Necromancers?

[Zonbitara]

Has it never come to mind for the Order of the Stick to employ a necromancer? Not all necromancers are evil; just non-good. Has it ever occurred to them how easy it would be? Just go up to Xykon, pull out your diamond dust and go "Undeath to Death". I'm taking it that V's second restricted class is Necromancy, so being to be able to fight fire with fire seems like a damn smart decision.

[137beth]

Undeath to Death only affects creatures with 9 or fewer Hit Dice. Xykon has substantially more.

[Kish]

Has it never come to mind for the Order of the Stick to employ a necromancer? Not all necromancers are evil; just non-good. Has it ever occurred to them how easy it would be? Just go up to Xykon, pull out your diamond dust and go "Undeath to Death".
And have Xykon blink at you and say, "Someone either didn't read the rules or thinks I have nine or fewer hit dice. Heads you lose, tails you lose everything."

You'll have to look again for a sorcerer/wizard only necromancy spell that would make a crucial difference if you wish to argue the case that the Order not having sought someone who can cast one is strange.

(And incidentally, necromancers have no more alignment restrictions than any other wizard, which is to say none at all.)

[Raineh Daze]

Doesn't it slay CLd4 undead, with its status as a 6th level spell requiring CL 11? That's 11-44 HD of undead, minimum. :smallconfused:

Seriously, have I got the wrong spell? (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Undeath_to_Death) The will save seems more of an issue.

[Kish]

Doesn't it slay CLd4 undead, with its status as a 6th level spell requiring CL 11? That's 11-44 HD of undead, minimum. :smallconfused:
You appear to have gotten "slays 11-44 hit dice of undead" confused with "can necessarily destroy any single undead creature with at least 11-44 hit dice."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/undeathToDeath.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/circleOfDeath.htm

Edited in response to your edit: Call it a lesson in not using D&Dwiki for anything the SRD can do, and not trusting D&Dwiki even when you actually don't have another source. (Amusing as "Material component: worth at least 500 GP" is; so I can pick what material component I want to use, as long as it's worth at least 500 GP?)

[Raineh Daze]

No, didn't get anything confused, I was just looking at the wrong description. I thought that would've been obvious. :smalltongue:

... also been playing NWN recently, and that has the exact same description with no HD limit. :smallredface:

[Zonbitara]

Huh, so you're right. I have obviously lost the battle of Undeath to death. Still, they CAN rebuke undead I stand corrected with the "Undeath to Death", but considering the Order of the Stick is at least Level 13, having the Inproved Turning Feat, Necromantic Prowess II, and +5 in knowlege religion; Given that Xykon is 5 levels higher than the OOTS, (so lv. 18) a necromancer can easily rebuke him.

[The Zoat]

What. Xykon is epic.

[Mando Knight]

Huh, so you're right. I have obviously lost the battle of Undeath to death. Still, they CAN rebuke undead I stand corrected with the "Undeath to Death", but considering the Order of the Stick is at least Level 13, having the Inproved Turning Feat, Necromantic Prowess II, and +5 in knowlege religion; Given that Xykon is 5 levels higher than the OOTS, (so lv. 18) a necromancer can easily rebuke him.

What. Xykon is epic.
Yep. Xykon is at least level 21, due to being able to cast Cloister (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html). Liches also get +4 Turn Resistance, which applies to Rebuke.

[Zonbitara]

So the OOTS is level 16! Argument still stands. 16(ECL)+3(Necromantic Prowess+3)+2(Improved Turning)+2(Knowlege Religion+5)>21 (Xykon's HD).

[MesiDoomstalker]

Not to mention there isn't anything called Necromantic Prowess II (or even I) in DnD. Neverwinter Nights is not DnD. Its close, but not quite.

EDIT: Xykon's minimum HD based on what we know is 21. Check out the Geekery thread, some estimates have him as high as 27.

[Mando Knight]

So the OOTS is level 16! Argument still stands. 16(ECL)+3(Necromantic Prowess+3)+2(Improved Turning)+2(Knowlege Religion+5)>21 (Xykon's HD).

There is currently no evidence that OOTS is higher than level 15.

[Shadowknight12]

Furthermore, liches have a +4 turn resistance. Effectively, Xykon counts as if he had 25 HD (if not more).

Turning him is right off the table.

Also, necromancers can be good-aligned.

