Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Melissia wrote:
Which is something I feel is kind of wrong, given that it basically cuts out a huge part of how I think Necromancy should work :/

Agreed (and this may be one of the few times we agree on both the subject AND the argument ). I've always felt that there are/should be 2 or 3 ways of Necromancy (depending on how you look at it). First is the "divine" power: given by the deity that the caster worships freely, or with some amount of piety involved. Second would be one of the Arcane ways: through extensive study of lore/books to gain the knowledge and mastery required to do such things. And finally, (in D&D this would still be Arcane) the Sorcerous way: where the caster makes pacts with demons and such (not the actual deities themselves but minions, basically) in return for power now.

It seems like 3.P (I like that designation) caused a lot of confusion about magic. There is only one kind of magic although it is accessed in different ways.

 Manchu wrote:
It seems like 3.P (I like that designation) caused a lot of confusion about magic. There is only one kind of magic although it is accessed in different ways.

Isn't this kind of highly reliant on setting and the GM?. Even if we're just talking the "Official" settings I wouldn't guess the underlying mechanics of magic are the same in all of them.

Seems like we're talking rules, not setting. Otherwise the topic is moot and we can all be completely satisfied by the advice to house rule it.

 Manchu wrote:
Perhaps you could lay out exactly what you think necromancy should be like?

I believe that necromancy should be about controlling life force-- positive and negative energy, if you will.

Not the "ohai there scary deathguy here with my skulls and skeletons and zombies don't mind if I steal your soul now kthxbai" rigamarole with which it is often depicted.

Not that your opinion is wrong, because it's an opinion, but that doesn't sound much like necromancy. That sounds more like divine magic (not in source, but application). Divine has always been life force manipulation (I know I said this, but it sounds even more like what you're saying now) of the type you are describing and their spells tend to be exactly like that.

There's absolutely no reason you couldn't play a cleric/paladin/whatever and just have their power source be 'knowledge'. I'm not sure I'd want arcane to do more of that though since it would make it too like divine.

There doesn't seem to be any such thing as "divine magic." Magic is just magic but some magic is only accessible by some means. What school a spells fall into (e.g., necromancy or conjuration) has little/nothing to do with who can cast it as a matter of class.

As for necromancy -- it seems to me that necromancy is not really about either life or death. Rather, it is about a third thing: unlife.

 Manchu wrote:
There doesn't seem to be any such thing as "divine magic." Magic is just magic but some magic is only accessible by some means. What school a spells fall into (necromancy or conjuration) has little/nothing to do with who can cast it as a matter of class.

Okay, let's say 'The spells that generally are available to divine classes sound like they fit into this category that you are creating'.

As for necromancy -- it seems to me that necromancy is not really about either life or death. Rather, it is about a third thing: unlife.

This is a great point and a better way of describing D&D Necromancy.

I think you're trying to make something into necromancy which necromancy is not, M.

 pretre wrote:
Not that your opinion is wrong, because it's an opinion, but that doesn't sound much like necromancy. That sounds more like divine magic.

Well in AD&D Clerics and Wizards spells shared schools and all the healing/resurrection spells were in the Necromancy school, alongside the Death and animate dead spells.

Taking a look at 3.5 et. al.'s list of arcane Necromancy spells, it appears WotC couldn't come to a consistent idea on what Necromancy is, themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
I think you're trying to make something into necromancy which necromancy is not, M.

Except that definition was not an accurate depiction of Necromancy's actual spell list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the definition of Necromancy on d20SRD:

d20SRD wrote:Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm


So... why should this definition exclude healing spells, IE, replenishing life force?

 Melissia wrote:
Except that definition was not an accurate depiction of Necromancy's actual spell list.
Here's the definition of Necromancy on d20SRD:

d20SRD wrote:Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm
So... why should this definition exclude healing spells, IE, replenishing life force?

Life force is different from body health? I dunno. Mostly because it always has though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Not that your opinion is wrong, because it's an opinion, but that doesn't sound much like necromancy. That sounds more like divine magic.

Well in AD&D Clerics and Wizards spells shared schools and all the healing/resurrection spells were in the Necromancy school, alongside the Death and animate dead spells.

