PDA

View Full Version : How a wizard can be just as good at pure necromancy as a cleric.



Giegue
2010-01-12, 08:58 PM
There is a myth circulating, that a wizard is an inferor necromancer to a cleric. While looking at the classes as is, this may be the case. However, people forget, wizards are not bound to just the spells on their list. Wizards can make spells. Where do you think the spell, Issac's Greater missile storm got it's name? Some wizard named Issac decided to make that spell. People don't ever consider this when saying that the wizard is inferior to the cleric for pure necromancy, yet it is this fact that can make the wizard at the least as good, if not better at necromancy then a cleric. Why? Because frankly, there are little rules on how the creation of spells by a wizard functions, at least from what I know. Thus, it is up to individual DMs and players to determine how this is done.

Some DMs, may make this impossible for a low level wizard, however, when I first tried arcane necromancy, I was thankful to have a DM who made the process friendly to low level wizards as well as high ones. The process we used was I would think up of a concept for a spell, and the DM would then approve or disapprove it. If they approved it, then they would prescribe what needed to be done to create the spell, such as how many hours must be spent in practice of the new spell to prefect it, what I must learn before I can even practice it ect...

Under this system, I had created the Spells Influence Undead and Lesser Animate Dead. Influence Undead was a level 1 spell which allowed the caster to rebuke undead as if he/she was an evil cleric of the same level as him/her. Lesser Animate Dead is just what it sounds like, a level 2 spell which acted as Animate Dead but with much stricter drawbacks, such as the undead requiring intense concentration to animate, control and command and once the spell ended the animated corpses would turn to dust and thus become useless.

So, technically, if you have skill at making spells, and a friendly DM who is open and fair when it comes to spell creation, a wizard can be as good as, and perhaps even better(depending on how creative and skilled you are at making spells) at pure necromancy then a cleric.

Opinions?

Eldariel
2010-01-12, 09:01 PM
Now, disagree all you want, but unless there are some spell creation rules I am not aware of, I believe that the Wizard can equal the cleric, and even surpass him/her at necromancy.

And Bard can beat both by coming up with even more imaginative spells! Mise! Seriously though, any caster can come up with spells; that's hardly an argument for, or against their potency on any given field. Cleric is a worse teleporter than Wizard...unless you come up with a couple of low-level Teleports Wizards don't have access to!

lsfreak
2010-01-12, 09:02 PM
Well, once you get into homebrewing anything can be more powerful than anything. And that's exactly when spell creation is - homebrew.

We say clerics are better than wizards because we have to have some base, some reference point, on which to base discussions. This means we are forced to stick to RAW when discussing... well, pretty much anything.

Basically, all we can say in response to this is 'good for you.' Because without the reference point of sticking to RAW, we can't say *anything* worthwhile.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-12, 09:03 PM
If your DM is going to fiat things to make your concept, you're moving down the slippery slope towards freeform (yay, freeform!)

And I believe we shall disagree all we want. :smallwink:

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-12, 09:04 PM
While it is true that Wizards can create new spells, there are no exact rules for doing so and it is, therefore, highly dependent on the DM. Depending on the DM, you may or may not be able to work something out. It is for this reason that in discussion, the cleric is generally considered the superior necromancer -- it can outnecromancer the wizard without having to rely on homebrew.

EDIT: The ninja... they're everywhere!!!!

Signmaker
2010-01-12, 09:06 PM
Oof, the homebrew card.

While technically a valid point, this is sort of equivalent to the statement "By adding water to paper, it becomes wet". Yes, it's usually true, but you don't show very much through the practice.

In homebrewDnD, yes your point can be valid/invalid. It's more constructive to others if you jive in OutOfTheBoxDnD, though.

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-12, 09:06 PM
There is a myth circulating, that a wizard is an inferor necromancer to a cleric. Opinions?

This is the first time I have ever heard this myth, so my opinion is thus: Poppycock and Bolderdash!:smallyuk:

Giegue
2010-01-12, 09:11 PM
I can understand from argument of base vs. base. However, I am not basing this on base. On base, a cleric is better then a wizard and a dread necromancer beats them both. What I am just trying to point out is the fact that spell creation can be used to make a wizard as good as a cleric at necromancy, depending on the DM. I even stated that fact that in terms of base, the cleric is better.

