PDA

View Full Version : New ideas for necromancer variants. I need some recomendations.



Duke Malagigi
2007-11-07, 09:57 PM
I'm thinking about devising two necromancer variants. One is more of a geneticist/mad scientist while the other one geared more toward infusing food or drink with magical effects. Both will be derived from the specialist wizard necromancer. I'm going to replace the wizard's standard bonus feats with some thing more appropriate to each variant. Does anyone have ideas on how to do this?

Zincorium
2007-11-07, 10:36 PM
As for the first one, necromancer would certainly not be my choice for a geneticist, that strongly screams alteration/transmutation magic to me. A mad scientist focusing on the secret of living matter might work, but it would focus on the animating force rather than the organizational component. Genetics doesn't make things live, it only determines how.

Perhaps non-transferable slotless magic items would work for the effects themselves? A human spliced up with minotaur's genes would have the effect of a belt of giant strength manifesting as hairiness and small horns rather than an actual item of clothing, for example.

As to the second, it's pretty clear that something analogous to potions is also what you're looking at, maybe with a special ability that allows potions to bypass the normal rules for what spells can be placed within and the ability to alter the form of the potion to mix with food.


If you're wondering why I'm suggesting variant magic items, it's because the only difference from a normal wizard you've shown are particular bents towards creating certain thematic effects. It's best to take an existing system which works mechanically and bend the hell out of it when that's a legitimate option.

Duke Malagigi
2007-11-07, 10:42 PM
I'm not suggesting variant magical items, I'm suggesting variant classes. Second, why can't necromancy deal with living matter and how it works?
I like the idea of dividing change or transformative magic into two categories. The first one is structural change (polymorph and transmute rock to mud) and organic change. Structural change goes under transmutation while organic change goes under necromancy.

Zincorium
2007-11-07, 11:11 PM
I'm not suggesting variant magical items, I'm suggesting variant classes. Second, why can't necromancy deal with living matter and how it works?

I didn't say it can't, but it, in my opinion should not deal with the classification and traits of living beings. That's just not it's purview, and I already explained why I feel that's off-base.

And I suggest giving them the ability to make these things, which would work mechanically as items only, as alternative class abilities.

Seriously, if you have so specific an idea of what you want, then I bid you good day and good luck on finding someone who cares enough to work up exactly that.


Edit (to go along with yours): That's all well and good. But it doesn't match what necromancy is described as and the flavor of the spells. So essentially what your necromancers are is significantly different from what the majority of people would normally think.

Duke Malagigi
2007-11-07, 11:52 PM
And I suggest giving them the ability to make these things, which would work mechanically as items only, as alternative class abilities.

Okay now I understand what you were saying. Either what you suggested or skill at directly infusing mutations including spell like abilities into living creatures. Of course this could still involve the use of magic item creation rules as well.


Seriously, if you have so specific an idea of what you want, then I bid you good day and good luck on finding someone who cares enough to work up exactly that.

I'm just looking for suggestions like improving mutation spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2954349&postcount=4) and better use of the clone spell.


Edit (to go along with yours): That's all well and good. But it doesn't match what necromancy is described as and the flavor of the spells. So essentially what your necromancers are is significantly different from what the majority of people would normally think.

I understand that perfectly. I'm using the 1st and second Edition definition of necromancy instead of simply the 3rd Edition definition.