Most Over/Underrated Class?

[Amechra]

No class is really bad, but its whether it has a strategy requires the GM to follow your script. In 5e the MONK is quite good. Okay, but what happens when Stunning Strike doesnt work?

The thing about Stunning Strike is that it isn't one save.

It's up to four. And immunity to the Stunned condition is really rare.

There's also a difference between "they passed the save due to having a big Con save bonus" (skip spending ki on Stunning Strike, focus on contributing a little bit of damage through flurries or swap off to some other enemy) and "they passed due to spending a Legendary Save" (try to force more Stunning Strike saves - whenever they fail their save, they essentially have to burn another use or lose a turn, so you'll chew through their autosaves).

[Chaosticket]

I don't remember the Ranger getting bashed in 3.5. It was consider as weaker in core than the Barbarian and maybe the Fighter, but certainly not the worst, or even the second worst class. Those positions were occupied by the Monk and the Paladin.

And out of core, it had much more support than the Fighter.

If you look at class tier list, the Ranger is always in the middle for 3.5.

Of course it was weak compared to the many gish and CoDzilla builds.

And for the 5E Ranger, most people among the "haters" admit it's rather good in damage output. It's his other stuffs we're bashing.
I always like the Ranger as a concept. Personally, i don't hate the Ranger, i hate what has been done to him.

I do. In 2nd edition the Ranger was a worse Fighter that leveled up slower for basically no gain. Favored Enemy? Minor bonus.
3rd-3.5, Compared to a Fighter it has less proficiencies, less hit points, narrow selection of conditional bonus feats that specifically forced you to stick to Light Armor, and a Animal Companion that you acquired later than a Druid and leveled up half as fast. So you ended up a bad combination of Fighter/Druid.

5th edition its the same problem. The Fighter is so much better in 5e. Action Surge is very good because who doesnt like a Free Turn once per Short Rests or twice at level 17?

5e Ranger has a very limited Spells Known list, no cantrips, Empty levels, and many abilities have little mechanical use. So basically the same problem as always.

In 5th edition a Fighter uniquely learns 3 and 4 Attacks without any condition. Ranger has to learn Quick Quiver. It can only be used twice a day, only works with Ranged Attacks, requires Concentration for 1 minute duration

The nail in the coffin is that the level 10+ Bard class can use Magical Secrets to pick unique Ranger spells at a much lower level than a Ranger can, while still have more Spells Known, more slots, and better abilities. a Valor Bard can replace the whole Ranger class.

[Chaosticket]

The thing about Stunning Strike is that it isn't one save.

It's up to four. And immunity to the Stunned condition is really rare.

There's also a difference between "they passed the save due to having a big Con save bonus" (skip spending ki on Stunning Strike, focus on contributing a little bit of damage through flurries or swap off to some other enemy) and "they passed due to spending a Legendary Save" (try to force more Stunning Strike saves - whenever they fail their save, they essentially have to burn another use or lose a turn, so you'll chew through their autosaves).

Stunning strike only works against Constitution Saves.

And a Dungeon Master can add any property to any monster. For example I run Undead with "Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects."

[Petrocorus]

I do. In 2nd edition the Ranger was a worse Fighter that leveled up slower for basically no gain. Favored Enemy? Minor bonus.
3rd-3.5, Compared to a Fighter it has less proficiencies, less hit points, narrow selection of conditional bonus feats that specifically forced you to stick to Light Armor, and a Animal Companion that you acquired later than a Druid and leveled up half as fast. So you ended up a bad combination of Fighter/Druid.

I hadn't played a lot of ADD2. In ADD1, the Ranger was fine IIRC.

For 3.5, i would disagree. I've been on this board since 2010, i spend quite some time that year and the following one on the 3.5 forum, and i never saw the Ranger getting the despise that the Paladin, the Monk, the Warlock or even the sometimes the Rogue got.

Concerning its class features, the light armor proficiency was not that big a problem once you had WBL. Indeed less HP but more skill points and spellcasting without a spells known limit. And the spell list was not awesome but not bad either.

Your points about the Animal Companion and the bonus feats are perfectly true. But this is why the Ranger was much better out of core. They had a significant number of ACF to improve them.
With the Wildshape ACF, the Arcane Hunter ACF, some specific feats, Dragon Magazine's feats for multiclassed animal companion, the Mystic Ranger variant class (with spells up to level 6 IIRC), the Sword of the Arcane Order feat, + some PrC combos (and access to arcane ones), the Ranger was much better than the fighter after level 4.

5th edition its the same problem. ..... a Valor Bard can replace the whole Ranger class.

On the 5E Ranger, i completely agree. I made this point myself more than once.

[Eldariel]

I do. In 2nd edition the Ranger was a worse Fighter that leveled up slower for basically no gain. Favored Enemy? Minor bonus.
3rd-3.5, Compared to a Fighter it has less proficiencies, less hit points, narrow selection of conditional bonus feats that specifically forced you to stick to Light Armor, and a Animal Companion that you acquired later than a Druid and leveled up half as fast. So you ended up a bad combination of Fighter/Druid..

Compared to Fighter in 3E, armor proficiencies were meh anyways (if you had Dex, light armor was as good as heavy armor) and it got bonus feats while ignoring prerequisites [only in light armor tho, but you aren't using a bow without decent Dex anyways] and it had pretty awesome spells to show for the stuff (Spell Compendium, Champions of Ruin, etc. gave them great combat spells, though even in Core they get a lot of utility out of them). It also had great skills being the only full BAB chassis to do so. Considering everyone got the best feats, Ranger's skills > Fighter's feats - a bonus feat is always the worst feat available on that level (not that Core had many combat feats worth taking; your options were Power Attack, Rapid Shot [plus potentially Precise & Improved Precise Shot], Combat Reflexes + Improved Trip, or Spirited Charge) while skills are gated by skill list and skill proficiencies; no class has enough points to cover all the key points (even 20 Int Rogue fails to) so there's little in terms of diminishing returns there. Ranger also gets Ranger Wands (which includes the all-important Wand of Cure Light Wounds).

