Just had the idea today that if they do the Villainous Class section in the new DMG, they could add Necromancer as well since it didn't make it as a PHB subclass. It's very much a classic BBEG type, and I'm not at all confident the new MM will have blocks that give a proper toolkit for DM to design a BBEG who can interact with the setting the way a major caster should. Think it could happen, or is this just wistful thinking on my part?
I mean, the dream would be one "evil" subclass for each class so that it would be easy to include any of them as antagonists. That aside, though, I think that Necromancer would be a good fit for the DMG.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
What do you mean “didn’t make it?” Is it not gonna be in the ‘24 PHB?
The four that were present in UA7 were Abjurer, Diviner, Evoker, and Illusionist. I don't think we've gotten any indications that they'll be changed, so it looks like those are the four we'll get in 2024.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
What do you mean “didn’t make it?” Is it not gonna be in the ‘24 PHB?
The four that were present in UA7 were Abjurer, Diviner, Evoker, and Illusionist. I don't think we've gotten any indications that they'll be changed, so it looks like those are the four we'll get in 2024.
Then the other 4 will likely be in a supplemental book later on. If they don’t give us all 8 people will be displeased.
What do you mean “didn’t make it?” Is it not gonna be in the ‘24 PHB?
The four that were present in UA7 were Abjurer, Diviner, Evoker, and Illusionist. I don't think we've gotten any indications that they'll be changed, so it looks like those are the four we'll get in 2024.
Then the other 4 will likely be in a supplemental book later on. If they don’t give us all 8 people will be displeased.
And yet if they do give it later, other people will be displeased and call it a naked money grab and making them pay for the same thing twice. Frickin' people. We're the worst.
Actually, I'd gotten the impression they're not going to spend a lot of time revisiting existing subclasses beyond what goes in the PHB, and DMG if they do include villainous options. I can't point to any quote that said this. Just more of a general tone where they talk a lot about the new hotness, and not so much about playing the old hits.
I mean, the dream would be one "evil" subclass for each class so that it would be easy to include any of them as antagonists. That aside, though, I think that Necromancer would be a good fit for the DMG.
I'm not sure most of them need an explicit "Evil" subclass, though. Like "evil weapon user" is basically the same thing as a typical one, just maybe with a magic weapon that does necrotic or psychic damage instead of whatever the original type was.
What do you mean “didn’t make it?” Is it not gonna be in the ‘24 PHB?
The four that were present in UA7 were Abjurer, Diviner, Evoker, and Illusionist. I don't think we've gotten any indications that they'll be changed, so it looks like those are the four we'll get in 2024.
Then the other 4 will likely be in a supplemental book later on. If they don’t give us all 8 people will be displeased.
It's not so much about the risk of "losing" the subclass; in that same vein, I'm not sure people are that attached to Conjuration and Transmutation as a subclass. But it's more for the purpose of being able to build a good Evil Wizard BBEG using the new material. As I said, stat blocks are becoming increasingly narrow and inflexible in spellcaster design, so they're not a good basis for building a character who's supposed to be able to engage with the setting as more than a one-off encounter. I had the idea more because Necromancers are classic BBEG Wizards, and I don't expect the new Monster Manual to give a useful chasis to build on, whereas an entry similar to the Death Cleric or Oathbreaker Paladin would. Hopefully those at least make the transition.
necromancer is kinda just a blip on the spectrum between archmage and lich. does it require a separate workup by official materials?
seems like something that could be addressed by an encounter table of different undead. is it the necromancer that's interesting or her armies?
Except I have no faith that archmage or lich will be given a real array of spells to build a BBEG around in the MM. They'll most likelly have a basic attack, maybe a half dozen "cast X times per day" combat spells, a special power, and one or two cantrips. Enough for a single encounter, but not a recurring NPC if you want to actually have a flexible but defined framework rather than just having them cast a new spell when needed and just saying "oh yeah, that's a thing they can do now".
As for the question of what's more interesting, the answer is "both"; the whole is more engaging when the two interact, rather than just being two separate components that might happen to be on the board at the same time.
I feel like WotC is trying to move even further away from “NPC subclasses” than they used to. I doubt we’ll even get the Oathbreaker and the Death Domain again next year.
I feel like WotC is trying to move even further away from “NPC subclasses” than they used to. I doubt we’ll even get the Oathbreaker and the Death Domain again next year.
