57 réponses à ce sujet

[mousestalker]

There needs to be more necromancy. Every male PC should have at least one ghoulfriend.

[EmissaryofLies]

Taken away as in blood magic, taken away as in Justinia and Fiona and whoever else happens to be in the game's opening. 

 

Might be right about the late necromancy spells. Though I'd like something more interesting to summon, something entirely new to offset the complete removal of blood magic from player hands. 

[LordofOrzammar]

I'm pretty pumped about the necromancy to be honest, raise dead was one of my favourite spells in Origins.

 

To have an army of undead ready to do my bidding? Yes, please.

 

(As an aside, I've never been a blood mage and I could raise dead, so I agree with those who say it isn't a requierment for necromancy.)

[Iakus]

Spirit healers can summon spirits. Animate dead in DAO did not take blood magic. Velanna summons sylvans without blood magic, And the whole point of getting rid of the blood magic spec was that Bioware can't get the conquences of the player character being a blood mage right. It would not make sense if necromancy requires blood magic.

 

This is the impression I got.

 

Necromancy is likely a different, more "traditional" school of magic, possibly combining aspects of Spirit and Entropy, that may have a sort of dark reputation without being necessarily evil.  

[Tremere]

I addressed this subject in another thread wherein I said that Necromancy isn't only about reanimation and skeletons and death and spirits and ghosts and wraiths and... It's just as much about manipulating life force/energy. It doesn't require consorting with demons any more than any other magical school including Blood Magic. Who's to say that a Necromancer couldn't drain/harvest the energy of his enemies to restore himself and/or his allies? I agree (as has been stated in this thread) that Necromancy falls somewhere between the Spirit, Spirit Healing and Entropy schools, which would make it substantially more versatile. Of course, it depends on the practitioner whether it'll be considered "evil" or not.

[Jackums]

I hope Entropy is still a basic school of magic for the Mage. I never really liked necromancy as form of magic in fiction.

[Treacherous J Slither]

I hope the necromancer spec gives you the ability to manipulate souls. To absorb them for power, or to simply enslave them.

 

Also to raise an army of undead. Revenants, arcane horrors etc. 

 

To kill an enemy, raise them from the dead and have them attack their friends. It wouldn't really be them though. Just a spirit in their body. But the psychological impact it would have on their allies would be devastating.

 

A final power could be lichdom. That would kick all kinds of *** and i'd probably not play as anything else. My own Zzass Tam Inquisitor. Mmm...

[Tremere]

I hope the necromancer spec gives you the ability to manipulate souls. To absorb them for power, or to simply enslave them.

 

Also to raise an army of undead. Revenants, arcane horrors etc. 

 

To kill an enemy, raise them from the dead and have them attack their friends. It wouldn't really be them though. Just a spirit in their body. But the psychological impact it would have on their allies would be devastating.

 

A final power could be lichdom. That would kick all kinds of *** and i'd probably not play as anything else. My own Zzass Tam Inquisitor. Mmm...

Well, you could do all of this, and it's very likely that you'll do so at the cost of losing companions or having folks turn against you. Of course I don't know if that will be a consequence of doing what you suggest, but all things considered, you can't rule it out. Having a Seeker and Mages in your party doesn't bode well for that strategy, but I digress. I suppose I shouldn't be too questioning in regards to someone else's style of play, and certainly without knowing anything about what "their role" will be as Inquisitor. I just hope that if one chooses an extreme, the consequences will be equally so. I suppose time will tell.

 

This makes me think of a game I played wherein the player had several choices to make at the end. One of the consequences of their choices was that they ended up killing themselves while another resulted in them being betrayed, chained to a sarcophagus and dropped to bottom of the Pacific Ocean. *laughs* I suppose the message was, "Chasing power for it's own sake, and doing things because you can, could have dire consequences." I like that. With a game that is based on choice and consequence, bad endings for the player should also be a possible conclusion. This isn't to say that there should be absolutes on either side, just that, "Every choice has consequences. Some you won't see coming."

 

If nothing else, this could lead to multiple replays.