Tome of Necromancy

[shadow_archmagi]

As seen here http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562 a massive homebrew overhaul of everything to do with the undead.

This thread has two purposes:

1. Hear the Gitp opinions on this. Should I use this in my own game? Is anything too overpowered? (note that he does spend some time defending himself below the actual guide) If my players complain I want to be able to justify my actions.

2. Make sure everyone knows about it. Even if certain parts are not quite perfect, it comes a long way towards much cooler and more workable undead.

[mostlyharmful]

I know it, I've played with it. Some of the PrC have been written to be at the high power end but other than that it's all pretty good. Certainly better fluff + crunch than the core. I'd recommend using everything but a few of the full casting classes without any worry. A couple of the classes end up making the PCs essentially unkillable short of a Wish/Miracle as a capstone ability so be aware if they're building a mid to high character to account for that sort of thing in game.

It (and the Necro's Handbook) also set out the two conflicting views of negative energy that have got mixed up, makes using necromancy sooooo much easier when both players and DM know what the basic idea of it is.

Changing the healing into necromancy should be done in all games, just for internal consistancy

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The main problem with necromancy is the same one you get with a Beastmaster or a summoner Druid. Too many miniatures being controlled by one character while everyone else watches and waits for them to finish rolling. I don't remember if the Tome fixes that, but if it doesn't, mention a worry about that to any of your players who decide to use it.

[mostlyharmful]

Most of the stuff in the Tome is about reflavouring Necromancy to be useful and powerful, there are a couple of PrC focussed on controlling undead minions but most of them aren't about huge shambling hordes. The background metaphysic stuff is some of the best bits anyway, just in terms of clarifying how the hell negative energy and its use fits into magic and how it effects its practitioners which shouldn't lead to too many minions.

[Squash Monster]

The main problem with necromancy is the same one you get with a Beastmaster or a summoner Druid. Too many miniatures being controlled by one character while everyone else watches and waits for them to finish rolling. I don't remember if the Tome fixes that, but if it doesn't, mention a worry about that to any of your players who decide to use it.Smart necromancers assemble a two or three creature beatsquad. If you have a massive shambling horde, all of them die in one hit and the problem very quickly fixes itself.

[Tempest Fennac]

I disagree with having Healing spells as Necromancy due to how Necromancy has no connection whatsoever to healing (it's as ridiculous as claiming that Reiki and Psychic Vampirism are the same thing because they both involve working with life energy). I'd class all Inflict and Cure spells as well as Healing Conjurations which remove negative effects as Evocation as they involve working directly with positive or negative energy, I'd keep Regenerate as Conjuration as it creates matter and I'd have the Raise Dead spells changed to Necromancy due to them actually being connected with death (someone else suggested using Evocation for healing when I was discussing the issue with them).

[Danin]

Beginning in ancient Greece, Necromancy was originally divinations to determine the future using the dead. It comes from the Greek words "nekrós" meaning dead and "manteía" meaning divination.

During the renaissance Necromancy came to be associated more with Black Magic and Demon-Summoning. Black Magic "would be invoked to kill, injure, or cause destruction, or for personal gain" and it was thought that 3 things could be accomplished through Necromancy, "manipulation, illusions, and knowledge". Manipulations were enchantments used to affect the way people think, make them do or not do what you desire and to inflame passion or fear. Illusions included the animation of the dead and knowledge was gained from the questioning of demons.

References to Necromancy can also be found in the Holy Bible in the book of Deuteronomy and Mark and throughout classic literature, notably Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales".

While many people tend to reference Necromancy as the magic of life and death or the magic of the body, there is little historical support for such a claim. The more common form of magic associated with healing would be White magic, a form of sorcery that allows control over the natural world through mystical or supernatural means. The human body, falling into this realm, would fall under the influence of White magic.

That being said, this is simply this historical context rather than the Dungeons and Dragons concept. I hope that there is much more clarification regarding this in 4th ed. The more you know!