However, this really came from a misunderstanding, since I did not realize that arguments of wizards sucking at necromancy beyond debuffing was strictly in terms of base vs. base and not the full potential of one class vs. the full potential of another. Also, as far as I am aware, bards, sorcerers and other spontaneous casters can't make spells since they kinda just all of the sudden "know" there spells rather then learn them. Also, I am guessing a cleric could never make spells either unless their god decides to be nice to them. However, if I am wrong on this, let me know.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-12, 09:13 PM
This is the first time I have ever heard this myth, so my opinion is thus: Poppycock and Bolderdash!:smallyuk:

A wise man once said these words:


At its core, the Cleric is a better class than the Wizard. It gets better armor and weapon proficiencies, better saves, more spells per day, more hit points, the ability to ignore ASF, free knowledge of the entire spell-list, and a better BAB. That's not to say that any particular Wizard is outdone by any particular Cleric, there are some very powerful spells on the Wizard list that are not on the Cleric list. But if a Wizard finds himself casting a spell that's on the Cleric list, at least for that round he's the big sucker."

This is very, very true when it comes to animate dead -- Wizards don't even get it till lv 7.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-12, 09:15 PM
Also, I am guessing a cleric could never make spells either unless their god decides to be nice to them. However, if I am wrong on this, let me know.

And their god can decide to be nice to them. It's certainly not unprecedented. But, like your example of spell research, it rarely happens enough to influence the populace at large IME.

PS: Sorcerers:

A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list
These spells are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Ergo, some spells (the non-primarily-drawn ones) may be from other lists. Like the "extra-special-necromancer" list.

Signmaker
2010-01-12, 09:16 PM
Also, as far as I am aware, bards, sorcerers and other spontaneous casters can't make spells since they kinda just all of the sudden "know" there spells rather then learn them. Also, I am guessing a cleric could never make spells either unless their god decides to be nice to them. However, if I am wrong on this, let me know.

The Magic section of the PHB might help your pursuits, in this case.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-01-12, 09:16 PM
And Bard can beat both by coming up with even more imaginative spells! Mise! Seriously though, any caster can come up with spells; that's hardly an argument for, or against their potency on any given field. Cleric is a worse teleporter than Wizard...unless you come up with a couple of low-level Teleports Wizards don't have access to!

Travel domain gets access to Dimension door, Teleport, Greater Teleport, and Teleportation Circle.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-12, 09:18 PM
Also, I am guessing a cleric could never make spells either unless their god decides to be nice to them. However, if I am wrong on this, let me know.

Basically, this depends on DM ruling as much as arcane spell creation does. If your DM is cool with it, it works well. If not, then you haven't a chance.

olentu
2010-01-12, 09:20 PM
Olentu sang the song!

Clerics can as I recall also make make custom spells.

Eldariel
2010-01-12, 09:23 PM
Travel domain gets access to Dimension door, Teleport, Greater Teleport, and Teleportation Circle.

Still not as good without Spontaneous Domain Casting. Talking about generic Cleric here tho, not a teleport specialist (I mean, the Wiz isn't assumed to be optimized for Teleportation either).

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-01-12, 09:23 PM
Within the rules, not getting into Spell Creation, it is easier for a Cleric to get access to specific Wizard spells via Domains than it is for Wizards to get access to specific Cleric spells.

Arcane disciple (Death domain) might do it, though. You probably won't be needing to cast it more than once a day... I hope

tyckspoon
2010-01-12, 09:24 PM
Also, I am guessing a cleric could never make spells either unless their god decides to be nice to them. However, if I am wrong on this, let me know.

'kay. You're wrong. Divine casters can do research in exactly the same way as Wizards, and spontaneous casters can choose "...spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of." Which is to say, they can research or study a spell and then pick it as a spell known. The fluff for all of the methods will be different, but mechanically it all comes down to "You may learn or invent a spell that is not on the standard list. Ask your DM how he wants to handle that."

Green Bean
2010-01-12, 09:30 PM
I can understand from argument of base vs. base. However, I am not basing this on base. On base, a cleric is better then a wizard and a dread necromancer beats them both. What I am just trying to point out is the fact that spell creation can be used to make a wizard as good as a cleric at necromancy, depending on the DM. I even stated that fact that in terms of base, the cleric is better.