Out of Core Fighter is relegated to a 2-level dip for Heavy Armor Prof and two feats, or six-level Dungeoncrasher, or nine-level Zhentarim Fighter. Ranger becomes a monster with Sword of the Arcane Order, Mystic Ranger, Wild Ranger, etc. But even straight PHB Ranger is basically always preferable to a PHB Fighter, excepting that you might dip Fighter for heavy armor proficiency and some feats. There just simply aren't enough good Core feats to enable a Fighter. Like, I built a Barb 12/Sorc 2/Fighter 2/Dragon Disciple 4 that literally has every feat worth taking in Core while also having +10 Str, Enlarge Person, etc. Of course that's total ****e compared to a caster but it numerically beats Fighter at just about everything since the game has like 8 feats worth taking overall (Power Attack, Spiked Chain Prof, Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise > Improved Trip, Mounted Combat > Ride-By Attack > Spirited Charge), with the potential Ranger 2 dip to get Rapid Shot without prerequisites.

In melee, Fighter and Ranger can be just about as good at their primary shtick, and while Fighter can learn a bunch of secondary shticks, those tend to be incredibly redundant since they all target the same defenses and do the same thing and compete for actions so you can do only one of them anyways. The only exception to this is AoOs, which is quite cheap on feats on the basic level. On the other hand, having competitive Hide, Move Silently, Spot and Listen alone gives you a ton more shticks to work with (and Tumble, but both can get that in exchange for Ride). Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight are really good as well. Knowledges are awesome as well.

[HiveStriker]

I do. In 2nd edition the Ranger was a worse Fighter that leveled up slower for basically no gain. Favored Enemy? Minor bonus.
3rd-3.5, Compared to a Fighter it has less proficiencies, less hit points, narrow selection of conditional bonus feats that specifically forced you to stick to Light Armor, and a Animal Companion that you acquired later than a Druid and leveled up half as fast. So you ended up a bad combination of Fighter/Druid.

5th edition its the same problem. The Fighter is so much better in 5e. Action Surge is very good because who doesnt like a Free Turn once per Short Rests or twice at level 17?

5e Ranger has a very limited Spells Known list, no cantrips, Empty levels, and many abilities have little mechanical use. So basically the same problem as always.

In 5th edition a Fighter uniquely learns 3 and 4 Attacks without any condition. Ranger has to learn Quick Quiver. It can only be used twice a day, only works with Ranged Attacks, requires Concentration for 1 minute duration

The nail in the coffin is that the level 10+ Bard class can use Magical Secrets to pick unique Ranger spells at a much lower level than a Ranger can, while still have more Spells Known, more slots, and better abilities. a Valor Bard can replace the whole Ranger class.

You do realize that Ranger can easily and greatly overshadow Fighter in nova damage right? And that it can overall get comparable level of damage up to level 20 for several encounters a day (of course if you spend all day fighting, obviously Ranger is gonna be left in the dust eventually)?

The fact that Ranger has slightly less mundane damage than a Fighter without spending resources is not a bug, it's a feature. A game-balancing feature to counter the fact that Ranger has several ways to save party's hide whereas Fighter would be nigh useless because unless heavy multiclass or extremely specific build (including EK options), Fighter is overall just about "dealing damage", or tanking/holding one or two enemies at a time at most.
So there would be no reason to play a Fighter if he didn't hold that candle of highest mundane weapon damage. ^^

Also, I don't see where there are dead levels: even levels without dedicate class or archetype feature contribute to spellcaster level and spell known. It's up to each whether to consider a spell as a feature or not.
For me, it's certainly one, especially since Ranger has few spell known and few slots (meaning that each spell known and each slot used on it is more meaningful for a Ranger than same spell would be on a Wizard or Druid).

You're hypothetically a 20th level Eldritch Knight at this point--you've got teleportation built in to your Action Surge, twice per short rest. If someone puts you in a Force Cage, you can Teleport outside and then hit them with 8 attacks. Misty Step is redundant and not a good investment of free picks.

Small fix that I forgot to point out earlier.
You don't need to be 20th level to know Misty Step. 8th level is largely enough. :)

This is indeed where we disagree. I don't think there are enough interesting spells in those schools, at least not in Evocation. Or, rather, not interesting enough for the EK, at the level he gets them.
And that's why i don't think blasting is interesting for a Fighter. Yes, the Fighter is lacking in crowd management, and a fireball is pretty good for this. But you get your Fireball at level 13.
At this level, what kind of crowd are you facing? How tough are this crowd compared to the 28 average damages of the Fireball? And what is your normal ressourceless damage output per round? What about your party's ressourceless damage output?
If you face 12+ enemies of CR 1 or lower, Fireball is perfect. But against 5+ enemies of CR 2, this is already less worthy of the spell slot and of your action probably. And both encounter are classified as "easy" for 4 level 13 PC..
At this level, the Fireball is very situational. And it's by far the best 3rd level damage spell.
So, yes, you probably want Fireball in your spells known. But you have 9 spells known, do you need 3 or 4 situational blast spells in your spells known?
OTOH, Haste, Fly, Mirror Image, Misty Step, or even Phantom Steed will come in use much more often. They whether build on your strengths, or cover one of your weakness (mobility notably).

Sorry Petrocorus, I missed your reply. ;)

Overall I agree with you. My point was more about AOE in general for an EK. I don't see the problem with having a Burning Hands that you then swap with Shatter then with Fireball.
And yeah, it's much better if you have any regular caster in party because they get the spells at the level where they made the biggest dent to enemies when doing the "damage done / average max hp" ratio.

So certainly, in a regular party, Fireball for an EK, considering how big it costs for him and when he gets it is situational. But that's precisely in those situations that you'll be glad you have it: the ability to blow one, or possibly two, Fireball can transform a difficult fight into an easy fight, because in your single turn, you put several enemies low enough on HP to allow friends to finish them off before they act. It's a kind of "poker all-in", so certainly not a tactic I'd recommend taking lightly. When you decided well, you really enjoy it. ^^

Let's be honest though: I never played an Eldricht Knight as a single class, because I think a dual-class with any caster is miles better from start to finish. Especially because it allows me to use that "blasting aspect" more often early. :)

[stoutstien]

Stunning strike only works against Constitution Saves.

And a Dungeon Master can add any property to any monster. For example I run Undead with "Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects."

If you change the rules you can't really say that any class/feature is weak/strong. Especially if SS is probably 50% of the monks kit.
The lack of NPCs that have immunity to stun isnt a oversight. Stun is rare, with only 5 spell/effects that can cause it.