PS. I absolutely love wikipedia:smallbiggrin:

[shadow_archmagi]

Good to know theres nothing so offensive in there it isn't worth bickering about more than the root meaning of necromancy. Not that I don't mind a little debate on the subject, and a good history lesson is always entertaining. Its just that, for purposes of D&D, i like to hold that life magic is life magic, whether you're putting it into people or corpses or doorknobs.

[hamishspence]

a case of something that can be given and taken away: so makes sense.

[Irreverent Fool]

Healing spells were necromancy back in 2nd ed. It makes more sense than CONJURATION for crying out loud.

That being said, Transmutation wouldn't be bad. Or if you're going the 'channeling energy' route, Evocation.

[DraPrime]

I've always found necromancy to be too tedious. Rolling for that many mindless slaves takes time.

[Jack Mann]

I've always found necromancy to be too tedious. Rolling for that many mindless slaves takes time.

You're doing it wrong.

[DraPrime]

Then how do I do it right?

[mostlyharmful]

Then how do I do it right?

Fear effects, Save-or-X effects, possesion or mindswap effects and Astral projection. All this from behind a couple (at most) of the biggest, baddest, deadest bodyguards you can utterly control.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The PHB states that Necromancy includes spells working with lifeforce, including healing spells, and yet no healing spells are in the school.

[shadow_archmagi]

Out of curiosity, a traditional foe is a skeletal commander. They pop in movies, books, and Zelda all the time. Big elite warriors who have skill AND skeletal traits. Why is it that this is utterly impossible by every rulebook i've ever seen?

IS there any way to make a skeletal general?

[TheCountAlucard]

What about the Death Knight (Monster Manual II)?

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Out of curiosity, a traditional foe is a skeletal commander. They pop in movies, books, and Zelda all the time. Big elite warriors who have skill AND skeletal traits. Why is it that this is utterly impossible by every rulebook i've ever seen?

IS there any way to make a skeletal general?

There is a ridiculously broken spell in some campaign setting somewhere that animates a dead creature in such a way that it retains all it's ability including class levels and such. Costs some XP but that's not an issue.

DM: You come across the corpse of so-and-so the mighty warrior defender of city X.
PC: I cast spell whatever. Now I get to control him as my little minion. What level was he when he died?
DM: level 20. What do you mean you get to control him?
PC: Sweet, guys, CR of our level aren't going to be a challenge for a long time guys.
DM: No seriously, WTF.

[TheOOB]

Considering that I have posted a link to that thread in virtually every necromancy thread thats popped up around here, it's fair to say I think it's a good read.

It's not perfect, it doesn't apply fulling to every game, but I believe you should read it before you get into any serious discussion on necromancy. I especially like it's section on necromancy's alignment.

[Maerok]

I disagree with having Healing spells as Necromancy due to how Necromancy has no connection whatsoever to healing (it's as ridiculous as claiming that Reiki and Psychic Vampirism are the same thing because they both involve working with life energy). I'd class all Inflict and Cure spells as well as Healing Conjurations which remove negative effects as Evocation as they involve working directly with positive or negative energy, I'd keep Regenerate as Conjuration as it creates matter and I'd have the Raise Dead spells changed to Necromancy due to them actually being connected with death (someone else suggested using Evocation for healing when I was discussing the issue with them).

:smalltongue:

Well my main concern is over the following spells (mostly the first two):
Inflict X
Cure X
Regeneration
Raise Dead
Resurrection
True Resurrection

Ok. So we have eight or so schools of magic. Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation. Now let's first start with what these spells aren't... We'll work with a mathematical approach to start.

Abjuration, Divination, Enchantment, and Illusion wouldn't seem to fit any of these. So they couldn't really fit the bill in flavor or mechanics.

Now our options are Conjuration, Evocation, Necromancy, and Transmutation.