That's also a definite possibility. We might get similar things in the Monster Manual to replace them, though. Maybe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I feel like WotC is trying to move even further away from “NPC subclasses” than they used to. I doubt we’ll even get the Oathbreaker and the Death Domain again next year.
That's what I'm afraid of. Because heaven forefend DMs have tools to build NPCs who are more than just basic combat bots at hand.
We'll definitely get Necromancer, though not in the PHB. (I wonder if they'll keep the whole "necromancy is evil" line?)
The fates of subclasses like Oathbreaker and Death are a lot less clear. Personally I think Oathbreaker is a bit of a dumb idea in a game where paladins can be evil to begin with - or at the very least if they have to keep it they should have both Oathbreaker for heroic Paladins who Fall, and Redemption for villainous Paladins who Rise.
As for Death, I could see it getting combined with Grave.
Well, they’ve said you can use 2014 subclasses with 2024 base classes, so they don’t need to re-print them for people to use them.
I know the update is backwards compatible, but if they take the current DMG down from the market at Legacy then it becomes significantly less accessible for anyone who doesn't already have it.
We'll definitely get Necromancer, though not in the PHB. (I wonder if they'll keep the whole "necromancy is evil" line?)
The fates of subclasses like Oathbreaker and Death are a lot less clear. Personally I think Oathbreaker is a bit of a dumb idea in a game where paladins can be evil to begin with - or at the very least if they have to keep it they should have both Oathbreaker for heroic Paladins who Fall, and Redemption for villainous Paladins who Rise.
As for Death, I could see it getting combined with Grave.
I mean, they don't say the whole Necromancy school is Evil; they say creating Undead is not Good and only an Evil character does it regularly. Which is a) a reasonable worldbuilding point, and something that's mentioned in a sidebar in the current PHB and so very easy for a DM to disregard if they want and b) a way to help the DM justify nixing that player who wants to build a zombie army mid-campaign with a "this is the kind of thing that invites cosmic consequences if you go for it" warning. Granted, the "Necromancy as a whole isn't Evil" bit does make it harder to justify Necromancer as a Villainous Subclass, although I still think it'd be a useful tool to put in the DM's kit.
Oathbreaker doesn't conflict with the possibility for Paladins to be evil to begin with because it's specifically about the narrative of the fall from grace, right down to the power coming from Fiends rather than still coming from some God who's okay with sketchy stuff like Conquest or Vengeance. Regarding Redemption, considering I doubt XGtE will go down anytime soon, it already is and will almost certainly remain an option, so arguably that point is part of why they should keep Oathbreakers around.
Death and Grave superficially overlap, but mechanically they play very differently, so combining them seems more likely to just hurt both the flavor and build by splitting the focus between the very offensively oriented Death features and the more control/defensive Grave ones. About the only overlap I can find is on their Domain spell list.
I don’t know if we need a Necromancer to build BBEG wizard. You could just use one of the PHB Wizards and surround it with undead. If you give it spells from the necromancy school it’s not going to matter if it’s a by the book Necromancer anyway. If it’s an NPC it can already do things players can’t.
I mean, they don't say the whole Necromancy school is Evil; they say creating Undead is not Good and only an Evil character does it regularly. Which is a) a reasonable worldbuilding point, and something that's mentioned in a sidebar in the current PHB and so very easy for a DM to disregard if they want and b) a way to help the DM justify nixing that player who wants to build a zombie army mid-campaign with a "this is the kind of thing that invites cosmic consequences if you go for it" warning. Granted, the "Necromancy as a whole isn't Evil" bit does make it harder to justify Necromancer as a Villainous Subclass, although I still think it'd be a useful tool to put in the DM's kit.
Oathbreaker doesn't conflict with the possibility for Paladins to be evil to begin with because it's specifically about the narrative of the fall from grace, right down to the power coming from Fiends rather than still coming from some God who's okay with sketchy stuff like Conquest or Vengeance. Regarding Redemption, considering I doubt XGtE will go down anytime soon, it already is and will almost certainly remain an option, so arguably that point is part of why they should keep Oathbreakers around.
Death and Grave superficially overlap, but mechanically they play very differently, so combining them seems more likely to just hurt both the flavor and build by splitting the focus between the very offensively oriented Death features and the more control/defensive Grave ones. About the only overlap I can find is on their Domain spell list.