[Warlush]

If you change the rules you can't really say that any class/feature is weak/strong. Especially if SS is probably 50% of the monks kit.
The lack of NPCs that have immunity to stun isnt a oversight. Stun is rare, with only 5 spell/effects that can cause it.

Yeah I have to agree. Also just giving a creature type blanket immunity to every single mental effect would make several PC options worthless.

I hope the only part of the game your players like is the HP economy.

[Amechra]

Stunning strike only works against Constitution Saves.

And a Dungeon Master can add any property to any monster. For example I run Undead with "Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects."

"[CLASS TYPE] is useless because I like to change the rules without considering the side effects" is more of an indictment against your DMing skills than against the class itself. It's entirely trivial for a hostile DM to screw over their players, regardless of how they build their characters.

[Petrocorus]

You do realize that Ranger can easily and greatly overshadow Fighter in nova damage right?

Could you elaborate on this?
Because the Ranger don't have a lot of Nova abilities besides level 5 spells, AFAIK.

And that it can overall get comparable level of damage up to level 20 for several encounters a day (of course if you spend all day fighting, obviously Ranger is gonna be left in the dust eventually)?

Maybe, but one of the good thing about the Ranger is that his non-spell damage features have no limit of uses per day/rest. Only a limit per round.
I believe the Ranger will run out of resources less quickly than a Fighter in a day-long battle.

The fact that Ranger has slightly less mundane damage than a Fighter without spending resources is not a bug, it's a feature. A game-balancing feature to counter the fact that Ranger has several ways to save party's hide whereas Fighter would be nigh useless because unless heavy multiclass or extremely specific build (including EK options), Fighter is overall just about "dealing damage", or tanking/holding one or two enemies at a time at most.

This is my main contention with the Ranger. His damage are fine. But he's not good at his other jobs.
The Fighter is explicitly a class overspecialized in combat. The Ranger is supposed to be versatile, and he's not, not really.
His skill are barely better than the Fighter, his utility features are badly written and situational so not that efficient when needed, and he cannot make good use of his utility spells because of this very low spell known limit (for which i still don't know the justification).

Also, I don't see where there are dead levels:

I believe people are using the expression "dead level" for the levels where the only features are not good or situational, even if there is a feature. And some of them don't advance spellcasting. Notably level 6, 10, 14.

Sorry Petrocorus, I missed your reply. ;)

No worries.

Overall I agree with you. My point was more about AOE in general for an EK. .....When you decided well, you really enjoy it. ^^

I would agree with this. If i was to play an EK, i would reserve one spell known slot for a AoE spell.
Thunderwave or Burning Hands, then Shatter, then Fireball. I'll kept Fireball even at highest level because it is as good as a level 4 spell, for the cost of a level 3 slot.

But i will have only one of those spell. Plus 3 to 5 Abj spell i want. Then i will hit my head against the wall trying to figure how i can fit all what i want into this 4 any school spell known.

[Azuresun]

No such assumption, just answering the question. And who said anything about an arms race anyway?

"If ye are prepared ye shall not fear."

It's the logical result of one character powering up. Everyone else has to power up to do as much as the guy whose character broke the game. And in my experience, players who go for an "everything you can do, I can do better" character often are motivated by a worry (founded or not) that unless they can cover everything in a single character, they won't get to have fun.

But you seem more interested in glib dismissals than discussion, so you have fun with that.

[Anderlith]

I feel like Bard is overrated. Any time someone asks for advice or inspiration on a new character someone always says, “Have you played a Bard?/You should play a Bard!” I get that they are a strong class, but not everyone wants to play a bard.

Underrated? GOOlock. Most people use Warlock as a MinMax option & usually pick Hexblade or another more directly powerful patron. GOOlocks are cool though & with clever use of telepathy they can be a sight to behold

[LichPlease]

It's the logical result of one character powering up. Everyone else has to power up to do as much as the guy whose character broke the game. And in my experience, players who go for an "everything you can do, I can do better" character often are motivated by a worry (founded or not) that unless they can cover everything in a single character, they won't get to have fun.

But you seem more interested in glib dismissals than discussion, so you have fun with that.

I don't think he was implying an arms race. I think he sincerely meant that typically OP characters do possibly have the advantage of being able to survive on their own in case such a situation arises. I have put myself in such a situation many times before with a character. Yet, that character was an Undying Warlock with 1 level in Fighter. So again, this supports both of my opinions that both the typically over optimized characters are overrated and the Undying Warlock is underrated.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think he was implying an arms race. I think he sincerely meant that typically OP characters do possibly have the advantage of being able to survive on their own in case such a situation arises. I have put myself in such a situation many times before with a character. Yet, that character was an Undying Warlock with 1 level in Fighter. So again, this supports both of my opinions that both the typically over optimized characters are overrated and the Undying Warlock is underrated.

Correct. My experience is that players like having autonomy, but only certain PCs and players can survive using their autonomy.

One example: when you spot a mysterious tunnel in a cave ceiling and instead of going back to tell the other PCs about it and try to persuade the other players to spend time on it, you can just tell the DM "I check it out, what do I find?" and still survive the experience, and maybe get some treasure out of it, that's a nice experience. If I'm playing a halfling cleric with 25' speed and a torch I probably can't get away with that. If I'm playing a Mobile Gloomstalker (sneaky) or a Necromancer (built-in meat shields and some teleportation) I probably can.

Of course even the cleric has lots of autonomy in other situations (he can mouth off to NPCs, run for President, spot clues to mysteries, etc., etc.) but ceteris paribus, more survivability = more autonomy in dangerous situations.

[Chaosticket]

"[CLASS TYPE] is useless because I like to change the rules without considering the side effects" is more of an indictment against your DMing skills than against the class itself. It's entirely trivial for a hostile DM to screw over their players, regardless of how they build their characters.

When did I ever say a Monk was useless? Stop putting Words in my mouth.

And have you ever been a Dungeon Master? A key point of the job it to make it challenging. Mobs get class levels, monsters get classic templates, enemies come out with battle plans.

Having a One-trick pony like a Stunning Strike Spammer is incredibly narrow minded and easy to counter/be countered.

[MrStabby]

When did I ever say a Monk was useless? Stop putting Words in my mouth.

And have you ever been a Dungeon Master? A key point of the job it to make it challenging. Mobs get class levels, monsters get classic templates, enemies come out with battle plans.

Having a One-trick pony like a Stunning Strike Spammer is incredibly narrow minded and easy to counter/be countered.

Whist there is some truth to this, how far do you take it?

When you have a dexterity fighter whose one trick is to shoot things with arrows do you have an encounter immune to piecing damage?

How about a barbarian whose one trick is to hit things with an axe?


I am not saying you should go out of your way to avoid these, but some features are pretty important and are likely to be why someone played a class. Challenging them is fine, but doing it in such a way that it sucks the fun out of the experience isn't.

[TheUser]

On lvl 6 feature, I love how you contradict yourself from one sentence to another.
So the spell is bad for non-Necromancer... Yet this is a great spell for terraforming / guarding / in general helping?
Care to explain what sensible difference HP boosts makes in digging trenches? Bonus roll on damage for grapples?

Apparently taking two seperate sentences from seperate paragraphs and ignoring the body of the text makes a contradiction.

I'll spell it out for you I guess.

Animating an extra corpse/pile of bones means you have double the utility up front (twice as many actions).
It also means you can re-cast Animate Dead on 4 skeletons at level 6 without nearly as much effort to ramp up unlike other level 6 Wizards (a non-necromancer would forgo all 3 of their level 3 slots plus arcane recovery to get all four skeletons in one day and then re-cast after a long rest), and lastly, the extra health means the skeletons are far more likely to survive the adventuring day allowing for the necromancer to use the re-assert control option far more readily (2 of these I already stated). Is that crystal clear now?

The sad truth is that it's still a gimmick overall. Because a big group of Zombies will be very easily dispatched with a Fireball until you're level 14 or so, or made useless with as little as a Plant Growth. Because Skeletons archers can be disabled with a simple Sleet Storm or Wind Wall.

I guess you play your 16 Intelligence wizards as though it was 8; no Necromancer is going to bunch up all their minions for a fireball. Even a long corridor you'll space them out.

Remember that my initial reccomendation was to only keep 4 skeleton archers around; if a caster is spending a level 3 spell with concentration to counter the Necromancer's level 3 spell without concentration only to have the skeletons be useful once the spell ends (entirely possible for this to happen early when concentration breaks) then which caster has really lost in this trade-off?

Because all these creatures would require a hefty amount of resources to make them a group you can travel along with a minimum of discretion and without provoking hostile reactions from most normal people.
Because all of these creatures have non-scaling accuracy that makes it so that the higher number you can cast as you level up simply compensates the progressive loss of overall efficiency when facing increasing AC and HP of enemies.

Well this is sort of veering into DM Fiat territory. If you enter a town with your skeletons hooded, masked, and with clothes stuffed with leaves/feathers then random folk won't know any better. This hardly seems like much of an issue. If you are found out and the NPC's aren't ok with you using minions you have full control of -you can even demonstrate how much command you have them when you require that they hurl themselves from a high building or cliff or dissassemble themselves (ending with the last arm pulling the skull from a limbless torso) at a certain time just before you would be required to re-assert control, with the one of not doing it only if you do re-assert control. Would they be convinced you really aren't endangering anyone?

Can Skeletons tell time? Who cares. Use Sundown as temporal marker if outside or have them use an hour-glass with a certain number of runs to count.

If the DM is being a dink and really complicating the whole reason you picked this subclass I don't really see how this is any different from a DM ****ting on wildshape saying "you haven't seen that animal you want to turn into" or providing no magical weapons for martials in a campaign against normal attack resistant/immune monsters. DM fiat isn't very good argumentation because it cuts both ways. What if my undead are immune to all those conditions listed in the previous post? How good is a necromancer now?

Speaking of which! When things get to higher levels and resistances or accuracy becomes a problem, switching gears to Ghouls in chainmail equipping tower shields or even metal doors to provide full cover becomes far more useful. If you still want skeletons vs higher AC, advantage does wonders for accuracy rates. Or even the slow spell while someone else provides advantage through some means. I like having 4 ghouls with armor and shields running interferance providing cover and grappling.

It's a great tool in situations where you can set ambushes. It's a nice way to set terror on villages or ease into some challenges. But I don't see how it is that game-changing when you see the crazy things Wizards can do with level 6 and beyond spells.

Well I mean a bulk of the wizards struggles before godhood are in tier 2....where boosted skeleton archers get the most mileage. Tier 3 the rules start breaking down for all Wizards.... I showed what a Necromancer does with Magic Jar right?

As for the lvl 10 feature...
You can try all you want to distort meaning, the fact remains that Aid is a spell that *temporarily increases* maximum HP. Not a two-time effect "I increase then I try to reduce".
It would require a very, very lenient DM to houserule that Aid's HP increase doesn't disappear when duration ends.

Although, in practice, it wouldn't break anything, because if you want to stay coherent, it means, since the spell's effect "last for the duration", that it never ends because the Wizard features prevents it from ending. And since any given creature can only benefit from the same effect once, the maximum you can get is 45 HP when you are 17th level.

So..it changes very little but requires a lenient DM? Who's contradicting themselves now?

Listen, I won't argue semantics here. The words say what they say. I've had 4/5 DM's roll with that interpretation simply because it's thematic for a necromancer to hold onto life force they acquire, be it natural or unnatural. It's also hlarious narratively to have a weakly looking wizard get absolutely trucked with damage and stand up again, skin hanging from their face, bones as hard as concrete. Most importantly, it doesn't make the wizard immune to the plethora of other bull**** that a DM can have befall a player.

However, you should know that 45 HP is not the max you can glean from the feature.

After using Magic Jar at level 11 against a subdued Warlord (who had their legendary saves burned through) my necromancer catapulted their max HP to 339 (both because of how Majic Jar allows the keeping of class features -of which gaining HP per level includes- and having a 5th level aid cast after the fact).

Most Wizards can actually replicate this; they just don't keep the results after the spell ends.

However, 339 hitpoints doesn't stop the necromancer from being bound and gagged out of casting spells, or grappled with a hand cupping their mouth. They can be mind controlled, feared, silenced, stunned (or crushed under a 9 and a half metric tonne of Granite- that thing the level 9 Illusionist can do) etc etc. You aren't unstoppable or invulnerable, you just don't fall over from Dragon Breaths like those other frail windbags.

[HiveStriker]

Spoiler: length

Show

]Apparently taking two seperate sentences from seperate paragraphs and ignoring the body of the text makes a contradiction.

I'll spell it out for you I guess.

