| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters of both types always influence the rest of the party. It's pretty much the caster characters who decide party make-up with my group.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my group everyone plays what they feel like regardless of what anyone else chooses. If someone asks me what role still needs to be filled, I always say, none, even if nobody has chosen a class yet, I don't believe anyone has to be shoehorned into a sepecific party role depending on what one or all of the other polayers chose.
Casters are important because they are simply put stronger then other classes. A party of Fighter/Rogue/Cavalier/Gunslinger is going to die horribly to any AP without extreme GM deus ex machina.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Divine casters mostly shape our party by way of 'Okay, who gets stuck playing the cleric this time?'.
None of us like playing Hit Point Oprah ("You get hit points! YOU get hit points! Everybody gets hit points!"), but the game all but requires it, between pathetically slow natural healing, ability damage and Daikitsu only knows what else.
My last campaign did not have a divine caster whatsoever, which left us pretty strapped for healing the first few levels - though we also knew that non-magical HP recovery would not be a problem since we expected to take as long as necessary between most encounters. We did have a Witch, so cure spells were accessible, but sparse. That was also our only spellcaster period (until I took leadership for a Wizard cohort).
This campaign I made a Cleric. The rest of the party didn't take my choice too much into consideration, but I did have to make it clear that this was a battle cleric who would mostly be buffing himself and would have very limited healing.
Casters of both types always influence the rest of the party. It's pretty much the caster characters who decide party make-up with my group.
While perhaps true, I would argue that any divine character has a naturally greater influence on party composition/play style due to alignment requirements.
Casters of both types always influence the rest of the party. It's pretty much the caster characters who decide party make-up with my group.While perhaps true, I would argue that any divine character has a naturally greater influence on party composition/play style due to alignment requirements.
Thus, Oracles FTW. Or the even better removal of alignment, of course.
Casters of both types always influence the rest of the party. It's pretty much the caster characters who decide party make-up with my group.While perhaps true, I would argue that any divine character has a naturally greater influence on party composition/play style due to alignment requirements.
Why would you say that, given that Divine Casters (or at least, Clerics) are not mandated to have a God (and thus an alignment requirement)?
Why would you say that, given that Divine Casters (or at least, Clerics) are not mandated to have a God (and thus an alignment requirement)?Casters of both types always influence the rest of the party. It's pretty much the caster characters who decide party make-up with my group.While perhaps true, I would argue that any divine character has a naturally greater influence on party composition/play style due to alignment requirements.
While that's true, we can still probably safely assume that any cleric who wants the good domain won't be able to play an evil character. Druids are required to be some kind of neutral. Paladins are famous/infamous for it.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but it's is a general truth that divine characters will have more hangups related to alignment (tied to their class mechanisms functioning) than any other class. A monk might need to be lawful, but he can still play with the chaotic Barbarian. The Paladin is liable to have some sort of mental breakdown after a while.
We play what we want. The GM will add what is needed and will augment the game depending on what we are playing.
For example, our next game is Rise of the Rune Lords. Everything I have heard is that it is Magic heavy boarding on the psychotic. ;P There is a straight fighter, a fighter Archer, Rogue/Cavalier, a Myrmidarch, a Druid/Oracle and my blackbladeMagus. Everyone is playing what they want. NOONE is playing a Cleric. The one playing the Druid is doing so because she loves to play them. (I'm not sure if she does it for wildshape). I know the game is going to be augmented for our group.
I like to have one full divine caster and one full arcane caster, but if not both at least one or the other. I often choose my character last to round a party out.
My party so far:
lv 7 aasimar oracle <- me
lv 7 half-orc Barbarian
lv 7 human monk
lv 7 human paladin
lv 1 elf rogue / 5 wizard / 1 swiftblade
lv 5 elf sorcerer / 2 dragon disciple
When i took the DM role my character were switched out for a Halfling Rogue/oppertunist by the previous DM who wanted to play, and the lack of cure wounds from my divine caster pretty much forced the entire party to stock up on healing items and try to conserve HP as they go. ( doesnt help that i bring them harder encounters in general due to lack of challenge from previous adventures )
So i would say that the lack of a Divine caster with more than 1-2 cure light wounds a day made my party a lot less "charge and barge" and when i pick up the player role again i am most likely only to do a damage/control role over being a healbot again.
