Speaking as someone who's really done his research into 5e, there are a few sticking points to that class that immediately jump out at me personally (especially when I compare it to what would be its alternative, which is the Necromancy Wizard).

1. d8 hit dice versus the Wizard's d6--I'm not entirely sure why a class that is basically a Wizard but with its own set of feats that don't relate to HP gets a bigger hit die. This class is a full caster class, unlike the Artificer. If their feats damaged themselves or something like that, I'd see the reason for it, but as-is, I think it should stay at a d6, personally.

2. Using Charisma instead of Intelligence for the spellcasting ability--I take issue when a homebrew spellcaster class wants to use Charisma instead of Intelligence, because in my experience, more often than not, they really just want to use the "better" stat for spellcasting. This class is flavored like a Wizard: a Necromancer uses a Spellbook, they prepare spells by studying and memorizing them like a Wizard does, and they cast them using their memory and knowledge. There isn't really a reason they should be using Charisma, when all of these traits are tied to Intelligence.

3. Resisting Poison--Now, this isn't as bad as some actual RAW feats that already exist, like how a race can get an IMMUNITY to poison (I'm still constantly wondering wtf WotC were smoking when they came up with Yuan-Ti Pureblood racials). Feats that grant innate resistances are strong as it is, especially if that type is Poison or Fire. But this single, 3rd-level feat is doing two other things on top of that (though I don't personally mind necrotic resistance being tacked on at all, despite Necromancy Wizards not gaining this resistance until Level 10). This gets especially rough when you consider that Wizards don't normally even get a feat at this level in order to balance the fact that they are now capable of preparing and casting their next spell level. Which brings me to my next point of contention....

4. The sheer number of feats--If you look back at the Wizard's class table, you might notice a pattern. They don't get many feats: Starting from Level 2, they get a single feat every fourth level (2, 6, 10, etc.). They get a feat, then nothing, then an ASI, then nothing again, and then another feat. This is because they don't really need that many feats because they can prepare and utilize such a wide variety of spells in large numbers.


I understand that the CONCEPT of the class is different from the Wizard, but...this class as written just seems like it wants to take the best parts of the wizard, and then add more feats without making any negative changes to compensate. Aaand the Wizard is already one of the strongest classes in 5e imo, right up there with Cleric and Bard. This concept CAN work, but imo, it definitely needs a lot of tinkering.

The easiest way to nerf this appropriately would probably to give them the spell slots of a Half-Caster. Or maybe restrict their spells to a maximum number of "Spells Known" like the Bard/Ranger, instead of having access to such a wide variety at all times. Or one could even compile a whole different list of spells as a "Necromancer Spell List" instead of just using the Wizard's. I'm also fine if a spellcaster wants to be a Charisma caster, but it has to be flavored appropriately, and not just Copy-Pasted from the Wizard.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. I don't mean to rain on a parade, but this does just seem pretty strong to me. xD I'm not gonna lie, I'm a fan of the concept of taking a branch from the Wizard and making it its own designated spellcasting class, though. So if we wanted to take the time and effort into making quite a few changes, this could be a fun inclusion.