Animating an extra corpse/pile of bones means you have double the utility up front (twice as many actions).
It also means you can re-cast Animate Dead on 4 skeletons at level 6 without nearly as much effort to ramp up unlike other level 6 Wizards (a non-necromancer would forgo all 3 of their level 3 slots plus arcane recovery to get all four skeletons in one day and then re-cast after a long rest), and lastly, the extra health means the skeletons are far more likely to survive the adventuring day allowing for the necromancer to use the re-assert control option far more readily (2 of these I already stated). Is that crystal clear now?



I guess you play your 16 Intelligence wizards as though it was 8; no Necromancer is going to bunch up all their minions for a fireball. Even a long corridor you'll space them out.

Remember that my initial reccomendation was to only keep 4 skeleton archers around; if a caster is spending a level 3 spell with concentration to counter the Necromancer's level 3 spell without concentration only to have the skeletons be useful once the spell ends (entirely possible for this to happen early when concentration breaks) then which caster has really lost in this trade-off?


Well this is sort of veering into DM Fiat territory. If you enter a town with your skeletons hooded, masked, and with clothes stuffed with leaves/feathers then random folk won't know any better. This hardly seems like much of an issue. If you are found out and the NPC's aren't ok with you using minions you have full control of -you can even demonstrate how much command you have them when you require that they hurl themselves from a high building or cliff or dissassemble themselves (ending with the last arm pulling the skull from a limbless torso) at a certain time just before you would be required to re-assert control, with the one of not doing it only if you do re-assert control. Would they be convinced you really aren't endangering anyone?

Can Skeletons tell time? Who cares. Use Sundown as temporal marker if outside or have them use an hour-glass with a certain number of runs to count.

If the DM is being a dink and really complicating the whole reason you picked this subclass I don't really see how this is any different from a DM ****ting on wildshape saying "you haven't seen that animal you want to turn into" or providing no magical weapons for martials in a campaign against normal attack resistant/immune monsters. DM fiat isn't very good argumentation because it cuts both ways. What if my undead are immune to all those conditions listed in the previous post? How good is a necromancer now?

Speaking of which! When things get to higher levels and resistances or accuracy becomes a problem, switching gears to Ghouls in chainmail equipping tower shields or even metal doors to provide full cover becomes far more useful. If you still want skeletons vs higher AC, advantage does wonders for accuracy rates. Or even the slow spell while someone else provides advantage through some means. I like having 4 ghouls with armor and shields running interferance providing cover and grappling.


Well I mean a bulk of the wizards struggles before godhood are in tier 2....where boosted skeleton archers get the most mileage. Tier 3 the rules start breaking down for all Wizards.... I showed what a Necromancer does with Magic Jar right?



So..it changes very little but requires a lenient DM? Who's contradicting themselves now?

Listen, I won't argue semantics here. The words say what they say. I've had 4/5 DM's roll with that interpretation simply because it's thematic for a necromancer to hold onto life force they acquire, be it natural or unnatural. It's also hlarious narratively to have a weakly looking wizard get absolutely trucked with damage and stand up again, skin hanging from their face, bones as hard as concrete. Most importantly, it doesn't make the wizard immune to the plethora of other bull**** that a DM can have befall a player.

However, you should know that 45 HP is not the max you can glean from the feature.

After using Magic Jar at level 11 against a subdued Warlord (who had their legendary saves burned through) my necromancer catapulted their max HP to 339 (both because of how Majic Jar allows the keeping of class features -of which gaining HP per level includes- and having a 5th level aid cast after the fact).

Most Wizards can actually replicate this; they just don't keep the results after the spell ends.

However, 339 hitpoints doesn't stop the necromancer from being bound and gagged out of casting spells, or grappled with a hand cupping their mouth. They can be mind controlled, feared, silenced, stunned (or crushed under a 9 and a half metric tonne of Granite- that thing the level 9 Illusionist can do) etc etc. You aren't unstoppable or invulnerable, you just don't fall over from Dragon Breaths like those other frail windbags.

On level 10 feature there was no contradiction whasoever on my part. Since you seem troubled to understand...
1° Allowing Aid to persist after end is pure DM houserule (this is the point on what is RAW).
2° It probably wouldn't change much in practice (this is the point on game balance).

Also, that example with Warlock is always making me laugh so much... Plz explain to me where those are raised and bred, because apparently everyone on forum is encountering them easily enough to make those shenanigans work...
Oh, wait! It's all just theorycraft!
Or maybe there are actually some in official content...
Either way, ultimately, it's up to the DM to decide whether you get a shot at this or not. It's far, far from a given.

And the interpretation you make is even more crazy than the one for Aid. Warlord is not a playable character, it's a monster. Its features are NOT class features. And you POSSESS the body, you are not magically fusing it to your own.
So yeah, you get that level of HP while you are possessing the body ONLY. Once body is destroyed, you're back regular Wizard.


On Undead...
1) If you space them out in a corridor, it also means it's very simple to completely block their aim (archers) or that most of them are useless because cannot attack in melee (Zombies). The optimal use of them is to spread them out, and that requires hefty space and also leads to many kind of counters.
Using them as cover is nice but at the level where you can pump out a dozen skeletons, many enemies can kill one (or several) in a single round. Let's recall that Skeleton has 13 HP as a base. At level 10, it has 23 HP. Nice. It also has only 13 AC, which is fairly low. So yeah, it acted as a nice meat shield. Cool. It also dealt some damage. Cool.
Will it survive the fight? Unless it was a fight easy enough that you didn't need them in the first place, or unless enemy party had a way to completely disable them, probably not.
How is that game-changing really? It's just a nice boost in damage in some situations, at the cost of hefty preparations and anticipated slot consumption. Not an "all-win" strategy like you sell it out.
Especially since world will adapt if you're always using the same strategy. Either through a direct arms-race, or by trying to choose the environment for face-off, or maybe turning those undead against you.

2) My point was that if you want to use them for utility digging and such, then it's a very minor speed improvement over a regular Wizard who could conjure less of them, but could also simply hire peasants. The HP buff is only relevant in fighting, and even that won't make any big difference as long as enemy has some AOE, until you get at least level 12+.

