Necromancer Archaeologist

[tadkins]

Those two words...cohesive concept or an alien-sounding mishmash of two random words?

I'm picturing a necromancer who specializes in exploring and treasure hunting, using small groups of skeletal diggers to establish digsites in search of ancient artifacts and bones. Knowledges would be a focus, and necromancy spells can be used to gain a clearer picture of the historical importance of each site. Summoning spirits of those who lived there and asked them to put findings into context, and such.

Later on as the necromancer grows in power, she could dig up the bones of fallen ancient beasts and use them along with whatever valuable and powerful artifacts get found in battle alongside whatever party she happens to join.

What do you guys think?

[A.A.King]

This is a great idea, the explorer who isn't afraid of the curse of the mummy but rather who is there to wake the mummy himself. Afterall, outside of your basic zombie/skeleton, stronger warriors should create stronger undead so why not go and look for the heroes of the past. Look for the grave of Lancelot and wake him up, stuff like that.

[frogglesmash]

I think that there's an animated fossil template in libris mortis you may be interested in. Sadly they can't be created with animate dead, but only "through special necromantic rituals" that are never explained in detail.

Edit: I guess this is more paleontology than archeology.

[tadkins]

Thanks guys. :)

Yup the idea is a character that is parts archaeologist, parts paleontologist, parts occultist, fearlessly delving into places and subjects that would terrify most for the sake of knowledge, power and understanding.

I'm debating whether I'd want to make the character a wizard or archivist.

[A.A.King]

I would say Archivist is the most thematic, definitely the thing that came first to my mind when I read the idea. I feel it fits better with the idea of Ancient Cults and Ancient knowledge especially when you take into consideration that there are a lot of spells that an Archivist can only add to his book if he finds them in game whereas a wizard can only find spells he could have gotten when he levelled up. As an Archivist going down a tomb to find a druid/domain/something-non-cleric only necromancy spell is a lot more rewarding than being a wizard finding a wizard spell. It's a little thing I guess but still.

[mabriss lethe]

Ace Drybone: Gentleman Archaeologist and Ambulatory Mortician

"Digging up the past to fight for the Future!"

[Gildedragon]

Bard/dirgesinger/otherstuff

You call the dead to sing the stories of empires gone. You write the legacy of the dead so it may be kept for all posterity. You don't do anything so crass as to steal from the dead, but ask them for it, so it, so THEY are not forgotten by the world.

You will need to get trapfinding somehow.

Add necropolitan template for extra flavor?

[avr]

Necromancy (pre-D&D) is more about finding out the secrets of the dead than commanding zombies, so no thematic clash IMO.

[DrMotives]

Sounds like a Lovecraft villain. A Necromancer archaeologist is exactly what Charles Dexter Ward was. And I also back up everyone who said archivist, that class really matches the flavour you're going for more than wizard.

[atemu1234]

Also, using Contemplative can get you a halfway decent undead-related domain, if you go Archivist.

[Pluto!]

I read the thread title, kept skimming down the forum list, paused and thought for maybe two seconds, and immediately had my next campaign drawn out.

Concept: already shamelessly stolen.

[tadkins]

Thanks everyone for your input. :)


Ace Drybone: Gentleman Archaeologist and Ambulatory Mortician

"Digging up the past to fight for the Future!"

Would almost be Indiana Jones, if he was wearing a black/purple robe and shot black lasers from his outstretched fingers.


Bard/dirgesinger/otherstuff

I appreciate the suggestion but I could never go Bard. The urge to be an Elan-style bard would be too great. xD


Necromancy (pre-D&D) is more about finding out the secrets of the dead than commanding zombies, so no thematic clash IMO.

This is true. It's also a good way to keep this character as a party-functional, non-evil aligned character. This necromancer would be more focused on knowledge, utility and combat than pure minionmancy.

I like the idea of contacting the spirit of a fallen hero and requesting their help before I raised them as well.


I would say Archivist is the most thematic, definitely the thing that came first to my mind when I read the idea. I feel it fits better with the idea of Ancient Cults and Ancient knowledge especially when you take into consideration that there are a lot of spells that an Archivist can only add to his book if he finds them in game whereas a wizard can only find spells he could have gotten when he levelled up. As an Archivist going down a tomb to find a druid/domain/something-non-cleric only necromancy spell is a lot more rewarding than being a wizard finding a wizard spell. It's a little thing I guess but still.


Sounds like a Lovecraft villain. A Necromancer archaeologist is exactly what Charles Dexter Ward was. And I also back up everyone who said archivist, that class really matches the flavour you're going for more than wizard.


Also, using Contemplative can get you a halfway decent undead-related domain, if you go Archivist.

The only thing that keeps Archivist from being a sure thing is this entry in the Necromancer's Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5584).


Don’t be an Archivist:
Archivists don't have Domains or Rebuking, and they don't automatically know all the Cleric spells. So unless something weird happens, they are in all ways inferior to a Cleric at Necromancy, or anything else. That weird thing, of course, is that as an Archivist you have the ability to have the DM allow you to find powerful and unique spells that you can scribe into your book and rock the house with. But these spells aren't under your control. They fall into your lap because the DM puts them in your lap, and not otherwise.

So there aren't really any Archivist "builds". It's just a "maybe the DM will give you some cool things to do" class. Like Pun-Pun, the power of any particular Artificer has nothing whatsoever to do with its own intrinsic abilities, it is entirely based on whatever the DM felt like forking over out of pity because you couldn't do anything good on your own. And when it comes down to it, Wizards already have the "The DM can give you additional awesome spells by dumping magical writings in your lap" power. And they are independently good. So no, we won't give any examples of Archivist builds, because they aren't independently verifiable.

I'm considering Wizard as an option since I'd likely have more control over my own build (rather than hoping a DM is compliant enough to give me what I want).


I read the thread title, kept skimming down the forum list, paused and thought for maybe two seconds, and immediately had my next campaign drawn out.

Concept: already shamelessly stolen.

Hehe, I'm flattered! Wasn't sure this would be a good idea, let alone one that could be stolen. :)

[Thurbane]

Necropolitan Illumian Archivist/Lore Delver?

(AFB, is Lore Delver arcane only?)

[Geddy2112]

This is awesome and I am shamelessly stealing it.

I have always thought a necromancer that did not own a shovel was improperly armed. Double cool points if you have a shovel or some other archeological tool be a backup melee weapon.

Archivist fits the fluff, but I second wizard for better mechanics. You can always play up the study aspects and downplay the rest of magic. Or a cleric of lore necromancy combo thing.

[Anlashok]

Cool concept. Reminds me of a necromancer farmer in a campaign I was in a while back.


The only thing that keeps Archivist from being a sure thing is this entry in the Necromancer's Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5584).

That entry seems a bit melodramatic. The writer says not to play an archivist because they don't have domains or rebuking and are at the mercy of the DM in terms of whether or not they receive good spells... and then he suggests playing a wizard instead, who has the exact same spell mechanic and also has none of those things. I guess Dark Knowledge can be a halfway decent force multiplier. Especially with larger groups.

The wizard list is better than the cleric list, but not unfathomably so and not particularly for the purposes of being a necromancer. Archivists get animate dead a level earlier. Otherwise they mostly get the same access as far as undead creating options go.

So if Archivist is too iffy for you, Wizard is at best pretty much the same boat or worse off and you should play a Cleric or DN.

[Coidzor]

Wizard being a core class has its advantages.

Anyhoo, Cloistered Cleric with Deathbound and Knowledge and one more(Trickery if it weren't for the skill point problem) would be another thing to consider.

[Elxir_Breauer]

Depending on the setting, a Cleric of Wee Jas might be thematically appropriate for this, she has Knowledge, Magic and Death in her portfolio. Also being Lawful Neutral and pretty well respected in most communities would be helpful to have on your side in these endeavors.

[Gildedragon]

Depending on the setting, a Cleric of Wee Jas might be thematically appropriate for this, she has Knowledge, Magic and Death in her portfolio. Also being Lawful Neutral and pretty well respected in most communities would be helpful to have on your side in these endeavors.

Her relics are even sorta thematic
The ruby trowel (I mean dagger)
The scrolls of uncertain provenance

[deathbymanga]

I would go Archivist and grab all the divine Necromancy Spells.

Archivists are all about being Religious Scholars, so play an Archeologist who explores ancient and lost Churches and Ruins or Religious Practices, seeking lost artifacts for collection

[BWR]

Sounds like 2e's "The Complete Book of Necromancers" would be a useful read.

While there is plenty of mechanics it is mostly useful for the information and ideas it has about necromancy in D&D.

[Coidzor]

Sounds like 2e's "The Complete Book of Necromancers" would be a useful read.

While there is plenty of mechanics it is mostly useful for the information and ideas it has about necromancy in D&D.

A good book on necromancing that doesn't just go on ad nauseum about it being purely villainous? Neat!

[tadkins]

A good book on necromancing that doesn't just go on ad nauseum about it being purely villainous? Neat!

It's irritating, right? So many books/settings treat necromancy as pure, unadulterated evil. Makes it hard trying to create one that isn't, because of that stereotype niggling in the back of the mind.