The op is a big generalization. More so with alignment restrictions. If the first player to declare his pc is going: "I'm gonna build a necromancer wizard" that has more consequences than many divine caster builds. Because having a necromancer more or less rules out all good alignments while many gods can be mixed with a lot of alignments.
Or if someone wants to play a summoner there will often be no fighters because the eidolon is just plain better at low levels.
On the other hand some groups don't care about such things. One game in which I played had a undead hating dirge bard when another player declared to reroll as a necromancer. Tough luck for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only inherently evil thing about necromancy is the spell descriptor. And not even that is inherent.
The only inherently evil thing about necromancy is the spell descriptor. And not even that is inherent.
Sure. But undead are evil (with some rare exceptions) and thus creating and/or using them is evil as well and will not be accepted by most good folk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because undead are evil aligned doesn't mean using them is evil. Zombies and Skeletons for example are completely subjected to the creator's will, and can be used for good. As a matter of fact, if necromancy didn't have such a bad rep in most PF and DnD settings, they would have had perpetual energy nailed down a long time ago.
As long as your party is open minded you can fit a necromancer and a paladin in together.
As long as your party is open minded you can fit a necromancer and a paladin in together.
Depends on the circumstances. If the party is attacked by undead and the necromancer uses control undead to send one against the others that is totally ok. But if, after that, the necromancer insists on taking the undead along because the control spell still lasts 'till tomorrow I see no chance at all that a paladin can let that fly.
And in my earlier example it was an undead hating, undead hunting follower of pharasma who already was in the party when the necromancer joined.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if, after that, the necromancer insists on taking the undead along because the control spell still lasts 'till tomorrow I see no chance at all that a paladin can let that fly.
I don't see why not. An undead is an extremely useful multi-purpose tool, that works automatically and requires no sustained energy input. Denying its prolonged use would be a complete waste.
And in my earlier example it was an undead hating, undead hunting follower of pharasma who already was in the party when the necromancer joined.
Well unless this is the case of course. But that's what I mean with open minded.
|
Playing society I've found that the presence of a main fighter / 2 handed damage dealer determines the make-up of the rest of the group.
If there is at least one guy who will stand in front and dish out the damage and be the focus to receive, the group make-up almost becomes irrelevant. As long as someone can wand him back or assist durnig the combat, all's good.
I've played plenty of 1-5 level events with little or no cure casting capability. The higher levels become more "race events" without a healer but then you have an extra damage dealer.
The other issue is the number of party members...4 players will be far more selective than 6 or 7.
Our group actually prefers martials and partial casters for the most part. We usually have A Sorcerer or A Cleric but never both that I can remember except for a game with 6 players (normally we only have four).
To be honest, we're so content with that scenario I've been exploring options regarding the banning of all full casters as PC's but keeping them around as potential villains. Getting rid of full casters does remarkable things to keep party balance in-line from beginning to end, and keeps things like skills and role-play far more relevant.
But if, after that, the necromancer insists on taking the undead along because the control spell still lasts 'till tomorrow I see no chance at all that a paladin can let that fly.I don't see why not. An undead is an extremely useful multi-purpose tool, that works automatically and requires no sustained energy input. Denying its prolonged use would be a complete waste.
As far as I can tell, using control undead wouldn't be a strictly evil action. It's unlike the Create/Animate Dead spells in that it's without the [evil] descriptor. It should be acceptable as a practical solution by a Paladin who doesn't automatically assume that Necromancers, who practice the school of magic that deals with matters of life and death, is evil.
However if the controlling of undead offends her moral code (say she [for some reason] follows Pharasma or perhaps Sarenrae), and is happening "consistently" then she can't travel with the necromancer. Regardless, the Paladin will probably require some atonement spells.
Guys, "Necromancy" is not evil... its basically a spellschool controlling life energy.
Spells with the spell "Evil" in the descriptor however is quite evil, the descriptor of the spell decides the alignment of the spell not the school... if it did... no "Cure" spells for any evil aligned character in the entire series because positive energy is "good" after all.