[GnomeGninjas]

Huh, so you're right. I have obviously lost the battle of Undeath to death. Still, they CAN rebuke undead I stand corrected with the "Undeath to Death", but considering the Order of the Stick is at least Level 13, having the Inproved Turning Feat, Necromantic Prowess II, and +5 in knowlege religion; Given that Xykon is 5 levels higher than the OOTS, (so lv. 18) a necromancer can easily rebuke him.

Necromantic Prowess II? What feat/class feature are you talking about? The only thing I can find with Necromantic Prowess is a mediocre D&D wiki homebrew (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Necromancer_(3.5e_Class)).

[rodneyAnonymous]

Even if an epic lich could be destroyed by a single 6th level spell, which is preposterous (it allows a Will save, which is necessarily very high in this target's case, and "No creature of 9 or more HD can be affected"), a competent writer is not going to have the main villain taken out that way (by a hireling introduced late in the story, no less).

[Zonbitara]

There is currently no evidence that OOTS is higher than level 15.

False. When Roy is fighting on the back of the dragon, Xyknon mentions him being 5 levels higher than Roy.

[MesiDoomstalker]

False. When Roy is fighting on the back of the dragon, Xyknon mentions him being 5 levels higher than Roy.

Except we don't know what level Xykon is. We have a minimum level (21), but we don't know his specific level.

[Zonbitara]

Necromantic Prowess II? What feat/class feature are you talking about? The only thing I can find with Necromantic Prowess is a mediocre D&D wiki homebrew (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Necromancer_(3.5e_Class)).

In the Libris Mortis, the True Necromancer class (Which is what I am using as a base for this argument) has a feat called Necromantic Prowess that advances every third level and gives +1 to rebuking attempts for each level.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Except we don't know what level Xykon is. We have a minimum level (21), but we don't know his specific level.

Also, Xykon is just guessing, and he guesses higher than that (which would put Roy lower) too, in the same scene.

[GnomeGninjas]

In the Libris Mortis, the True Necromancer class (Which is what I am using as a base for this argument) has a feat called Necromantic Prowess that advances every third level and gives +1 to rebuking attempts for each level.

So you think that the OOTS should have thought of hiring a character with pretty bad prestige class (from a moderately obscure source-book) that they use as a base class? It doesn't make sense from a rules or setting or storying telling perspective.

[Dr.Epic]

Not all necromancers are evil; just non-good.

But no necromancer is good. Know why? Because necromancers aren't good. They're a terrible class. Why not just employ a half-elf monk that takes only toughness.

[Shadowknight12]

But no necromancer is good. Know why? Because necromancers aren't good. They're a terrible class. Why not just employ a half-elf monk that takes only toughness.

Commoner with the Run feat, kthx. :smallwink:

[Chad30]

It has crossed my mind that a necromancer could be useful against Xykon and his minions, though it would likely need to be high level, and s/he would need to worry about Redcloak's cleric spells. Hopefully he'd have immunity to negative energy, could gain control of any undead minions, summon his own, and possibly be a threat to Xykon even if he doesn't have maximized greater control undead or something.

Still, I wouldn't want a new character to come in just to fight Xykon. Maybe if V can learn some spells and such to specifically fight undead.

Not that it's a very good idea to rely on just one method. They tried that the first time they fought Xykon, and he broke Roy's sword right off the bat.

[Mando Knight]

Also, Xykon is just guessing, and he guesses higher than that (which would put Roy lower) too, in the same scene.

He also posits seven (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html) levels as his lower guess, not five.

[Zonbitara]

OKAY! From the top- Let's talk about the character I'm talking about:
Cleric- 3
Wizard- 3
True Necromancer- 9
ECL- 15

Diety- Evening Glory
Alignment- True Neutral

Feats/Class Abilities:
Rebuke Undead
Improved Turning
Extra Turning
Heighten Turning
Necromantic Prowess

CHA- 18 (+4)

Knowlege Religion- 10 Ranks

Mission- Rebuke Xykon (Estimated HD- 26)

15(ECL)+1(Improved Turning)+3(Necromantic Prowess)+2(Knowlege Religion)+6 or More(Heighten Turning)=26

Assume we succeed our check.

Done. Xykon was Rebuked by a Level 15.

[Shadowknight12]

Done. Xykon was Rebuked by a Level 15.

You are assuming Xykon is 22nd level or lower. This may well not be the case. He may also have a feat that increases his turn resistance, or a magical item that makes him invulnerable to turning.

Also, Redcloak can Bolster Undead, nullifying the attack.

