play something because of circumstantial issues that are not relevant to the question being asked is both off-topic and falls under gatekeeping.
Please keep the thread on topic and avoid gatekeeping. Thank you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Simple. There's no actual mechanical requirement that the two subclasses have an adversarial relationship. This isn't 2E where the rules state that a paladin can lose their powers just for traveling with an evil character. And it's hardly as if Turn Undead is the only option Grave Clerics have, especially in a group high enough level that a necromancer would have a "horde" of undead following them around.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You are correct. In the specific instance of a necromancer and a cleric facing off against undead, they interfere with each other.
This is far from a unique circumstance in the world of D&D (fireball and melee characters, for instance), and can be worked around. Most likely by the cleric not burning a channel divinity on the turn, unless the numbers favor doing so.
Everything but the specific case is a roleplaying circumstance, and cannot be answered outside of a specific table.
Also, you jumped from "necromancer" to "CE PC that kills/steals/tortures on a whim". Almost nobody's gonna work with somebody like that, regardless of alignment.
You can do whatever you like at your table with the mutual consent of everyone there. Literally, whatever you want.
I'm not entirely sure why there's a discussion on this. I'm also not convinced that this is for the benefit of the OP, and if it's not, then we've moved off-topic.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI am once again posting a reminder that telling other people not to play something because of circumstantial issues that are not relevant to the question being asked is both off-topic and falls under gatekeeping.
Please keep the thread on topic and avoid gatekeeping. Thank you.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
sounds like an interesting ark. thanks for the idea.