1) To be clear, I'm not opposed to creating a bunch of undead being evil. D&D's been pretty consistent about that across editions, and your reasoning on the metagame/Doylist reason for it (discouraging the players from becoming undead warlords using the abundant renewable resource of every corpse the DM threw at them) seems sound to me. But imo, the way to keep players from quitting the campaign and playing Undead Army Simulator is to nerf Animate Dead itself.
2) Regarding Oathbreaker, that's exactly my point. By current RAW, every Paladin who breaks their Oath becomes one, regardless of what that oath was or why they went against it. A Vengeance Paladin who chooses to show mercy to their quarry and set aside their grudge will become one; so will a Conquest Paladin who decides the people are better off with representative democracy.
3) I can't think of many deities that would grant Death but not Grave or vice-versa. To me that's not a good sign for the prospect of them remaining distinct, though the even easier alternative is simply never reprinting Death and Oathbreaker so that legacy versions remain extant, and they don't have to worry about consolidating anything.
By current RAW, every Paladin who breaks their Oath becomes one, regardless of what that oath was or why they went against it. A Vengeance Paladin who chooses to show mercy to their quarry and set aside their grudge will become one; so will a Conquest Paladin who decides the people are better off with representative democracy.
Verifiably false.
BREAKING YOUR OATH
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
Doesn't exactly sound like the language you'd use if every Paladin who breaks an oath becomes an Oathbreaker.
Also, straight from Oathbreaker:
An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker. The paladin replaces the features specific to his or her Sacred Oath with Oathbreaker features.
So not only is Oathbreaker presented very clearly as a Paladin who changes course straight for evil, but you literallyhave to be evil to take the subclass.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just had the idea today that if they do the Villainous Class section in the new DMG, they could add Necromancer as well since it didn't make it as a PHB subclass. It's very much a classic BBEG type, and I'm not at all confident the new MM will have blocks that give a proper toolkit for DM to design a BBEG who can interact with the setting the way a major caster should. Think it could happen, or is this just wistful thinking on my part?
What do you mean “didn’t make it?” Is it not gonna be in the ‘24 PHB?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I mean, the dream would be one "evil" subclass for each class so that it would be easy to include any of them as antagonists. That aside, though, I think that Necromancer would be a good fit for the DMG.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The four that were present in UA7 were Abjurer, Diviner, Evoker, and Illusionist. I don't think we've gotten any indications that they'll be changed, so it looks like those are the four we'll get in 2024.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Then the other 4 will likely be in a supplemental book later on. If they don’t give us all 8 people will be displeased.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And yet if they do give it later, other people will be displeased and call it a naked money grab and making them pay for the same thing twice. Frickin' people. We're the worst.
Actually, I'd gotten the impression they're not going to spend a lot of time revisiting existing subclasses beyond what goes in the PHB, and DMG if they do include villainous options. I can't point to any quote that said this. Just more of a general tone where they talk a lot about the new hotness, and not so much about playing the old hits.
I'm not sure most of them need an explicit "Evil" subclass, though. Like "evil weapon user" is basically the same thing as a typical one, just maybe with a magic weapon that does necrotic or psychic damage instead of whatever the original type was.
It's not so much about the risk of "losing" the subclass; in that same vein, I'm not sure people are that attached to Conjuration and Transmutation as a subclass. But it's more for the purpose of being able to build a good Evil Wizard BBEG using the new material. As I said, stat blocks are becoming increasingly narrow and inflexible in spellcaster design, so they're not a good basis for building a character who's supposed to be able to engage with the setting as more than a one-off encounter. I had the idea more because Necromancers are classic BBEG Wizards, and I don't expect the new Monster Manual to give a useful chasis to build on, whereas an entry similar to the Death Cleric or Oathbreaker Paladin would. Hopefully those at least make the transition.
necromancer is kinda just a blip on the spectrum between archmage and lich. does it require a separate workup by official materials?
seems like something that could be addressed by an encounter table of different undead. is it the necromancer that's interesting or her armies?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Except I have no faith that archmage or lich will be given a real array of spells to build a BBEG around in the MM. They'll most likelly have a basic attack, maybe a half dozen "cast X times per day" combat spells, a special power, and one or two cantrips. Enough for a single encounter, but not a recurring NPC if you want to actually have a flexible but defined framework rather than just having them cast a new spell when needed and just saying "oh yeah, that's a thing they can do now".