It's not a good idea against Xykon. Against his undead minions? That turning check would destroy any undead with 13 HD or less. But against Xykon? At best, you'll gain a free turn as he is possessed by uncontrollable laughter.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Liches have +4 Turn Resistance (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Lich), so his effective HD for Rebuke would be 30 in that case. (Edit: Oh, that is maybe already being taken into account by the "HD: 26", but we don't really know what Xykon's level is.)

Just give. It wouldn't work from a mechanics perspective, and it won't happen from a storytelling perspective.

[Zonbitara]

{scrubbed}

[Zonbitara]

Liches have +4 Turn Resistance (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Lich), so his effective HD for Rebuke would be 30 in that case.

Just give in.

I took into account his +4 against turning. I assumed he was level 22, and added 4.

PS- This is all hypothetical. I don't expect Burlew to actually do it. It's a concept, not suggestion.

[Shadowknight12]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Well, I'm sorry, I was just making a joke. I apologise if it was in bad taste, I genuinely didn't intend to mock.

[Zonbitara]

{scrubbed}

[Lvl45DM!]

Stuff

Because there isn't anyone like that in this world. Because its not a powergaming DnD game its a story.

[Zonbitara]

You are assuming Xykon is 22nd level or lower. This may well not be the case. He may also have a feat that increases his turn resistance, or a magical item that makes him invulnerable to turning.

Also, Redcloak can Bolster Undead, nullifying the attack.

It's not a good idea against Xykon. Against his undead minions? That turning check would destroy any undead with 13 HD or less. But against Xykon? At best, you'll gain a free turn as he is possessed by uncontrollable laughter.

^ I don't even want to defend myself against this because it'a so well-worded.

But why would an epic-level lich be worried about being rebuked? Besides, you can always add make your +6 (heighten turning) to +10 and hope for the best; if that fails, use the turn while he's laughing to try again.

[theNater]

OKAY! From the top- Let's talk about the character I'm talking about:
Cleric- 3
Wizard- 3
True Necromancer- 9
ECL- 15

Diety- Evening Glory
Alignment- True Neutral

Feats/Class Abilities:
Rebuke Undead
Improved Turning
Extra Turning
Heighten Turning
Necromantic Prowess

CHA- 18 (+4)

Knowlege Religion- 10 Ranks

Mission- Rebuke Xykon (Estimated HD- 26)

15(ECL)+1(Improved Turning)+3(Necromantic Prowess)+2(Knowlege Religion)+6 or More(Heighten Turning)=26

Assume we succeed our check.

Done. Xykon was Rebuked by a Level 15.
Two rules questions and one narrative question. Please forgive me if any of them are obvious, I haven't worked with the turning rules in ages.

R1)Why is this necromancer permitted to use Wizard levels in turning?

R2)Is your calculation here the effect of the turning check or the turning damage, and will the necromancer have enough of the other?

N1)Why is there a 15th level necromancer who has massively specialized in rebuking undead just hanging around waiting to be recruited by the Order?

[Zonbitara]

This is all hypothetical. I don't expect Burlew to actually do it. It's a concept, not suggestion.


Because there isn't anyone like that in this world. Because its not a powergaming DnD game its a story.

Please see statement above.

[Zonbitara]

Two rules questions and one narrative question. Please forgive me if any of them are obvious, I haven't worked with the turning rules in ages.

R1)Why is this necromancer permitted to use Wizard levels in turning?

R2)Is your calculation here the effect of the turning check or the turning damage, and will the necromancer have enough of the other?

N1)Why is there a 15th level necromancer who has massively specialized in rebuking undead just hanging around waiting to be recruited by the Order?

If I'm not mistaken, Turning is determined by your ECL, not your specific levels.

This is rebuking not turning. It's for turning damage.

They are fully aware that they're PC's. What if another player joins?

[Starwaster]

False. When Roy is fighting on the back of the dragon, Xyknon mentions him being 5 levels higher than Roy.

False. Xykon says, "But the thing is, you're just not playing in my league right now. I'm what, seven levels higher than you? Eight? More?"

[Shadowknight12]

Sorry, Shadow. I clicked the wrong guy. You're fine, it was the This is Spartard that I was talking about.

Oh, no problem. :smallsmile:


^ I don't even want to defend myself against this because it'a so well-worded.

But why would an epic-level lich be worried about being rebuked? Besides, you can always add make your +6 (heighten turning) to +10 and hope for the best; if that fails, use the turn while he's laughing to try again.

Thank you! :smallbiggrin:

Turn resistance applies to rebuking attempts, and most of the magical items that grant turning resistance also grant rebuking resistance. He wouldn't be worried about being rebuked, but he'd be resistant/immune to that by association.