I since replied saying 'Spells that are generally assigned to divine classes' after Manchu slapped me for using the phrase 'divine magic'.

 Melissia wrote:
Taking a look at 3.5 et. al.'s list of arcane Necromancy spells, it appears WotC couldn't come to a consistent idea on what Necromancy is, themselves.

It seems to really only do 4 major things:

A) Manipulate Undead/Dead Bodies
2: Command Undead
3: Gentle Repose
3: Halt Undead
4: Animate Dead
6: Create Undead
6: Undeath to Death
7: Control Undead
8: Create Greater Undead

B) Sap energy from living things
1: Chill Touch
1: Ray of Enfeeblment
3: Ray of Exhaustion
3: Vampiric Touch
4: Enervation
6: Circle of Death
7: Finger of Death
7: Symbol of Weakness
7: Waves of Exhaustion
8: Symbol of Death
9: Energy Drain
9: Wail of the Banshee

C) Induce Fear
1: Cause Fear
2: Scare
4: Fear
6: Symbol of Fear

D) Inflict Sickness or Infirmity
2: Blindness/Deafness
2: Ghoul Touch
4: Bestow Curse
4: Contagion
5: Blight
5: Waves of Fatigue
5: Symbol of Pain
6: Eyebite
8: Horrid Withering

Five spells kind in core really fall outside these categories: Magic Jar, Soul Bind. Clone, Spectral Hand, False Life. Magic Jar, Soul Bind and Clone all kind of a have a sub-theme of "Soul Manipulation" but could fit in other schools all the same.

If we accept that categories B an D are kind of variations on a theme, a clear direction for Necromancy emerges. It is first and foremost about harming and crippling others internally rather than with overt force, the damage caused can be mental or physical or spiritual damage but it happens on the inside. It is secondarily about manipulating the dead. This manipulation of the corpse kind of echoes the inner control they exert over those bodies/minds while living.

 pretre wrote:
Life force is different from body health? I dunno. Mostly because it always has though.

Except it hasn't always been that way, not even within DnD. And certainly not outside of DnD.

The phrase 'life force' sounds like a term distinct from what happens in healing, which is based on positive energy. Healing appears to be the summoning power from the positive energy plane, thus conjuration.

By that definition, necromancy already mimics conjuration when it summons negative power from the opposite plane-- the negative energy plane. Which several of its spells do. So I don't really see that as a good objection.

 Manchu wrote:
The phrase 'life force' sounds like a term distinct from what happens in healing, which is based on positive energy. Healing appears to be the summoning power from the positive energy plane, thus conjuration.

If anything Conjuration is the school that's nebulously defined. It does everything, I don't think trying to use it as reference point would achieve much.

Conjuration does a lot of things because so much of magic is based on planar interaction.

Necromancy seems more concerned with forces native to the material plane.

In other words, positive energy is not the same thing as life.

 Manchu wrote:
In other words, positive energy is not the same thing as life.

And negative energy isn't the same thing as undeath, but necromancy still uses it, too, so again, that's not necessarily an objection in my eyes. There's still nothing in that objection that explains why "manipulate life force" can only ever be translated as "diminishes life force".

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
In other words, positive energy is not the same thing as life.

And negative energy isn't the same thing as undeath, but necromancy still uses it, too, so again, that's not necessarily an objection in my eyes. There's still nothing in that objection that explains why "manipulate life force" can only ever be translated as "diminishes life force".

I suppose, but it's that old thing about show don't tell. A one sentence description of Necromancy might imply one thing but what it can do is very, very consistent. If there's an error someplace it's in those two words in the more open-ended description. This is because what Necromancy does is pretty consistent and well-defined. I think it also maps pretty well the connotations Necromancy and Necromancer carry across gaming in general. EDIT: I mean just look at a google image search for "Necromancer", it's skulls, menacing green energy and dark robes as far as the eye can see.

So they phrased a couple words incorrectly in the introduction, I'm not sure that counts as any great disconnect or design failure.

 Melissia wrote:
There's still nothing in that objection that explains why "manipulate life force" can only ever be translated as "diminishes life force".

Nor is there meant to be as necromancy is clearly not the simple diminishment of life force. Life force can be diminished with a fire ball or with a sword. Following Chongara's line of thought, we can distinguish these indirect effects on life force from direct effects.