Ok. So my main issue is with Cure and Inflict. I see these spells as inverses of one another. You heal me for 2d8+CL with Cure, but you can also damage me for 2d8+CL with Inflict. It's a zero sum interaction. In effect, they "counter and dispel" one another. This generally happens between two spells of a given school which have opposing effects (like Cure and Inflict). And it just so happens that I believe these two should belong to the same school.
Precedents:
Bane, and Bless (Enchantment)
Stone to Flesh, and Flesh to Stone (Transmutation)
Haste, and Slow (Transmutation)
Light, and Darkness (Evocation)
Crushing Despair, and Good Hope (Enchantment)

Not only via effect but the method should these two families of spells, Inflict and Cure, be put together. You, in effect, reach out and channel energy of type X into a creature. In one case it's negative energy ("Partum Mors!" You get the idea...), and in the other it's positive energy ("Partum Vitas!"), and maybe even with similar gestures and logistics. I see the Necromancy vs. Conjuration distinction between the two as a bias inherent in the system, and the same one that has gone so far as to repress much of necromancy in comparison to other schools.

Along the line of Burning Hands and Shocking Grasp (my precedents to this), I believe that Inflict and Cure should be Evocation (as TF had said, most likely in reference to our talks a while back). To put it bluntly, you're poking someone with a fistful of energy. Fire, acid, electricity, sonic, and negative energy all deal damage, while positive energy heals. You could just as easily replace those other energy types within Inflict and Cure and it'd be along the same 'processes' or what have you if you get my drift.

As for the healing/damaging, I see it as the energy itself creating the intended effect of the spell by its very nature. You don't have to do much to it to get it to do the intended job, so Necromancy is out for the life-killing aspect and [Healing] (of any school) is out for the life-repairing aspect. You're not making the energy do what it is already going to do. Any glob of negative or positive energy is going to damage or heal someone, and you're just the one tossing it at them.

If Cure stays as Conjuration, then why don't we just make all of Evocation's energy 'channeling' spells like fireball into Conjuration [Energy]? It just seems intuitively wrong.

As for Regeneration, I see this as either Transmutation, Necromancy, or Conjuration, in that order. Conjuration just sees like it would be cumbersome to keep summoning flesh back into the stab wound or whatever. Transmutation gives the impression that the flesh is reworking itself over the wound with that cool string effect as it crawls back together. Necromancy gives a similar impression, but I see it intuitively as more of a spirit-driven recovery than Transmutation's physical driving the flesh back together; Necromancy would be more elegant in that it animates or wills the flesh to want to become whole again. Between those two, I like the idea of Necromancy more, but the practicality of the spell meets the ideologies of Transmutation, and I could see it as being developed by Transmuters first.

Another 'family' of spells whose school I take issue with is Raise/Res/TruRes. It's a matter of means and ends. With TruRes, you don't even need the scraps, so I see this as undisputed Conjuration. Res needs a bit more, but it's Conjuration as well by the same means and ends. Raise is the tricky one. You need a corpse, and an intact one (unless you're going for that headless look all the kids are into these days). I say this should be Necromancy.

So all in all:
Inflict X -> Evocation
Cure X -> Evocation
Regeneration -> Transmutation, with Necromancy as a runner-up
Raise Dead -> Necromancy
Resurrection -> Stays Conjuration
True Resurrection -> Stays Conjuration

I guess this is my last stand on this issue as it sums up all my conjectures and mullings for quite a while now.

This is all within the context of a perfect system. Of course in OOC, you're going to want to balance the access of schools to various things, but oh well.

[Tempest Fennac]

Those are good points about Transmutation and Regeneration (and the more expensive reviving spells). I suppose healing could vaugly come under Abjuration in a way (it is an awkward fit, though). Just thinking about Necromancy and life energy, why is Death Ward not an Abjuration? It seems to be the only Necromancy spell which deals with life energy in a positive way.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

I'd just like to point out that some of the later books have introduced the concept of dual school spells. As such it makes sense for Res/True Res to be Necromancy and Conjuration.

I see no reason whatsoever that a spell that literally involves reaching to hell/heaven/whatever and pulling a soul back to the mortal world would be anything but Necromancy. And dual school solves the conjuring up a body problem.

[Tempest Fennac]

That is a good point (I didn't know about that idea until you mentioned it).

[Maerok]

PHB2 did some stuff with it... But I haven't seen it since. What books has it shown up it?