A +10 would give you a result of 30, which might work for a Xykon of up to level 26, but he might still have an ace up his sleeve. He has a ring of protection against positive energy (SoD), so that might well make him immune to turning (but perhaps not rebuking? I am not entirely sure), and he also has a ring of fire immunity, so he clearly has useful magic items.

Not sure, really. I suppose that a really optimised Rebuke Undead caster could leave Xykon out of the fight and take control of his army of undead, but that still leaves Redcloak, who is obviously immune to rebuking, and who can rebuke as well. He's also fond of the Control Undead spell, so it could easily become a tug of war between the necromancer and Redcloak as they wrestle for control of the battlefield's undead.

[TaiLiu]

What if another player joins?
They are not players playing a game; rather, they are characters that follow the rules of the game. No one is controlling Roy, for example.

[Zonbitara]

{scrubbed}

[rodneyAnonymous]

For many reasons described in this thread, it is a weak concept.

[TaiLiu]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
I'm rather confused now. :smallconfused:

You stated:

PS- This is all hypothetical. I don't expect Burlew to actually do it. It's a concept, not suggestion.

You also justified the 'new necromancer suddenly joining the party' as 'a new player joining.'

However, the statement "I don't expect Burlew to actually do it" seemed to imply that this theory takes place in The Giant's world - which does not have players controlling any of the characters.

[Zonbitara]

I'm rather confused now. :smallconfused:

You stated:


You also justified the 'new necromancer suddenly joining the party' as 'a new player joining.'

However, the statement "I don't expect Burlew to actually do it" seemed to imply that this theory takes place in The Giant's world - which does not have players controlling any of the characters.

Great now I'm confused.

[TaiLiu]

Great now I'm confused.
It's okay - we can be confused together. :smallbiggrin:

[137beth]

I just want to point out--
The "level 21+" in the geekery thread use to say 27+, but we had an argument over Xykon using metamagic rods or some obscure features to cast what would normally be a 12th level spell slot against V. But most estimates still placed Xykon in the level 27-32 range. Even from a mechanics perspective, they can't do it.

[theNater]

If I'm not mistaken, Turning is determined by your ECL, not your specific levels.
I suspect you are mistaken. The general rule is that class abilities only function off of class levels, so that's what I'd assume barring a specific rule that says otherwise.

This is rebuking not turning. It's for turning damage.
Rebuking still requires a turning check. Do those boosters influence the turning check, its result, or the effective level of the caster at all?

They are fully aware that they're PC's. What if another player joins?
While it does occasionally occur that a new PC shows up who just so happens to be exactly tailored to the foes the party has been fighting, such PCs almost invariably immediately die to lightning from a clear sky. It might make for some good humor, but I don't see it really helping the Order in the long run.

[Kish]

Diety- Evening Glory
This is not an OotS god.

If I'm not mistaken, Turning is determined by your ECL, not your specific levels.

You are quite mistaken.

And frankly, "Why doesn't the OotS recruit a character who is custom-built to be able to rebuke Xykon in the same way Zz'dtri is custom-built to fight Vaarsuvius?" has three answers, any one of which would be sufficient to answer it.
1)Because there is no one like that in their world.
2) Because it would be a really bad idea; even if they somehow got one who could make Xykon cower on a natural 20, Redcloak would knock him or her out with his little finger.
And 3) You can't describe a character like that who would actually work without basing it on fundamental rules misunderstandings (like no turn check for rebuking, or like being able to count non-cleric levels for turning ability, or both at once) or being equal level to Xykon, and if the Order could recruit any character of equal level to Xykon they wanted, they could do a whole lot better than "custom-built to rebuke Xykon."

[Dr.Epic]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Why? For stating my opinion? Necromancers are vastly inferior to any cleric who takes the death domain.

[Amphiox]

I'm rather confused now. :smallconfused:

You stated:


You also justified the 'new necromancer suddenly joining the party' as 'a new player joining.'

However, the statement "I don't expect Burlew to actually do it" seemed to imply that this theory takes place in The Giant's world - which does not have players controlling any of the characters.

Well, there is actually ONE narratively plausible way for a Necromancer to suddenly (if temporarily) join the party:

After seeing how dire the situation is, V precipitously re-instates (perhaps with prodding from Quarr) the deal with the IFCC, and re-splices with Huerta. It is certainly within the realm of plausibility that the designer of Familicide could have crafted some Epic-Level Necromancy spell that would be effective against uber-undead like Xykon.