As for the question of what's more interesting, the answer is "both"; the whole is more engaging when the two interact, rather than just being two separate components that might happen to be on the board at the same time.
I feel like WotC is trying to move even further away from “NPC subclasses” than they used to. I doubt we’ll even get the Oathbreaker and the Death Domain again next year.
That's also a definite possibility. We might get similar things in the Monster Manual to replace them, though. Maybe.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
That's what I'm afraid of. Because heaven forefend DMs have tools to build NPCs who are more than just basic combat bots at hand.
Well, they’ve said you can use 2014 subclasses with 2024 base classes, so they don’t need to re-print them for people to use them.
We'll definitely get Necromancer, though not in the PHB. (I wonder if they'll keep the whole "necromancy is evil" line?)
The fates of subclasses like Oathbreaker and Death are a lot less clear. Personally I think Oathbreaker is a bit of a dumb idea in a game where paladins can be evil to begin with - or at the very least if they have to keep it they should have both Oathbreaker for heroic Paladins who Fall, and Redemption for villainous Paladins who Rise.
As for Death, I could see it getting combined with Grave.
I know the update is backwards compatible, but if they take the current DMG down from the market at Legacy then it becomes significantly less accessible for anyone who doesn't already have it.
I mean, they don't say the whole Necromancy school is Evil; they say creating Undead is not Good and only an Evil character does it regularly. Which is a) a reasonable worldbuilding point, and something that's mentioned in a sidebar in the current PHB and so very easy for a DM to disregard if they want and b) a way to help the DM justify nixing that player who wants to build a zombie army mid-campaign with a "this is the kind of thing that invites cosmic consequences if you go for it" warning. Granted, the "Necromancy as a whole isn't Evil" bit does make it harder to justify Necromancer as a Villainous Subclass, although I still think it'd be a useful tool to put in the DM's kit.
Oathbreaker doesn't conflict with the possibility for Paladins to be evil to begin with because it's specifically about the narrative of the fall from grace, right down to the power coming from Fiends rather than still coming from some God who's okay with sketchy stuff like Conquest or Vengeance. Regarding Redemption, considering I doubt XGtE will go down anytime soon, it already is and will almost certainly remain an option, so arguably that point is part of why they should keep Oathbreakers around.
Death and Grave superficially overlap, but mechanically they play very differently, so combining them seems more likely to just hurt both the flavor and build by splitting the focus between the very offensively oriented Death features and the more control/defensive Grave ones. About the only overlap I can find is on their Domain spell list.
I don’t know if we need a Necromancer to build BBEG wizard. You could just use one of the PHB Wizards and surround it with undead. If you give it spells from the necromancy school it’s not going to matter if it’s a by the book Necromancer anyway. If it’s an NPC it can already do things players can’t.
There is the Necromancer NPC stat block in Monsters of the Multiverse, which I understand was written as forward-compatible with the 2024 edition.
1) To be clear, I'm not opposed to creating a bunch of undead being evil. D&D's been pretty consistent about that across editions, and your reasoning on the metagame/Doylist reason for it (discouraging the players from becoming undead warlords using the abundant renewable resource of every corpse the DM threw at them) seems sound to me. But imo, the way to keep players from quitting the campaign and playing Undead Army Simulator is to nerf Animate Dead itself.
2) Regarding Oathbreaker, that's exactly my point. By current RAW, every Paladin who breaks their Oath becomes one, regardless of what that oath was or why they went against it. A Vengeance Paladin who chooses to show mercy to their quarry and set aside their grudge will become one; so will a Conquest Paladin who decides the people are better off with representative democracy.
3) I can't think of many deities that would grant Death but not Grave or vice-versa. To me that's not a good sign for the prospect of them remaining distinct, though the even easier alternative is simply never reprinting Death and Oathbreaker so that legacy versions remain extant, and they don't have to worry about consolidating anything.
Verifiably false.
Doesn't exactly sound like the language you'd use if every Paladin who breaks an oath becomes an Oathbreaker.
Also, straight from Oathbreaker:
So not only is Oathbreaker presented very clearly as a Paladin who changes course straight for evil, but you literally have to be evil to take the subclass.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)