Talk:Limitless Charnel Healer (3.5e Optimized Character Build)

Build A

I've been thinking about Build A of this and I'm not 100% sure it is within the intent of the rules system.

The Dread Necromancer's Charnel Touch ability reads as follows (from HoH):

"Charnel Touch (Su): Negative energy flows through a dread necromancer’s body, concentrating in her hands. At will, but no more than once per round, she can make a melee touch attack against a living foe that deals 1d8 points of damage, +1 per four class levels. This touch heals undead creatures, restoring 1 hit point per touch, +1 per four class levels. A dread necromancer can use the spectral hand spell to deliver this attack from a distance."

The ability specifically says that it is an "attack against a living foe".

There are two key words here, "attack" and "foe".

I'm not sure what the rules are for attacking yourself. I have no doubt that you can easily touch yourself and not need an attack roll. Perhaps this is just semantics. It still seems odd. Compare this to attacking yourself with a weapon, especially a ranged weapon. That's kinda tricky. Or even imagine a Monk using his Unarmed Strike on himself.

Also, consider that it is an attack against a "foe" and not an ally or friend. Can you consider yourself a "foe" in this case? Based upon the way this is written, I would think that you couldn't use it against someone you considered a friend or ally. And I think that (except in rare cases) you would always consider yourself an ally!

I'm curious if anyone else might have any examples of a character using an attack against themself or using something that is intended to strike a foe against an ally.

--Skwyd 12:24, 29 March 2007 (MDT)

If you really want to analyze the wording, there's nothing that says she can't use it on an ally, and, in fact, the sentence about healing undead (note that it doesn't limit it to allies or enemies) suggests otherwise. The text uses the word "foe" (which is not a defined term in the core rule books) versus "enemy" (which is defined in the core rule books). Lastly, even if you equate "foe" with "enemy"—which, admittedly, is the most logical conclusion—as you pointed out, a character isn't a foe to herself and therefore the sentence "At will, but no more than once per round, she can make a melee touch attack against a living foe that deals 1d8 points of damage, +1 per four class levels" simply doesn't apply to this scenario. It's the following sentence that takes precedent. —Sledged (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2007 (MDT)

I agree that I am probably splitting hairs trying to pick apart this ability. I just know that if someone sat down at my table with a character and said "oh look, I can heal myself 1 point every round so as long as I'm not dead at the end of combat I'll be fully healed," that would be the first character to die from massive damage!!! I can understand that the class ability is intended both as an offensive weapon and also a way for a dread necromancer to heal the undead they control. But to use it as a "full cure" for yourself is bordering on unbalancing the game right at the start...

--Skwyd 22:21, 12 April 2007 (MDT)

I don't see it as that big of a problem. At low levels, you need all the help you get. And at higher levels, you've got a lot more issues to worry about (ammunition, limited use magic items, other negative levels, ability damage and drain, running out of spells), and curing 2 to 6 hp in mid-combat is a waste of a standard action (unless you're at 0 or lower, but you'd have to have the Die Hard feat in order to be conscious to use it). Being able to bring yourself back to full hp after battle is nice, but a dread necromancer is not melee type, so the benefit is minimal. She relies on spells instead (of which she will run out). Wait till everyone else in the party takes the Tomb-Tained Soul feat or becomes undead. Then it might become a problem. —Sledged (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2007 (MDT)

Well, the last sentence is the issue that I guess caught my attention. Perhaps it is just that I've played with some players that will take things to extremes. I let them use an ability that has a neat concept and five levels later they have an "unkillable" character...go figure! :) I try not to be to particular on being a "word nazi" when interpreting the rules. I also try to go for the intent rather than the letter of the rules. With certain players, that invariably gets me into trouble. When I first saw this, I thought "wow, cool ability" then I thought "oh, another opportunity for one of my players to break the game and ruin the fun for everyone" becuase I can almost guarantee that once someone in the party took this, everyone else would end up with that feat... Darn munchkins!!! --Skwyd 20:17, 15 April 2007 (MDT)

Well, charnel touch pales in comparison to the shadow sun ninja's touch of the shadow sun class feature (Tome of Battle). And then there's utterdark blast eldritch essence which makes a warlock's eldritch blast deal negative energy damage. —Sledged (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2008 (MST)

Necropolitian

The Necropolitian template makes you undead with a LA of -1 i think it would be better than tomb-tainted, but only if you take it at lvl 1, if not you really go back one lvl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Propagandhi (talk • contribs) 2007-03-29 16:39:16. Please sign your posts.

True, but if you plan on taking all 20 levels of the dread necromancer, you'll cheat yourself out of lichdom because you no longer qualify. —Sledged (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2007 (MDT)

Unless, of course, your DM allows you to Buy Off Level Adjustments. Then you're good to go. -- Flession 20:22, 15 April 2007 (MDT)

Not really, in order to become a lich, you have to be humanoid. Applying the necropolitan template changes type to undead. The LA buy-off rule has nothing to do with type or qualifying for templates. —Sledged (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2007 (MDT)

After looking at the necropolitan template, I noticed it isn't a −1 LA template. It causes level loss instead (and drains another 1000 XP to boot). Also, it cannot be taken at 1st ECL. A character is destroyed without any chance of being raised or resurrected if he tries to take the template at 1st ECL.

In fact, if it were a −1 LA template, it would actually give the character a level's worth of class features to compensate for the loss of an ECL. —Sledged (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2007 (MDT)

Idea for build B

I really like this idea, I might use him as a villain someday (unfortunately I don't own any of the books required for build A, but build B seems nice). However, in order to really optimize things, you might want to give him Quicken Spell and make it a wizard, instead of just any arcane class. That way he can merrily blast away with his spells each round, and use the standard action to heal any damage. As long as he wards himself from magic (spell turning?) and doesn't let the PCs get too close, he should be fine. -- DemonSlayer 18:22, 13 April 2008

SRD

Clearly this isn't. Thus it is filed in the wrong place. Please move. 67.85.225.201 14:55, 12 August 2008 (MDT)

Build A is not SRD. Build B, however, is. They should more likely be split, really. --TK-Squared 18:33, 12 August 2008 (MDT)

Tricks and Tips or Dread Necromancer handbook?

Perhaps this should be under one of these? After all, this doesn't exactly give out a full build... Ghostwheel 06:20, 7 July 2009 (MDT)

Sounds reasonable to me. —Sledged (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Template

Go ahead and delete. I agree with Ghostwheel's comment above. —Sledged (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2018 (MST)