I think the real question is the nature of the force affected. You suggest that necromancy 'summons' negative energy but is that necessarily the case? Enervation for example involves a bolt of negative energy. But is that energy non-native to the material plane? Furthermore, is negative energy a state of energy generally (where energy can be positive or negative like magnetic polarity)? There is a lot that we don't know about the underlying forces so it is a little silly to claim that necromancy is poorly conceived of.

There is nothing to prevent you from laying down some cosmic laws at your own table about the nature of magic and energy and shifting spells around accordingly.

 Manchu wrote:
I think the real question is the nature of the force affected. You suggest that necromancy 'summons' negative energy but is that necessarily the case? Enervation for example involves a bolt of negative energy. But is that energy non-native to the material plane? Furthermore, is negative energy a state of energy generally (where energy can be positive or negative like magnetic polarity)?

If negative energy is not non-native to the plane, then it really does follow-- since all the elemental planes are connected to the prime material in similar ways-- that positive energy is also not non-native, so there's no reason to argue that necromancy would have to "summon" positive energy in order to make use of it in its spells and thus be violating Conjuration in any way.

Depending on the nature of energy, some could be native and some non-native.

 Chongara wrote:
I mean just look at a google image search for "Necromancer", it's skulls, menacing green energy and dark robes as far as the eye can see.

If you look up the word "sorceress" you'll find images of what look like strippers holding staffs and rods with little glowy things on or near their person, that doesn't mean that every female wizard or sorcerer has to wear three leather straps, knee-high boots, and some jewelry as clothing.

 Melissia wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
I mean just look at a google image search for "Necromancer", it's skulls, menacing green energy and dark robes as far as the eye can see.

If you look up the word "sorceress" you'll find images of what look like strippers holding staffs and rods with little glowy things on or near their person, that doesn't mean that every female wizard or sorcerer has to wear three leather straps, knee-high boots, and some jewelry as clothing.

I searched Sorceress and M is right.

Back when, Necromancy typically involved tapping into the Negative Energy Plane. Undead were almost always bodies that had been infused with energy from that plane (either via an animation spell, or level drain). The Negative Energy Plane and its counterpart, the Positive Energy Plane, were separate and distinct from the Elemental Planes - Air, Earth, Fire, and Water. And the two Energy Planes and the Elemental Planes were separate and distinct from the Ethereal Plane, the Astral Plane, and the Outer Planes.

iirc, on at least a few occasions it was claimed in "authoritative" (i.e. until overridden by another "authoritative" source) sources that healing spells drew much of their power from the Positive Energy Plane. As such, the view seems to have been that arcane spellcasters focused on the elemental planes for their fun stuff, while divine spellcasters focused on the two energy planes. As such, that might explain the disparity between arcane and divine necromancers. The old arrangement of the planes has, of course, been more or less tossed out the window these days. But the secondary effects of that still exist elsewhere in the rules, and this might be an example.

For the curious, the Negative Energy Plane has appeared (sort of) in one video game. The Fortress of Regrets in Planescape: Torment was located there.

Amusingly, the positive energy plane is not really that much less lethal than the negative energy plane.

 Melissia wrote:
Amusingly, the positive energy plane is not really that much less lethal than the negative energy plane.

Yup. They're both pretty nasty to anyone from the Prime Material plane. An argument could be made comparing the Positive Energy Plane to our Sun and plants. In limited doses at a distance, plants thrive off of sunlight. But get those same plants too close to the sun, and they'll either wither away or catch fire. Similarly, limited amounts of exposure to the Plane of Positive Energy was considered helpful via things like healing spells. But too much exposure was treated the same as bathing in fire or extreme amounts of radiation.

Actually it was more comparable to filling a balloon with air.

Eventually you'd just blow up in an explosion of positive energy.

The negative energy plane is actually safer in the long run than the positive energy plane, since it's much easier to protect against its dangers.

Can't you just keep cutting yourself on the positive?

IIRC, it's based off of time spent in the plane and total hit dice(IE after a certain amount of time spent without leaving, you've filled with so much positive energy that you explode in to a miniature sun of positive energy and instantly die), rather than damage healed, but I can't be arsed to look up the official rules again.