However, this really came from a misunderstanding, since I did not realize that arguments of wizards sucking at necromancy beyond debuffing was strictly in terms of base vs. base and not the full potential of one class vs. the full potential of another. Also, as far as I am aware, bards, sorcerers and other spontaneous casters can't make spells since they kinda just all of the sudden "know" there spells rather then learn them. Also, I am guessing a cleric could never make spells either unless their god decides to be nice to them. However, if I am wrong on this, let me know.

Why not extend this to the rest of the game? If a class's 'full potential' includes custom spells, then there are a number of other myths that this disproves. "Clerics are better at turning undead," "Bards are better at social engineering," "Rogue are better at finding traps," "Barbarians are better at getting mad and hitting stuff with axes," "Commoners are better at basket weaving."

Jack_Simth
2010-01-12, 09:33 PM
This is the first time I have ever heard this myth, so my opinion is thus: Poppycock and Bolderdash!:smallyuk:

Pretty much.

The Cleric-X can keep a fixed number of undead under his command (based strictly on his caster level and his rebuke level - essentially 5* Cleric level, if you ignore boosters).

The Wizard, on the other hand, gets the second level spell "Command Undead" (which the cleric doesn't get). The range is such that it qualifies for Chain spell. Which, you know, means that if a Wizard-X has a very large number of mindless undead nearby ... they're his for caster level days. Or until, you know, he wears them out. As a bonus? As it's a spell with a duration, it technically trumps the Cleric's Instant control of Rebuking undead.

So while the Cleric has to choose to lose control of some of his undead if he wants to control more, the Wizard just devotes another spell slot to his control mechanisms.

JoshuaZ
2010-01-12, 09:37 PM
Others have already adequately answered why the ability to make spells up isn't a useful rejoinder to the claim. So I'd like to instead argue that wizards get enough good necromancy so that they can be quite effective necromancers and even do some stuff that clerics can't do very well. The key issue is that while clerics are better at creating undead than wizards, that's not all necromancy is about. If one considers draining the life of one's foes, controlling undead, and other traditional aspects of necromancy wizards have many options that clerics lack. To make the point I'll just list some of the necromancy spells in core that wizards get that clerics don't:

Chill Touch,Ray of Enfeeblement, False Life, Command Undead, Ghoul Touch, Spectral Hand, Halt Undead, Ray of Exhaustion, Vampiric Touch, Enervation, Magic Jar, Control Undead, Finger of Death, Clone, Wail of the Banshee

The necromancy of a wizard is much more flexible and far reaching than that of a cleric. As long as you aren't hung up on making the biggest, baddest undead you can, a wizard can do about as well with necromancy as a cleric if one is just looking at core. The situation gets more complicated outside of core. But the notion that wizards are intrinsically worse off than clerics at necromancy simply isn't accurate. This argument doesn't require any DM fiat or the like, simply the fact that wizards have access to some very nice spells.

tyckspoon
2010-01-12, 09:48 PM
The necromancy of a wizard is much more flexible and far reaching than that of a cleric. As long as you aren't hung up on making the biggest, baddest undead you can, a wizard can do about as well with necromancy as a cleric if one is just looking at core. The situation gets more complicated outside of core. But the notion that wizards are intrinsically worse off than clerics at necromancy simply isn't accurate. This argument doesn't require any DM fiat or the like, simply the fact that wizards have access to some very nice spells.

The claim, accurately, is that Clerics are better commanders of undead than Wizards. This is generally true, by way of Rebuke Undead and various options that boost Animate Dead/Create Undead for a Cleric that a Wizard cannot easily replicate. It says nothing about the Wizard's ability to portray an Ominous Dark Wizard, which is an area the Wizard is clearly and unsurprisingly better at. But that's mostly irrelevant, as the topic at hand is (was) about raising and controlling the undead.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-12, 09:50 PM
It says nothing about the Wizard's ability to portray an Ominous Dark Wizard, which is an area the Wizard is clearly and unsurprisingly better at. But that's mostly irrelevant, as the topic at hand is (was) about raising and controlling the undead.

Clerics can wear dark robes and wide-brimmed hats too...

JoshuaZ
2010-01-12, 10:09 PM
The claim, accurately, is that Clerics are better commanders of undead than Wizards. This is generally true, by way of Rebuke Undead and various options that boost Animate Dead/Create Undead for a Cleric that a Wizard cannot easily replicate. It says nothing about the Wizard's ability to portray an Ominous Dark Wizard, which is an area the Wizard is clearly and unsurprisingly better at. But that's mostly irrelevant, as the topic at hand is (was) about raising and controlling the undead.