[bosssmiley]

I *love* that thread. But then my love of the K/Frank material is a matter of prior record.

The classes are flavourful (King of the Dead, Widow Queen and Lurker in the Swarm especially), the feats and spells are thought-provoking, the undead racial classes and the re-working of the Undead creature type to reflect 'common knowledge' are long overdue, and the image of berserker skeletons hacking up trees and tearing up your lawn if there's no stronger lifeforce nearby to kill is hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

[shadow_archmagi]

I *love* that thread. But then my love of the K/Frank material is a matter of prior record.

The classes are flavourful (King of the Dead, Widow Queen and Lurker in the Swarm especially), the feats and spells are thought-provoking, the undead racial classes and the re-working of the Undead creature type to reflect 'common knowledge' are long overdue, and the image of berserker skeletons hacking up trees and tearing up your lawn if there's no stronger lifeforce nearby to kill is hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

Theres a reason places filled with undead are always blacked wastelands with a few dead trees around. All the plants get torn up. Without plants, nothing breaks the charred rocks back down into soil, so nothing counteracts the usual wizardly duels.

[Collin152]

I'd just like to comment that this is a grave injustice that there should be a tome for necromancy but no other schools of magic.
I propose a Tome of Enchantment.

[Maerok]

Well Necromancy is just different. It isn't really explored to its full potential. It's got flavor that I believe a lot of other schools don't have (like Enchantment or Transmutation); you can just take those sorts of schools at face value and go "Oh, that's what that does...". But other schools like Necromancy, Illusion, and Abjuration really have a lot to work with. Necromancy works for something like the Tome of Necromancy because the school has had a poor history of PrCs. There are some interesting ones like the LM ones, which are still not up to par, but Necromancy as a whole tends to get a raw deal.

Yet I think that the Tome of Necromancy is way over-powered in some respects with its PrCs... There are just a lot of 'epic' effects that can be attained easily. K also uses a lot of feats and abilities, also in Tome of Fiends, that give you an insane bonus to caster level. Master of the Seven Mysteries gets +7 caster level, and mix that with Child Necromancer and Dread Necromancer and you've got an undead world in your hands...

[Collin152]

I think transmutation could merit a tome, too...
All but Evocation, really.

[Maerok]

Yeah, Evocation is kind of superficial.

[Collin152]

Imagine a Tome of Divination.
"Infallible Phrasing"
"Proper times to detect"
"Avoiding David's fall: When not to scry"

[shadow_archmagi]

It'd be interesting to see a Tome of Defense (abjuration and divination). As is, dungeons are largely pointless and armies are stupid.

[Maerok]

The Fortress Master's Tome! Mwahaha. Your one stop shop for rebuilding the Tomb of Horrors...

[Baxbart]

Sorry in advance for jacking the thread a little, but I hoped (since this is on-topic) that some of the wonderful Playgrounders could provide me with a bit of critique.

ECL 7 start: Human Monk 2/Sorcerer 4/Boneblade Reaper 1

H: Weapon finesse
1: Boneblade Mastery
3: Extend Spell
6: Ascetic Mage
Bonus feats: Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Combat Reflexes

Using the sorcerer PHBII variant for fast metamagic (instead of familiar) and adding Charisma to AC in place of Wis using Ascetic mage for a bit of synergy and to lessen the MADness of Monk.

What do people think of Boneblade Reaper, and of this build in general? Also, I wasn't sure (since the text isn't brilliantly phrased) but does the 'armour bonus' conferred by Deathscribed Flesh count towards normal AC as well as touch AC, or is it just for Touch?

Oh, and stats: 10/16 (18 with gloves of dex)/14/12/10/16 (possibly getting a nymph's cloak to help Cha too)

Seems solid enough to me... High AC (if my interpretation of the Flesh ability is right), three good saves (6/6/9 base at ECL7), evasion, spontaneous casting (granted... two levels behind the sorc curve)...

[Maerok]

I did a high level campaign PbP with Tome of Necromancy, but it didn't last... :smallfrown: