>spell focus necromancy applies to turn undead checks
Can we have good necromancers Now?
>>gestalt paladin/bard with spell points
>>44399946
Sabriel is probably a cleric
That cat I'd stat asa djinn from savage species/sorcerer trapped by charter magic in cat form
>>44400005
Sabriel is a bard.
>>44400032
Cleric//bard, I mean. She's definitely a bard
Abhorson prestige class. Like requiem bard
>>44399946
Class based systems suck balls, this book as a good reason why.
>>44400280
Class based systems are actually completely fine and offer unique advantages over different systems (while having disadvantages at the same time, ofc). You should play what you prefer, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them.
>>44400311
I think gestalt offers enough flexibility.
I have always wanted to play a mutants and masterminds game in fantasy desu
>>44399946
Based a setting off this universe, with a few key differences. Went interestingly.
>>44400032
Why are they bards? Their bells are imbued with the essence of the seven spirits who wove the charter.
There's no music, no buffs, no inspiration. Nothing that defines a Bard.
The only connection is they use sound. Remove Bard, instrad Cleric with bell divine symbols that are used in somatic components.
>>44400716
Any good stories?
Personally, I think the Old Kingdom setting would work better with a skill-based than class-based game.
>>44404574
Really?
I thought it's magic system was better suited to a class based system than most.
It would be a very small selection of classes but still.
>>44399946
>>44399946
>good necromancers
The only thing stopping you is the DMs setting/willingness to bend the rules.
I really don't see the fuss about necromancers
>>44404738
It's about contrarians, like the guys who want to play Good Drow or Evil Paladins. People want to be unique so they can feel special. I've never had a Good necromancer in any of my campaigns. Even the compulsory goth chick in black leather fetishwear was evil as hell.
>>44404759
Still not seeing the problem here, so?
Goth chickz and babbys first alignment change sounds equally harmless.
>>44404631
Well, I should admit my main point of reference for class-based systems is D&D and its variants. Obviously, classic D&D Vancian-style magic is a poor fit for the Old Kingdom, but what sticks out to me more is how terribly it tends to handle gishes - a fighter/mage will never be as good at fighting as a pure fighter, nor as good at magic as a pure mage. Skill-based systems reduce or even eliminate that tension, and in a setting where everyone who's anyone is at least a bit gishy, that's important.
>>44399946
>good necromancers
>Implying it has anything to do with the crunch and not the fluff
>>44400950
Dirge Singer bard.
All about dem debuffs and the undead.
>>44406681
>Crunch and fluff are wholly disassociated from each other and one has no influence over the other.
ok
>>44406681
>crunch informs fluff
Building a good necromancer is easy. Try it. Ban like evocation and enchantment or something
>>44404820
>>44404759
>>44404738
I never understood the whole "good necromancer" thing.
Unless the setting dictates that its not a big deal for whatever contrived reason I would assume that any society with religious belief in an afterlife and how everything in said afterlife is some sort of paradise forcefully preventing someone's souls from passing on and instead sticking it back to its rotten body obviously will be considered an evil deed.
Undeath is simply something absolutely unnatural.
>>44404759
Counterpoint:
The only reason drow are evil? Setting.
Only reason you can't get Unholy Paladins of the Darkness? Setting
Good Necromancers? Setting bro.
And even then, the only reasons in most settings for Necromancers being all evil is 'its icky' where as Drow are tainted or raised evil and Paladins need to be good.
Its not about contrarians, its about wanting to do something different for once.
I mean hell, imagine how fun a setting would be where surface dwelling races are evil, maybe tainted by Old Ones from the Stars and only those that remained deep underground remember what its like to live in a sane world and try to fight off the horrors that the neverending light of the Elder Gods as it seeps down to the core.
Just because something is different doesn't mean its somehow bad.
>>44406750
>necromancy
>always pro undead
There's like four spells for raising undead.
>>44406750
>Unless the setting dictates that its not a big deal for whatever contrived reason
Most settings ban it for some contrived reason.