The wording used was "necromancer". Necromancy isn't just about raising and controlling the dead. Necromancy is about a lot more than just raising the dead.

Force
2010-01-12, 10:17 PM
The argument used by the OP makes me think of this:

Let's say we have two car models, A and B. A-model is faster than B-model. Let's say that you own a B. You make performance mods to your B that make it faster than an A-model. Based on this, you now claim that B-models are faster than A-models, as a general rule.

The thread title is misleading. This is RAW, not homebrew. Yes, your wizard with homebrew spells can be as good at necromancy as a cleric... because you made changes to the wizard and did nothing for the cleric.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-12, 10:19 PM
This is RAW, not homebrew.

I did not realize that arguments of wizards sucking at necromancy beyond debuffing was strictly in terms of base vs. base

Naw, it's homebrew.
Interestingly, as there is no creation directly involved, it's probably more suited to be in this forum.

taltamir
2010-01-12, 10:20 PM
OP, are you serious? that a wizard is as good a necromancer as a cleric because your DM can use fiat to make up new spells that don't exist in any published source? by that argument the best ultimate necromancer is the fighter, because you can via DM fiat decide that fighters get to command undead, heal undead, and raise undead. And you know what? the best healers are all wizards, because wizards can research spells that heal better than clerics can... btw, research rules allow both wizards AND clerics to research spells equally...

Advantages clerics have over wizards when it come to raising the dead:
1. Most undead creation spells are limited to divine casting.
2. Inflict wounds (in all its permutations) heals undead, can be spontanously converted.
3. A cleric has a built in ability to control undead (up to a cumulative HD equal to his own; with each individual undead being half his HD at most)
4. Due to the limit of HD of controlled undead, having a large undead army means most are uncontrolled (in DnD, uncontrolled undead follow the last command given to them, they are NOT like zombies in movies... but more like an automaton). A cleric can use rebuke/turn to keep away an enemy's undead and to steal control over undeads that belong to an enemy.
5. Clerics have spells that are not available to wizards that deal with undead (detect them, destroy them, control them, and make it impossible for undead to attack them).
6. there was another benefit that I had in mind but I forgot while listing the rest...
EDIT: I remember now, the 6th thing was the ability to bolster undead (confer turn resistance)

Those things are all advantages of a cleric over a wizard; the wizard has not one single ability that that works with undead that is not also available to the cleric.

tyckspoon
2010-01-12, 10:22 PM
The wording used was "necromancer". Necromancy isn't just about raising and controlling the dead. Necromancy is about a lot more than just raising the dead.

Ok? Point conceded? And yet, the thread was started about undead, and when most people say "I want to be a necromancer" they're talking about undead (generally, if they're talking about a wizard-who-uses-necromancy spells they will refer to a Specialist Necromancer instead, in the same vein as specialist Conjurers, Evokers, etc.) The common usage of necromancy is about undead. So.. go you, you made a valid semantic point. :smallconfused:

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-12, 10:23 PM
OP, thats the best you can come up with? seriously? that a wizard is as good a necromancer as a cleric because your DM can use fiat to make up new spells that don't exist in any published source?

The argument was that wizards were good necromancers because the relevant rules text easily enabled DM fiat (custom research), whereas there is no clear rules support for the DM turning fighters (specifically) into necromancers. This has since been debunked, as all other casters have the same easy-enabled DM fiat (custom research).

taltamir
2010-01-12, 10:25 PM
you can hardly call it "research rules", it just says you have to take 1 week per spell level and that the DM decide any costs, failure rates, and what the spell actually does "as appropriate"
its less rules and more like flavor text

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-12, 10:28 PM
If people call the magic item creation guidelines in the back of the DMG "rules", people can call flavor text "rules". You'd have to ask the OP this, though; I just summarized what I thought his point was.

taltamir
2010-01-12, 10:57 PM
as all other casters have the same easy-enabled DM fiat (custom research).

I know, I said as much


If people call the magic item creation guidelines in the back of the DMG "rules", people can call flavor text "rules". You'd have to ask the OP this, though; I just summarized what I thought his point was.

magic item creation guidelines? I am talking about custom spell research.
I specifically said that AFAIK the only actual RULE about custom spell research is that it takes 1 week per spell level. Everything else is left up to the DM.

JoshuaZ
2010-01-12, 11:22 PM
Ok? Point conceded? And yet, the thread was started about undead, and when most people say "I want to be a necromancer" they're talking about undead (generally, if they're talking about a wizard-who-uses-necromancy spells they will refer to a Specialist Necromancer instead, in the same vein as specialist Conjurers, Evokers, etc.) The common usage of necromancy is about undead. So.. go you, you made a valid semantic point. :smallconfused:

Well, a lot of the spells are spells that are effective precisely because of what they do with undead (control undead and command undead being the most obvious). I'm not actually sure that that's all people think of when they think of necromancers anyways. I mean, the first thing I think of when I think of is actually consulting the dead for information of which there is exactly one spell i all of core which does anything like that (ok it is a cleric spell) and that's certainly closer to the historic definition (of course if we start doing that then the augury spell should require looking at flocks of birds and this would quickly deteriorate). If one is going to use a term they should be clear about what they mean. Terrible abuse of souls and draining of life is just as much necromancy as raising hideous undead armies. At minimum, using the term "pure necromancer" without any general descriptor simply isn't helpful. It indicates a failure of imagination of the power of the dark side.

Edit: Yeah, you're probably right given how often people on these boards and in the D&D culture use necromancy and necromancer to just mean working with undead.

taltamir
2010-01-12, 11:33 PM
Edit: Yeah, you're probably right given how often people on these boards and in the D&D culture use necromancy and necromancer to just mean working with undead.

plus the op explicitly only discussed undead. and referred to having a receptive DM that lets him custom research spells that deal with undead.

phantomreader42
2010-01-12, 11:57 PM
The argument was that wizards were good necromancers because the relevant rules text easily enabled DM fiat (custom research), whereas there is no clear rules support for the DM turning fighters (specifically) into necromancers. This has since been debunked, as all other casters have the same easy-enabled DM fiat (custom research).

However, the class concept for wizards seems to lend itself more to spell research and homebrewing. Since a wizard gets spells by learning and studying the nature of magic, you'd expect a wizard to have to option of using magical energy in different ways when he puts his mind to it. In contrast, clerics are granted their spells as a gift from a god, so if they were to get an uber-powerful new spell it would be through divine whim, and they may not even be told about it beforehand (actually, now that idea sounds like a lot of fun).

Oooohaloophole
2010-01-13, 03:48 AM
Or take the Pale Necromancer Prestiege Class. Its Practicaly made for this reason.

JaronK
2010-01-13, 03:57 AM
Clerics can research too. All divine casters can.

Meanwhile, Wizards can cast Animate Dread Warrior, can spell stitch undead, and can be Necropolitans. Also, they've got that nice substitution in UA that goes so nice with spell like ADW: They can effectively get Corpse Crafter that works on SLAs.

What more do you really need?

JaronK

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-01-13, 05:30 AM
What more do you really need?

JaronKRebuke undead. Because I need a 189HD undead under my control to make me feel cool :smallfrown:

Doc Roc
2010-01-13, 05:39 AM
And Bard can beat both by coming up with even more imaginative spells! Mise! Seriously though, any caster can come up with spells; that's hardly an argument for, or against their potency on any given field. Cleric is a worse teleporter than Wizard...unless you come up with a couple of low-level Teleports Wizards don't have access to!

Did you just Mise? Ohhhh, man. You are the best.


Rebuke undead. Because I need a 189HD undead under my control to make me feel cool :smallfrown:

You forgot the various superb hacks to get at wizardy spells as a cleric.

JaronK
2010-01-13, 05:45 AM
Rebuke undead. Because I need a 189HD undead under my control to make me feel cool :smallfrown:

Yeah, but that's assuming you're level 20 and they're all 9HD undead! Unless you're abusing Holy Arrows of course.

Still only Arcanists can spellstitch IIRC, and that's a big bonus for Wizards that Clerics can't pull off. You know, unless they charm a Wizard or something, but if we're playing that game a Wizard can always use Animate Dread Warrior on a dead Cleric!

JaronK

hamishspence
2010-01-13, 06:14 AM
Clerics can cast Desecrate- which provides a massive hike to the number of Hit Dice of undead a cleric can Animate at once, if combined with an altar.