As for channeling of energy its just the fluff. Good gods often promote the idea of creation ( positive energy. ) The evil gods promote destruction ( negative energy. ) Neutrals can choose: because hanging in the balance they are equal to both the destruction and creation for their purposes of balance between life and death.
So with that established: You can play a "Necromancer" and a Paladin in the same party, provided the necromancy of the wizard is manipulating lifeforce his own or others to improve their wellbeing, rather than reducing their wellbeing or raise the dead as zombies/undead ( as the spell says its "evil" )
Examples of "alright" necromancy spells can be:
"False Life"
"Disrupt undead" ( oh yes, its in the necromancy school )
"Bed of Iron"
"Scare"
"Sands of time"
"Vampiric touch"
None of these are "evil" in descriptor, and for the most part benefical rather than destructive.
Maybe it's just my group, but we've never had a cleric roll with us for longer than a few weeks at a time. We don't really rely on divine casters, but we just sort of build a party with the philosophy of "I play my cool idea, you play your cool idea" there will be some talk of party roles that need filling, but it's generally based on a lack of meatshields. No one wants to be the BSF.
For that reason, we have a conjurationist wizard, and a summoner, who can bring meatshields into the fight, with magus blasting and monk monkeying around.
I think it's obvious that people may choose characters based on the party, but I don't think this is specific to divine casters. A party with no fighter or meatshields will find other ways to put things in the way of the squishies and enemies so you will see more battlefield control and summons. A party without a skillmonkey may pick up a bard, or wizard for arcane utility or a 10ft pole. A party with an average of 7 charisma will likely see someone build a face. A party without a big damage dealer may see someone pick up a blaster, archer, or barbarian, etc...
I don't think it revolves around divine casters more than any other particular role.
Shape? Maybe. Really heavily on and are very grateful when someone opts to play one? Pretty much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's your list of evil necromancy
37 of 165 spells are evil.
Abjuration: 8/167
Illusion: 3/100
Conjuration: 18/262
Divination: 2/126
Transmutation: 4/471
Enchantment: 0/171
Evocation: 10/217Necromancy has more evil spells than 6 other schools combined, but I'd still say it's not evil unless you're picking from the list above. 128 other spells to use from it.
I don't get how enchantment has nothing evil. How is dominate person not an evil action. Forcing your will on someone.
Ironically I think enchantment is one of the more evil spell schools. I would have much more reservations toward someone who takes direct control of a living person, or tricks them into believing they're a friend, than someone who just takes control of a corpse, which is just lifeless meat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically I think enchantment is one of the more evil spell schools. I would have much more reservations toward someone who takes direct control of a living person, or tricks them into believing they're a friend, than someone who just takes control of a corpse, which is just lifeless meat.
Amen. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically I think enchantment is one of the more evil spell schools. I would have much more reservations toward someone who takes direct control of a living person, or tricks them into believing they're a friend, than someone who just takes control of a corpse, which is just lifeless meat.Amen. :P
Yeah, unless it's established that creating undead harms the person's soul or something, it strikes me as something which is probably frowned upon but not actually evil.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing that I think would be evil IRL, but is accepted in fantasyland is binding the spirits of elements to create constructs. <----That is just as bad as creating undead, but for the sake of simplicity I just go by what the game calls evil.
|
Another thing that I think would be evil IRL, but is accepted in fantasyland is binding the spirits of elements to create constructs. <----That is just as bad as creating undead, but for the sake of simplicity I just go by what the game calls evil.
It depend on how you go around doing it (and that is somewhat true for making undead, too). If you contact the elemental beforehand and struck an agreement it would be non-evil (or better non-enslavement). But that way you would be crafting an intelligent construct with free will.
Similarly some character can want to become a undead and struck some kind of deal (mostly guardian spirits or undead willingly bound to protect a location).I have always been doubtful about the "golem animated by a intelligent elemental but with no intelligence" rule.
Especially as a animated object is very similar to a golem but don't require a elemental spirit to animate it.
For me a mindless golem is essentially a robot without any level of conscience, but that isn't the Pathfinder canon.