You do realize there are actual existing cultures that don't have as much of a hang up on what happens to the body after the soul departs as Christianity?
>Someones soul, ect, ect
That's entirely setting dependent, hell even when it is, its not hard to imagine a culture that believes in self-sacrifice and duty in the form of reanimating your own corpse and going to war to protect the living, after all you're already dead and you're not going to get any more dead right?
Boom, perfect example of a reason why even a civilization that knows the afterlife exists would be down with undead.
>absolutely unnatural
Again, setting dependent.
Basically that's all your opinion and its some weak ass justification, you find the idea unpleasant that doesn't mean its universally reviled and objectively evil.
>>44406699
Except again Abhorsen don't have buffs. Or music. Binding and banishing the undead is their thing. Clerical magic.
Hell, their bells are literally tied to the creator god-equivalents of the setting.
>>44406757
>Just because something is different doesn't mean its somehow bad.
>different
See, most people don't have a problem with different. A lot like it. Where the problem comes in is making something different (specifically a key aspect different) and then calling it the same thing as the original. It's kind of like taking a sword, but making it ten inches long and giving it a six foot long handle but insisting it's still a sword.
>>44406816
>four SRD 9th level necromancy spells
>none of them are evil
>>44399946
Going to point out that the majority of Necromancers in the Old Kingdom setting are evil and only the Abhorsen and related use Necromancy to send souls on their way or revive the briefly dead.
>>44406863
Ah, but the key aspect of Necromancy isn't it being evil.
It's that it involves reanimating the dead or getting in contact with them.
Putting a curve on the edge of the blade doesn't make it not a sword, neither does coming up with a new type of cross guard.
>>44406816
>Most settings ban it for some contrived reason.
No, most settings ban it for a completely logical and perfectly reasonable reason.
>You do realize there are actual existing cultures that don't have as much of a hang up on what happens to the body after the soul departs as Christianity?
You do realize that there is a HUGE difference between "I do not care what happens to the body because the soul departed" and "My relative came back as some sort of revenant".
I mean of course you realized that, for the sake of having an autistic argument you just pretended that both are exactly the same.
>as much of a hang as Christianity
Never mind that the argument you presented is still wrong. I cant tell if you are just being ignorant or just a fedora-lord. Its not just Christianity that has some guidelines about the body of a deceased should be treated.
>That's entirely setting dependent, hell even when it is, its not hard to imagine a culture that believes in self-sacrifice and duty in the form of reanimating your own corpse and going to war to protect the living,
Yes, because as we know all people especially in rural environments are enlightened and always open to rational ideas and its not like religion plays an important role in daily lives-... oh.
You could not present a single culture that would be okay with that yet you claim that the shit you came up is not the contrived one. Alrighty then!
>Boom, perfect example of a reason why even a civilization that knows the afterlife exists would be down with undead.
No, not really but I already elaborated why above.
>setting dependent.
Wow its just like I said exactly that before you chose to disregard it and be a sperg. Glad that we agree on something at least.
>Basically that's all your opinion and its some weak ass justification, you find the idea unpleasant that doesn't mean its universally reviled and objectively evil.
The amount of projection in your post is mindboggling.
>>44402864
The players got their hands on some panpipes, but ignored pretty much everything I said concerning them; so, basically, they started playing the damn thing to perform the equivalent of 'Yankee Doodle' at a bar.
Good times until they played the large panpipe.
>>44406750
>I never understood the whole "good necromancer" thing.
You never wanted to play a possibly misguided healer on his/her quest to overcome the one disease that s/he can't treat?
What about some enterprising magician hoping to use his/her reanimated corpses to undercut and drive out the slave market from his/her kingdom?
There are plenty of ways to fluff "good necromancers", just like there are plenty of ways to fluff "asshole paladins". It can be used to tell new stories and present new challenges for the player to face. I think the problem a lot of people have with "good necromancers" is that they rarely see them done well, which makes sense becausemost roleplayers aren't all that creative or artistic.