3) "Well this is sort of veering into DM Fiat territory. If you enter a town with your skeletons hooded, masked, and with clothes stuffed with leaves/feathers then random folk won't know any better." So you expect citizens to see a large group of hooded, armed, skinny people with strange way to walk and behave to... Not react? It's a wonder those citizens lived so far already.
It's not a matter of DM being bitchy, it's a matter of being rationale. Unless DM told session 0 "necromancy is widely accepted", in usual setting it's NOT. It's up to you as a player, that chose the character, to deal with it.
Since you pick the "Wild Shape problem", well, I'd have no quarrel with a DM telling me "sorry pal, you cannot Wild Shape into a dinosaur, those simply don't exist in the setting". The DM decides what the world is, how it evolves. Session 0 is here to take care of the main expectations. Discussion is always possible thereafter when something unexpected comes up, and player's choices and actions should also affect the world, but I won't consider the DM as an *** just because he didn't agree with my view.

[diplomancer]

I feel like I'm missing something in this necromancy discussion. Is it really wise to spend a lot of slots on creatures that a level 6 cleric can easily destroy (around 80% of them) with an uncounterspellable turn undead? Is there something on animate dead, turn undead, or necromancer description that stops that from happening?

[Eldariel]

I feel like I'm missing something in this necromancy discussion. Is it really wise to spend a lot of slots on creatures that a level 6 cleric can easily destroy (around 80% of them) with an uncounterspellable turn undead? Is there something on animate dead, turn undead, or necromancer description that stops that from happening?

How often do you face 6th level Clerics? And Turn Undead has its own limitations. It just so happens concentration-free underlings are pretty darn strong in a system with bounded accuracy though. That's basically it. A couple of free extra actions is just fantastic and they can fit holes in a Wizard's arsenal (like being a mediocre frontliner themself or lacking in consistent, resource-free damage).

[stoutstien]

When did I ever say a Monk was useless? Stop putting Words in my mouth.

And have you ever been a Dungeon Master? A key point of the job it to make it challenging. Mobs get class levels, monsters get classic templates, enemies come out with battle plans.

Having a One-trick pony like a Stunning Strike Spammer is incredibly narrow minded and easy to counter/be countered.

Quick!! A class has a a unique ablity that promotes teamwork and allows them to change the flow of an encounter! Better use a blanket immunity to it so they never think that anything other than straight damage is option.

[diplomancer]

How often do you face 6th level Clerics? And Turn Undead has its own limitations. It just so happens concentration-free underlings are pretty darn strong in a system with bounded accuracy though. That's basically it. A couple of free extra actions is just fantastic and they can fit holes in a Wizard's arsenal (like being a mediocre frontliner themself or lacking in consistent, resource-free damage).

Not very often. But then I never tried to play a necromancer. If I did, I would expect Clerics to oppose me , both in-game, I.e, it makes sense for clerics to oppose me, and out-of-game, I.e, the Dm can easily shut that down if he wants to.

It's different from the nuclear wizard, that can be shut down, but requires all enemies to have a brooch of shielding (which does not make much sense in-world), or just a NOPE on the RAW.

[MaxWilson]

I feel like I'm missing something in this necromancy discussion. Is it really wise to spend a lot of slots on creatures that a level 6 cleric can easily destroy (around 80% of them) with an uncounterspellable turn undead? Is there something on animate dead, turn undead, or necromancer description that stops that from happening?

Yes: the ranged weaponry on skeletons and the intelligence of the Necromancer. If you look back on this thread you've probably seen repeated mentions of the need to avoid Fireball Formation, which is also Destroy Undead formation. As long as you use intelligent formations, an AoE is only going to destroy one cluster of them, which could be e.g. 6 skeletons = one 5th level spell slot. And presumably you did some damage in return while the cleric was getting into position (since Destroy Undead is range 0), so you got value out of that level 5 spell slot.

Basically, Necromancers are mentally prepared to treat skeletons as expendable and play accordingly.

Not very often. But then I never tried to play a necromancer. If I did, I would expect Clerics to oppose me , both in-game, I.e, it makes sense for clerics to oppose me, and out-of-game, I.e, the Dm can easily shut that down if he wants to.

It's different from the nuclear wizard, that can be shut down, but requires all enemies to have a brooch of shielding (which does not make much sense in-world), or just a NOPE on the RAW.

Or enemies that are invisible: Skulks, Invisible Stalkers, even just plain goblins with +6 to Stealth and Nimble Escape. If a DM wants to shut you down they can always do so.

I do wonder though what setting assumptions you are making to conclude that it makes in-game sense for 6th level clerics to start opposing you en masse, and how many clerics you think there will be. Unless you're expecting to see three or four 6th clerics per play session, the Necromancer probably isn't even going to notice the drain on his spell slots, and if you are expecting to see that many that doesn't sound like something that makes sense in-game, in most settings.

[TheUser]

On level 10 feature there was no contradiction whasoever on my part. Since you seem troubled to understand...
1° Allowing Aid to persist after end is pure DM houserule (this is the point on what is RAW).
2° It probably wouldn't change much in practice (this is the point on game balance).

And the interpretation you make is even more crazy than the one for Aid. Warlord is not a playable character, it's a monster. Its features are NOT class features. And you POSSESS the body, you are not magically fusing it to your own.
So yeah, you get that level of HP while you are possessing the body ONLY. Once body is destroyed, you're back regular Wizard.

The Aid spell is not persisting but the effect is.

This might be a hard concept to grasp but a "spell" and a "spell's effects" are not the same thing. Animate Dead for instance, the spell lasts for an instant (instantaneous duration) but the effects are quite the opposite.

I think you are confused about how Magic Jar interacts with your stats so I'm gonna really break it down for you.

Spoiler: Magic Jar

Show

6th-level necromancy

Casting Time: 1 minute

Range: Self

Components: V, S, M (a gem, crystal, reliquary, or some other ornamental container worth at least 500 gp)

Duration: Until dispelled

Your body falls into a catatonic state as your soul leaves it and enters the container you used for the spell’s material component. While your soul inhabits the container, you are aware of your surroundings as if you were in the container’s space. You can’t move or use reactions. The only action you can take is to project your soul up to 100 feet out of the container, either returning to your living body (and ending the spell) or attempting to possess a humanoid’s body.

You can attempt to possess any humanoid within 100 feet of you that you can see (creatures warded by a Protection from Evil and Good or Magic Circle spell can’t be possessed). The target must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failure, your soul moves into the target’s body, and the target’s soul becomes trapped in the container. On a success, the target resists your efforts to possess it, and you can’t attempt to possess it again for 24 hours.