Ashiel and I have had several discussion about undead. There too Pathfinder canon and personal preferences don't always meet.
Pathfinder canon are Romero hungry zombies, end even skeleton seem to fall in that category, with their evil alignment, while Ashiel preference is for neutral automaton zombie and skeletons. I am ambivalent with that, but liked the older LN mummies, guardians willingly bound to eternally protect a location.
The key part is willingly for all the above options. A necromancer that transform only people that willingly want to become an undead isn't a evil guy if your campaign allow non evil undead or at least undead that don't hunger for living energy.
The older editions examples of neutral and even sometime good liches that were researchers that wanted to continue their work forever or protect some people or location had some interesting storytelling potential.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing that I think would be evil IRL, but is accepted in fantasyland is binding the spirits of elements to create constructs. <----That is just as bad as creating undead, but for the sake of simplicity I just go by what the game calls evil.It depend on how you go around doing it (and that is somewhat true for making undead, too). If you contact the elemental beforehand and struck an agreement it would be non-evil (or better non-enslavement). But that way you would be crafting an intelligent construct with free will.
Similarly some character can want to become a undead and struck some kind of deal (mostly guardian spirits or undead willingly bound to protect a location).I have always been doubtful about the "golem animated by a intelligent elemental but with no intelligence" rule.
Especially as a animated object is very similar to a golem but don't require a elemental spirit to animate it.For me a mindless golem is essentially a robot without any level of conscience, but that isn't the Pathfinder canon.
Ashiel and I have had several discussion about undead. There too Pathfinder canon and personal preferences don't always meet.
Pathfinder canon are Romero hungry zombies, end even skeleton seem to fall in that category, with their evil alignment, while Ashiel preference is for neutral automaton zombie and skeletons. I am ambivalent with that, but liked the older LN mummies, guardians willingly bound to eternally protect a location.The key part is willingly for all the above options. A necromancer that transform only people that willingly want to become an undead isn't a evil guy if your campaign allow non evil undead or at least undead that don't hunger for living energy.
The older editions examples of neutral and even sometime good liches that were researchers that wanted to continue their work forever or protect some people or location had some interesting storytelling potential.
The rules assume they are not agreeing to be bound. That is they golems go bezerk in core, and in Ebberon(3.5) the vehicles powered by them could have problems.
Of course a GM can change anything, but bringing that in changes the basis of any discussion.
edit: The elemental spirit does not make the golem intelligent because it is not controlling the golem. It's lifeforce is just being used to power it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think zombies and skeletons should be neutral, and I think James Jacobs tried to argue for it, but it was not accepted.
The only way they should inherently be evil is if they are set out to kill unless ordered not to, and in that case the creation of them should be evil, but they can't be evil because they have no intelligence.<----That is my logical opinion, not a rules based observation.
|
|
I also think zombies and skeletons should be neutral, and I think James Jacobs tried to argue for it, but it was not accepted.
The only way they should inherently be evil is if they are set out to kill unless ordered not to, and in that case the creation of them should be evil, but they can't be evil because they have no intelligence.<----That is my logical opinion, not a rules based observation.
Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.[/quote+
Skeletons don't have that kind of text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think zombies and skeletons should be neutral, and I think James Jacobs tried to argue for it, but it was not accepted.
The only way they should inherently be evil is if they are set out to kill unless ordered not to, and in that case the creation of them should be evil, but they can't be evil because they have no intelligence.<----That is my logical opinion, not a rules based observation.Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.Skeletons don't have that kind of text.
I thought I remembered that but I was being lazy. In that case creating zombies can be evil since it puts lives in danger especially since skeletons can be made if you just want manual labor.
Casters are important because they are simply put stronger then other classes. A party of Fighter/Rogue/Cavalier/Gunslinger is going to die horribly to any AP without extreme GM deus ex machina.
Not really, if you notice in an AP they always have a solution to a problem where magic is not required. Magic make things easier but an all martial party is very strong. Brute force works when you that kind of raw DPR. Healing is the only real issue I find in groups like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are important because they are simply put stronger then other classes. A party of Fighter/Rogue/Cavalier/Gunslinger is going to die horribly to any AP without extreme GM deus ex machina.Not really, if you notice in an AP they always have a solution to a problem where magic is not required. Magic make things easier but an all martial party is very strong. Brute force works when you that kind of raw DPR. Healing is the only real issue I find in groups like that.
