quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

There is nothing that keeps a generalist wizard from casting necromantic spells. And there's nothing that keeps a necromancer from casting regular spells. The difference is that the necromancer focuses so much on necromatic spells that he's actually weaker in non-necromantic areas. If I read about Vecna raising armies of undead, I'd agree that he was likely a necromancer. Slapping his name on a book and doing nothing else noticably focused on the dead is less than convincing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jordanz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

There is nothing that keeps a generalist wizard from casting necromantic spells. And there's nothing that keeps a necromancer from casting regular spells. The difference is that the necromancer focuses so much on necromatic spells that he's actually weaker in non-necromantic areas. If I read about Vecna raising armies of undead, I'd agree that he was likely a necromancer. Slapping his name on a book and doing nothing else noticably focused on the dead is less than convincing.

---

"...Nearly one thousand years after his birth, Vecna, now a lich and ruler of a great and terrible empire (in the Sheldomar Valley, centered near the modern-day Rushmoors), laid siege to the city of Fleeth with an army of arcane spellcasters and undead"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

There is nothing that keeps a generalist wizard from casting necromantic spells. And there's nothing that keeps a necromancer from casting regular spells. The difference is that the necromancer focuses so much on necromatic spells that he's actually weaker in non-necromantic areas. If I read about Vecna raising armies of undead, I'd agree that he was likely a necromancer. Slapping his name on a book and doing nothing else noticably focused on the dead is less than convincing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jordanz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

There is nothing that keeps a generalist wizard from casting necromantic spells. And there's nothing that keeps a necromancer from casting regular spells. The difference is that the necromancer focuses so much on necromatic spells that he's actually weaker in non-necromantic areas. If I read about Vecna raising armies of undead, I'd agree that he was likely a necromancer. Slapping his name on a book and doing nothing else noticably focused on the dead is less than convincing.

---

"...Nearly one thousand years after his birth, Vecna, now a lich and ruler of a great and terrible empire (in the Sheldomar Valley, centered near the modern-day Rushmoors), laid siege to the city of Fleeth with an army of arcane spellcasters and undead"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis


Are evil necromancers generally cooler/more interesting than the good-aligned ones? Maybe the same goes to wizards of all schools of magic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayrik

I believe Netheril offhandedly mentioned that Karsus "reverted to Lichdom to prolongue his life [once Ioulaum's Longevity and other life-sustaining magics began to fail]" - twice - once in the section about Heavy Magic, I cannot recall the specific place of the other mention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis


Does the lack of votes to Diablo necromancers mean no one here likes the setting, nor reads any Diablo novels?

Szass Tam having the most votes is no surprise.

---------

Is there a lich who has a sense of humor?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayrik

All the staple necromancy spells, of course; animate dead, vampiric touch, enervation, that sort of stuff. Not the greatest in terms of level and power, although I think the greatest in scope and impact.

My players and I have long agreed that necromancer spells basically suck until around 3rd level, then past about 5th-6th level they're okay but hardly comparable to what the other schools offer. Assuming the necromancer uses "stock" spells instead of inventing his own, of course. Dark cleric types are generally much more versatile in terms of spell lists; plus they're also tougher opponents to kill and can heal themselves ... in short, Necromancers are really not a great choice if you're looking for power. As implemented in D&D, at least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

There is nothing that keeps a generalist wizard from casting necromantic spells. And there's nothing that keeps a necromancer from casting regular spells. The difference is that the necromancer focuses so much on necromatic spells that he's actually weaker in non-necromantic areas. If I read about Vecna raising armies of undead, I'd agree that he was likely a necromancer. Slapping his name on a book and doing nothing else noticably focused on the dead is less than convincing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by entreri3478

Those necromancers in Elder Scolls IV sure were a bunch of bastards ;)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis

Weak? those guys were kicking my dunmer butt a couple of days ago!! (I just bought a new 360 a few weeks ago, and delved back into my favorite RPG console game again. I'm currently at lvl 20 as a custome bladesinger dark elf- no surprise to those here who know me well- and my last fight with just three necros sent me packing.... But I'm over it. :) )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Sage

You've managed a bard-like build for your PC in Oblivion?

Interesting.

Can you provide some details on the custom build, as it sounds like something I'd like to try out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Sage

You've managed a bard-like build for your PC in Oblivion?

Interesting.

Can you provide some details on the custom build, as it sounds like something I'd like to try out?

---

There was already a bard-type class in Oblivion (and Morrowwind before that), but mine is more like the Bladesinger PrC.

---

quote:

---

I recall using agility, personality, and intell as my prime stats, combat as my main focus, and used blade, illusion, light armor, alteration, speechcraft, mercantile, and (I think) alchemy as the main skills. Not completely certain on that last one- it might have been acrobatics or athletis. My birthsign was the Thief, I believe. And I went with Dunmer(dark elf) for three reasons- A. the fire resistance and generally decent magic ability (I ignore Ancestor Gaurdian because at 1/day, it's nearly pointless IMO) help A LOT(especially since pretty much most NPC's in Oblivion use fire in some way), B. I LOVE dark elves anyway, and C. They have less of a draw-back than most of the other races in terms of abilities. (although the Argonian's abilities are swwet, too, as are the Khajit's.) Don't like the High Elf's weakness to magic, and most of the others have abilities that either don't serve much purpose at higher levels, or are too focused on one thing. (Beast Tongue and Voice of Emporer come to mind....)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayrik

Conversely: Maligor, Zulkir of Alteration (until 1362DR), developed a spell, then an army, of darkenbeasts. The magic might technically be transmutation, but the effect is most decidedly necromantic. Perhaps he picked up a few levels of necromancer, much as Mythrellan acquired some levels as a shadowmage? I wouldn't be surprised if all the Zulkirs had a few multiclassed levels in other magics, hidden abilities kept secret from all other Red Wizards to be used as a secret weapon, defense, escape, counter, or versatility when absolutely needed. Even a single level in another magic class would allow access to an array of spells and items which were previously forbidden.

I still maintain that Szass Tam is in fact a (non-specialized) mage whose affinity for necromancy results from his being lichy, as described in the oldest Realmslore; he basically gains all the bonuses of a specialist without the drawbacks. Larloch, too, I suspect is a non-specialist who gains free necromancy - plus imagine how much extra necromancy he might gain from all his lich servitors. Perhaps the same even holds true for Vecna, although his divine immortality (and artifact status) effectively means that he is not necessarily constained by the same rules which apply to puny little mortal mages, so it's really impossible to say. I'm inclined to treat all three as unrestricted necromancers, insofar as needed for gaming purposes.

I think DMGR7: Complete Book of Necromancers offers the best definition: a necromancer (even in games/settings where no necromancer subclass exists) can be any mage who simply selects the majority of his spells and magic from the same lists which would be used by a necromancer. Kinda difficult to convincingly claim otherwise when 70% of your spell list involves death magics and such stuff, eh? Specialization is not required to cast the same spells just as proficiently as a specialist, and after a point it actually becomes more of a hindrance than a benefit because the bonuses become comparatively minor while the limitations remain quite significant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jordanz

Based on that classic battle in the Unholy book, one could argue that Szass Tam is as much as generalist s Vecna. I can't recall one necromatic spell used when he took on the Zulkirs in that last fight.

---

quote:

---

"You're right," [Dmitra] said, "that should suffice, but you don't know Szass Tam like I do. He's a genius, and a master of every school of wizardry. So can we really hide whole armies from him, or was that Rashemi griffon rider correct? Is this a feck­less plan?"

---