Once you possess a creature’s body, you control it. Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the creature, though you retain your alignment and your Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. You retain the benefit of your own class features. If the target has any class levels, you can’t use any of its class features.

Meanwhile, the possessed creature’s soul can perceive from the container using its own senses, but it can’t move or take actions at all.

While possessing a body, you can use your action to return from the host body to the container if it is within 100 feet of you, returning the host creature’s soul to its body. If the host body dies while you’re in it, the creature dies, and you must make a Charisma saving throw against your own spellcasting DC. On a success, you return to the container if it is within 100 feet of you. Otherwise, you die.

If the container is destroyed or the spell ends, your soul immediately returns to your body. If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die. If another creature’s soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature’s soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet. Otherwise, that creature dies.

When the spell ends, the container is destroyed.

The necromancer possess a Warlord (a humanoid) but the spell stipulates that while possessing it you retain your Int, Wis and Cha and all your class features minus any of the class features the humanoid you are posessing has (of which it has none because, as you already stated, it's a monster stat block with no level x spellcaster listed).

This allows the caster to still cast spells while posessing a new body but not get the spell casting potential of its new form (except Innate Spells) as well as things like skills, saving throws and their ability to resist death built up over years of adventuring. You can corroborate all that follows on Stack exchange when looking up Magic Jar (or just go through and read the spell for yourself).

The 2 important class features we are focusing on are "Hit Points" (the literal first thing listed under Class Features written in big bold letters) and Inured to Undeath.


So, you possess the Warlord. Bam your stats all change except the ones we listed, but, those class features that give us Max HP and the inability to have max HP reduced remain. So we take that 229 HP the Warlord has baseline and add our class feature HP (except with the new +4 con modifier of the Warlord).

229 HP becomes 319 because 229 plus 10 (level 1 HP) plus 80 (10d6+40) throw in a level 5 Aid and 339 is our new total.

At no point in time, before, during or even after the process do you lose Inured to Undeath, so when the mechanical interaction occurs where you must replace your 339 with your old lower Hit Points it doesn't happen because replacing 339 with a lower number is a reduction.


You can bemoan the non-sensical nature of a necromancer grasping on to their new found vitality and keeping it, or even the exploitative nature of mixing a level 10 necromancer wizard class feature with a necromancy wizard spell obtained at level 11....but the writing is on the wall so to speak. It's RAW as much as it chaps your ass that it isn't.


Does the game break down in tier 3? Absolutely. For Wizards moreso than most other classes. It even starts to show cracks in late tier 2 (as demonstrated by my Illusionist with Creation Interaction in prior comments). But the whole point is that the characters in tier 3 and high tier 2 are powerful entities with fantastical powers not unlike super heroes. The DM's job is to challenge them while letting use their abilities not clamp down on the abilities themselves. Right?

On Undead...
1) If you space them out in a corridor, it also means it's very simple to completely block their aim (archers) or that most of them are useless because cannot attack in melee (Zombies). The optimal use of them is to spread them out, and that requires hefty space and also leads to many kind of counters.

How low is the ceiling? Is arcing a shot simply not something your characters can do? Wouldn't the situation you've outlined shut down any other ranged or even melee character? Even wizards using a plethora of spells so why is it specficially extra bad for the Necromancer?

Using them as cover is nice but at the level where you can pump out a dozen skeletons, many enemies can kill one (or several) in a single round. Let's recall that Skeleton has 13 HP as a base. At level 10, it has 23 HP. Nice. It also has only 13 AC, which is fairly low. So yeah, it acted as a nice meat shield. Cool. It also dealt some damage. Cool.
Will it survive the fight? Unless it was a fight easy enough that you didn't need them in the first place, or unless enemy party had a way to completely disable them, probably not.
How is that game-changing really? It's just a nice boost in damage in some situations, at the cost of hefty preparations and anticipated slot consumption. Not an "all-win" strategy like you sell it out.

In the many sessions I've played a Necromancer (how many have you played btw? Might be a good way to gauge just how valuable your input on this particular topic is), I've had my skeletons equip weapons and armor. It's in the lore text describing them:

"A skeleton can fight with weapons and wear armor"


Expensive? Not always. If the DM is throwing humanoid enemies at you already equipped in armor then they have the gear already. In essence the skeletons become better as your enemies do. You've got something to work with already. Heavy Armor is a bit tricky with reducing their move speed so I avoid it on skeletons.



I need you to really pay attention to what is being written under what context. It bothers me greatly that I have to re-explain and recontextualize your lazy reading of my previous statements. For instance:

Zombies are what were being used in tier 3 for cover and have 22 hit points +11 (we were discussing tier 3 right? +10 means tier 2). And also get to make saving throws before dying at 0 hp (though taking 33+ damage presents a save they could never make but it still helps them stay up). They are walking around in Chainmail and using a full length tower shield or a large metal door.

If the Zombies are using big metal doors to provide full cover, they are also providing it for themselves. Enemies needing to use awkward angles or well placed AoE to even target them ups their resillience greatly.

Skeletons as an example were used in tier 2. In all examples presented by me both are used in small numbers (never dozens). The only number I've thrown out is 4.

The numerical value of skeletons sustained damage should not be understated (especially when compared to other wizards). 4d6+20-24 is being put up in addition to the passive damage of a wizard and because it takes them half the ramp up cost in level 3 Animate Dead spells and they are far more likely to survive an encounter, it's more likely to stay at 4d6+20-24. It's like having an extra two wizards of at will damage (moreso but I am accounting for their reduced accuracy). Other wizards can't get this mileage out of the spell. Twice as hard to ramp up and much more difficult to keep alive. Hopefully I don't have to run you through this whole logical chain a third time...

Especially since world will adapt if you're always using the same strategy. Either through a direct arms-race, or by trying to choose the environment for face-off, or maybe turning those undead against you.

Great examples you've provided of all the spells and abilities that steal Undead...sounds like more DM fiat to me.

2) My point was that if you want to use them for utility digging and such, then it's a very minor speed improvement over a regular Wizard who could conjure less of them,

TIL +100% improvement for "speed" on level 3 slots is a "minor improvement." I think your bias is showing tbh.

but could also simply hire peasants. The HP buff is only relevant in fighting, and even that won't make any big difference as long as enemy has some AOE, until you get at least level 12+.