I can say with confidence that if at the very least that if say Runelord Karzoug does not mop the floor with the above party, then he is either being played like he has INT 7 or the GM is throwing them significant help.
But if, after that, the necromancer insists on taking the undead along because the control spell still lasts 'till tomorrow I see no chance at all that a paladin can let that fly.I don't see why not. An undead is an extremely useful multi-purpose tool, that works automatically and requires no sustained energy input. Denying its prolonged use would be a complete waste.
Because the dead should be left to rest in a proper burial, etc. Rare is the faith that considers 'undead slave" to be the endpoint of the mortal remains, and "who cares?" isn't very common either. Also, the fact it's illegal in many areas.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, unless it's established that creating undead harms the person's soul or something, it strikes me as something which is probably frowned upon but not actually evil.Ironically I think enchantment is one of the more evil spell schools. I would have much more reservations toward someone who takes direct control of a living person, or tricks them into believing they're a friend, than someone who just takes control of a corpse, which is just lifeless meat.Amen. :P
Creating undead stops Raise Dead from restoring that creature to life, so it is somewhat harmful to that person just because it prevents easy return to life. That probably counts as some kind of harm to the soul.
A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell.
Because the dead should be left to rest in a proper burial, etc. Rare is the faith that considers 'undead slave" to be the endpoint of the mortal remains, and "who cares?" isn't very common either. Also, the fact it's illegal in many areas.But if, after that, the necromancer insists on taking the undead along because the control spell still lasts 'till tomorrow I see no chance at all that a paladin can let that fly.I don't see why not. An undead is an extremely useful multi-purpose tool, that works automatically and requires no sustained energy input. Denying its prolonged use would be a complete waste.
In that case it's purely about localized social acceptability. That at worst makes it chaotic.
Yeah, unless it's established that creating undead harms the person's soul or something, it strikes me as something which is probably frowned upon but not actually evil.Ironically I think enchantment is one of the more evil spell schools. I would have much more reservations toward someone who takes direct control of a living person, or tricks them into believing they're a friend, than someone who just takes control of a corpse, which is just lifeless meat.Amen. :PCreating undead stops Raise Dead from restoring that creature to life, so it is somewhat harmful to that person just because it prevents easy return to life. That probably counts as some kind of harm to the soul.
A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell.
That is actually a good point. So in a society that accepts creating undead, if the world is one where returning the dead to life is possible, I guess they would have to have a system for registering your undead. So you could terminate the undead in case someone wishes to attempt resurrecting them. Or only allow raising people who died of old age.
The presence or absence of the big caster(s) pretty much decides encounters in my opinion. How likely are you going to tackle that Dragon knowing your Cleric is away. Do you dare fight multiple vampires without arcane support?
I know in my case the party has avoided fights because our wizard was away.
The presence or absence of the big caster(s) pretty much decides encounters in my opinion. How likely are you going to tackle that Dragon knowing your Cleric is away. Do you dare fight multiple vampires without arcane support?
I know in my case the party has avoided fights because our wizard was away.
Honestly, INMFO, the GM needs to take party capabilities into account. If you don't have a cleric or other good way to handle vampires, then the GM should not throw vampires at the party, or at the very least do so sparingly and keep in mind that weakness so the battle remains fair.
Encounters should be tailored to the PCs, not the other way around.
The presence or absence of the big caster(s) pretty much decides encounters in my opinion. How likely are you going to tackle that Dragon knowing your Cleric is away. Do you dare fight multiple vampires without arcane support?
I know in my case the party has avoided fights because our wizard was away.
Honestly, INMFO, the GM needs to take party capabilities into account. If you don't have a cleric or other good way to handle vampires, then the GM should not throw vampires at the party, or at the very least do so sparingly and keep in mind that weakness so the battle remains fair.
Encounters should be tailored to the PCs, not the other way around.
Sometimes GM's dont have time. This is mostly for AP's.