(Which also raises the intriguing question of how Dark V might have done against Xykon if s/he had managed to hang on to Huerta.)

[Amphiox]

Why? For stating my opinion? Necromancers are vastly inferior to any cleric who takes the death domain.

Then that means that, like the OOTS, Xykon is also a suboptimal build? (He was a Sorcerer/Necromancer in life, wasn't he?)

[Kish]

No. Xykon was and is and has always been a single-classed sorcerer.

[GnomeGninjas]

Then that means that, like the OOTS, Xykon is also a suboptimal build? (He was a Sorcerer/Necromancer in life, wasn't he?)

Necromancer is not a class, it is a concept. A Necromancer often refers to a wizard specializing in necromancy.

[KillingAScarab]

... also been playing NWN recently, and that has the exact same description with no HD limit. :smallredface:While you are mostly correct about the Neverwinter Nights spell description (http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Undeath_to_death), that game was based upon 3e, but 3e didn't even have an undeath to death spell in the core rulebooks as far as I know (this spell was added in the expansion pack Hordes of the Underdark, too). Even then, circle of death (the basis for the 3.5 spell) had the 9 HD limit.

NWN also has things like the discipline and parry skills. I remember people on the old NWN forum having signatures such as, "Friends don't let friends put points into parry." Discipline, sadly, was a skill tax upon every front-line character to not be killed by that game's knockdown system.

I will, however, take this opportunity to praise BioWare for seeing through the awfulness that was the toughness feat and giving us the toughness feat we deserved. WotC took notice and printed it as improved toughness. It became a blend of the two in Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/toughness---final).

[137beth]

Necromancer is not a class, it is a concept. A Necromancer often refers to a wizard specializing in necromancy.

Well, there is dread necromancer...

[GnomeGninjas]

Well, there is dread necromancer...

That's true. I still don't think that makes Necromancer a class.

[Dr.Epic]

Necromancer is not a class, it is a concept. A Necromancer often refers to a wizard specializing in necromancy.

Yes. It's a concept. Everything is a concept: bard, barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, wizard. And D&D decided to define those concepts with CLASS rules.:smalltongue:

[Fenice]

15(ECL)+1(Improved Turning)+3(Necromantic Prowess)+2(Knowlege Religion)+6 or More(Heighten Turning)=26
The synergy from Knowledge (religion) and Heighten Turning do not increase your HD cap. They only give you bonuses to your turning check, the cap is unaltered.

[GnomeGninjas]

Yes. It's a concept. Everything is a concept: bard, barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, wizard. And D&D decided to define those concepts with CLASS rules.:smalltongue:

There isn't one single class based around the necromancer concept (though I guess you could use classes other than bard, barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer or wizard to represent a concept of bard, barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer or wizard too).

[Kilo24]

They don't go and find a necromancer with a specific build for the same reasons that they don't go and find a lancer to kill Xykon in one round, or Pun Pun, or any one of a cavalcade of other builds that would be even more effective. OOTS is far enough removed from the rules that they're a pretty weak justification by themselves for what occurs in the storyline. They provide a framework, but not hard-set limitations, for how the world works.


There isn't one single class based around the necromancer concept (though I guess you could use classes other than bard, barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer or wizard to represent a concept of bard, barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer or wizard too).

There are two classes built around the necromancer concept: True Necromancer and Dread Necromancer (which is a base class). There's also the "Necromancer" specialist wizard right in the Player's Handbook, which could arguably go either way depending on how you define "class".

[Kish]

When I see just "Necromancer," my immediate interpretation is "Wizard specialized in the Necromancy school," unless that obviously didn't fit.

In this thread, it seemed to fit the first post, and it became clear the OP was thinking of something else (but not precisely what) when s/he brought up rebuking undead.

[Dr.Epic]

There isn't one single class based around the necromancer concept

No, but there's a subclass called Necromancer.

[GnomeGninjas]

There are two classes built around the necromancer concept: True Necromancer and Dread Necromancer (which is a base class). There's also the "Necromancer" specialist wizard right in the Player's Handbook, which could arguably go either way depending on how you define "class".
There is also Death Master from Dragon Compendium. I understand that there are numerous classes based around the necromancer concept. My point was that their is no single (meaning that there isn't just one) class based around the concept. My statement caused confusion because "no single" was interpreted to mean "not even one class based around the necromancer concept" rather than "not one singular class based around the necromancer concept". This is my fault, I should have used clearer wording.