Peasants as minions is not even remotely a strong comparison; they have morale, need food, don't respond well to dangerous or suicidal orders, need to sleep, and aren't telepathically linked to you so their depth of combat strategy is probably far more limited.

3) "Well this is sort of veering into DM Fiat territory. If you enter a town with your skeletons hooded, masked, and with clothes stuffed with leaves/feathers then random folk won't know any better." So you expect citizens to see a large group of hooded, armed, skinny people with strange way to walk and behave to... Not react? It's a wonder those citizens lived so far already.
It's not a matter of DM being bitchy, it's a matter of being rationale. Unless DM told session 0 "necromancy is widely accepted", in usual setting it's NOT. It's up to you as a player, that chose the character, to deal with it.
Since you pick the "Wild Shape problem", well, I'd have no quarrel with a DM telling me "sorry pal, you cannot Wild Shape into a dinosaur, those simply don't exist in the setting". The DM decides what the world is, how it evolves. Session 0 is here to take care of the main expectations. Discussion is always possible thereafter when something unexpected comes up, and player's choices and actions should also affect the world, but I won't consider the DM as an *** just because he didn't agree with my view.

Bit of a strawman here. DM's and I disagree all the time; I don't consider them an ass for that, but if a player develops a strategy based on class features revolving around say wildshaping into dinosaurs and a DM tells them "tough noogies no Dinos here" instead of saying something like "you can use the stat block if you can come up with a beast that acts in the same way but isn't a dinosaur" you've got a DM trying to work with the player to help everyone have fun.

One allows the player to do the thing they want without disrupting the narrative, the other is lazy and somewhat combative.

And again discussing session zero doesn't do much for the discussion.

"diFfEreNT DMs hAvE DifFeReNT iNTeRpReTatIOnS & HouSE rULeS" is not an argumet because it quite literally sways both ways.

Anyway, if we continue this and you continue to misrepresent my points either intentionally or accidentally I probably won't respond. I'm tired of repeating myself to someone who can't or won't be bothered to read what I say.

[MaxWilson]

The necromancer possess a Warlord (a humanoid) but the spell stipulates that while possessing it you retain your Int, Wis and Cha and all your class features minus any of the class features the humanoid you are posessing has (of which it has none because, as you already stated, it's a monster stat block with no level x spellcaster listed).

Actually the spell says "once" not "while".

Once you possess a creature’s body, you control it. Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the creature, though you retain your alignment and your Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. You retain the benefit of your own class features. If the target has any class levels, you can’t use any of its class features.

Nothing in the spell description says you stop using the creature's stats when you leave the body. By your own argument, this means you don't even need to be a Necromancer to get a permanent HP boost, as well as a permanent Strength boost, Dexterity boost, Constitution boost, special senses like Blindsight, etc.

Obviously no sane DM will ever adopt this interpretation because it's clearly not what Magic Jar is saying.

[diplomancer]

Yes: the ranged weaponry on skeletons and the intelligence of the Necromancer. If you look back on this thread you've probably seen repeated mentions of the need to avoid Fireball Formation, which is also Destroy Undead formation. As long as you use intelligent formations, an AoE is only going to destroy one cluster of them, which could be e.g. 6 skeletons = one 5th level spell slot. And presumably you did some damage in return while the cleric was getting into position (since Destroy Undead is range 0), so you got value out of that level 5 spell slot.

Basically, Necromancers are mentally prepared to treat skeletons as expendable and play accordingly.

Well, if you are 9th level (at least) fighting the equivalent of 6th level clerics you will most likely prevail.

But if you are 9th level and fighting the equivalent of a 6th level cleric, he is probably a somewhat minor minion of your opponent, who nullified your best spell slot. Doesn't look like a promising beginning of a fight to me.

Also, 30 foot radius is BIG for anything that is not an open field. If your skeletons are in the same room as the cleric, they will probably all be affected if the Cleric is smart enough to position himself before using TU. If they are not in the same room, they cannot probably attack very well, and, once you bring the "second batch" in, the 6th level cleric has another channel divinity ready.

It's a good gimmick for open field fights, but very high risk strategy for an appropriate level dungeon.

Simpler way to put it: Trading off one 5th-level slot for one action and one use channel divinity looks like a bad trade-off.

[MaxWilson]

Well, if you are 9th level (at least) fighting the equivalent of 6th level clerics you will most likely prevail.

But if you are 9th level and fighting the equivalent of a 6th level cleric, he is probably a somewhat minor minion of your opponent, who nullified your best spell slot. Doesn't look like a promising beginning of a fight to me.

Say rather that your 5th level spell slot took out one of your enemy's major minions, with no concentration cost and probably while inflicting a bunch of damage along the way before he got into position. (And you probably got value out of it in previous encounters too.) If that doesn't seem like a reasonable trade to you, you don't have the right mentality to want to play Necromancers.

Also, 30 foot radius is BIG for anything that is not an open field. If your skeletons are in the same room as the cleric, they will probably all be affected if the Cleric is smart enough to position himself before using TU. If they are not in the same room, they cannot probably attack very well, and, once you bring the "second batch" in, the 6th level cleric has another channel divinity ready.

Ah, so we come to the crux of the issue: a disagreement over what is big. WotC is obviously on your side of this issue: to WotC, 100' is really big, which is why all of WotC's dragons fly at the speed of bicycles and horses gallop at 1/3 the speed they have in real life.

Yes, indoors, being in the same room usually constitutes being in Fireball Formation. Again, why would you keep all of your skeletons in Fireball Formation just because you're indoors? Do you pretend that there's no such thing as doors, and that you can't move between rooms when there are hostiles around?

If you can eat a major enemy's action with 1/3 of a spell slot and your bonus action (summon one or two skeletons so the Cleric will Destroy Undead on them on his next turn), that looks like a reasonable trade to me. Skeletons are expendable.

[Jophiel]

At this point, I'd like to change my "Irrational Hatred" answer to Necromancer.

[TheUser]

At this point, I'd like to change my "Irrational Hatred" answer to Necromancer.

I laughed out loud. Thanks for that.

[Grognerd]

Quick!! A class has a a unique ablity that promotes teamwork and allows them to change the flow of an encounter! Better use a blanket immunity to it so they never think that anything other than straight damage is option.

Yeah... I've been watching this thread, and based on his "arguments" (using the term loosely), I'm kind of thinking Chaosticket is trolling y'all.