AestheticDialectic's page

Being able to use Computers actions from a distance, and potentially also on multiple devices at once, sounds like a no-brainer feat or series of feats on this class.

I was thinking about this sorta thing specifically at work today. I don't know if there is any precedent outside of archetypes, but what if technomancer got technomancer specific skill feats for this? One of my issues is that a lot of feats on the class look really good already and choosing some glorified skill actions for flavor at the expense of some of the cool feats the class already has is quite difficult, but maybe if they take up a skill feat then we might be cooking

This is true, though making it a focus spell also means it cuts down on the number of frequency-gated stuff you get, as right now it's essentially a pseudo-focus spell you'll be able to use alongside everything else you'd get, including at 3 FP. Giving it an action cost as a tradeoff to put it on par with others means you could theoretically get the option to switch to 3 cached spells in an encounter (effectively all of your spells at level 2), but at the cost of overclocking or spellshaping, so it'd be like a deck of limited hacks per encounter to layer on top of your spells and gear.

Yeah, and this is what I meant by opportunity cost. Right now it is a free action, but as an action focus spell you may well be right and I think this is a worthwhile idea for paizo to play test and stress test because it seems really cool

I do think the issue isn't so much that the Technomancer is a 3-slot caster, but more that the Mystic and Witchwarper were 4-slot casters with a meaty base chassis on top. That was a majorly complained-about element of the playtest, and it looks to me like the Starfriends have tuned down the balancing to match Pathfinder's more closely, with the Technomancer being one of the results.

What I will say, however, is that being a 3-slot caster might be a problem still for the Technomancer, not so much because the class is weak (some of their mechanics look super-strong, especially Download Spell), but because their rank 1 and 3 focus spells are all spellshapes, meaning that once they run out of spell slots, their only fallback options will be cantrips, which at levels 3-4 especially would be quite a sharp drop. As much as I like the fantasy of hacking into magic and want that preserved, I do think this ought to be the opportunity to move the gear overclocking to focus spells, rather than a class feature that requires you to spend a spell slot first, so that you can then get a free-action spellshape in the fight (which, again, piles on a resource cost). Not only would this make the class less resource-hungry, it'd also put their techno aspect more to the forefront, as that's been one of the more immediate criticisms of the class right now.

What if the technomancer has their spellshape focus spell from their subclass and a focus spell that simply overclocks something that is just given as a baseline part of the chassis (2 focus point to start). And nothing else is changed, no loss in power or abilities. Does this solve the issue?

Further clarification you can overclock normally with a slotted spell, or by using said focus spell. Both work

Starfinder classes certainly felt to me as being wildly overtuned...

3 slots AND 6hp is pretty brutal. As far as I'm concerned a class should follow the wizard/sorc paradigm or "the rest" paradigm for caster proficiencies in regards to their number of slots (witch and physic being outliers). If mystic and ww lose a slot, then they should keep the 8hp and armor. Otherwise they can keep the 4 slots and lose health/armor

I think their class abilities and feats would get stronger and more impactful for the trade off and 6hp makes compatibility with pathfinder better. I suggested that the meta be accounted for by equipment and not class chassis, and I'm hoping they did this and so 6hp will be mitigated this way, but wishful thinking until we see the core book. I think they will all retain light armor though

They don't do much software-y stuff though? If you had a metamagic focused wizard who also sometimes enchants his robes to defend him, most would not call that a tech class.

The metamagic is the tech. You're treating spells like software, like a program. The overclock thing is kind of tertiary imo. I think it just exists to jailbreak, but the fact the class has such a modular design to the gameplay is very tech-y. I know you and others said it's "just flavor" but so is enchanting robes as you mentioned. If I had to make a stab here it's that you, like myself, wanted more hardware focused stuff

I thought about it for a while, and I think that what I wanted where the technomancer was conjuring artillery and magically constructing machines, walls, turrets, and guns, steps on the toes of the mechanic and that's why they have a split between hardware(mechanic) and software(technomancer). Hacking is definitionally tech, and they are absolutely treating magic like technology and like a code. So I see no issue outside the fact I was hoping for something hardware/mechanical focused, but I understand why I didn't get that

I do think that the question of what a Wizard is or should be could become much easier to answer in a game system where thematic casters were much more common, or even the norm. PF2e isn't a game that accommodates thematic casters super-well for the most part, and when people expect one, many will turn to the Wizard despite the Wizard being arguably the least specialized caster in the game. Part of that I think comes from the Wizard in past editions being able to spec into a specific school of magic, and part of it I think is that the Wizard is such a nebulous term outside of the TTRPG space that most fictional mages get lumped in as Wizards. In a game that had a dedicated illusionist, a dedicated necromancer (which we're getting!), and perhaps a few more casters that broach a theme normally covered by the Wizard, the Wizard could stand out specifically as the kind of class that can cover multiple basis at some tradeoff. I don't think this necessarily means making a brand-new class for every OGL school of magic, as I don't personally think there's that much narrative meat to a dedicated evoker or abjurer class besides a runelord, but it could certainly help the Wizard if they didn't try to carve lots of niches at once, nor were expected to satisfy a playerbase's desire for both extreme specialization and extreme versatility.

My ideal solution is that we get classes like Necromancer, Illusionist/Mesmer, Warmage whatever, and those are all specific classes with bespoke feats, but they are all under a "super class" of "wizard" which would be a list of feats across all of these thematic specialized wizards. Wizard itself would not be a class, and you couldn't take multiclass dedications of other wizard classes except by variant rule. These classes can have different baseline abilities, not have to reprint feats such as quicken spell and effortless concentration in a book saving space, and they could use different tradition's spell lists if that makes sense for them

I do think the point stands. In Tolkien's works, the five wizards are all servants of great angelic figures and their magic comes from their own divine nature, as well as their training. In the world of Earthsea, wizards are born with magical ability that they then train later, and similarly the wizard Merlin derives his own powers from his demon father. What counts as a wizard varies immensely from fiction to fiction, to the point where the similarities are often entirely aesthetic (i.e. pointy hat, magic, and a staff). Thus, there will inevitably be at least some players who won't find the exact Wizard they want, and that shouldn't be an obstacle to dig into the identity Paizo chose for their class, which is that of an arcane spellcaster whose magic derives entirely from study. That in and of itself is a rich identity to draw from, and part of the issue the Wizard has right now isn't so much that their core identity is lacking, but that their options only draw from an extremely limited facet of their identity, as opposed to a greater totality.

and more to the point sorcery is almost always associated with learned magic in fantasy media EXCEPT d20 fantasy. Which really just consists of two games. Dark Souls sorcerers are intelligence based studious practitioners of magic, Diablo same deal, Rune Quest has editions where sorcery is the learned magic and so on. It's extremely rare that the word "sorcery" refers to innate magic

Deriven Firelion wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

I wonder why its so hard to get this one class right but others are relatively ok some even great, what is so special about the wizard?

In fantasy, Merlin, Gandalf, Raistlin, Saruman, Morgana Le Fay, Bayaz, Circe, and the list of fantasy wizards could go on.

Gandalf, Saruman, and the Istari from LotR are really more Clerics than Wizards in d20 terms, and aren't the best example, in fairness.

I've seen this contested. Frankly they still count. If they're not wizards, then they are angels or something equivalent. They're certainly not clerics

But I disagree with the thrust of Deriven's point. "wizard" is a catch all, even in fantasy, and has no discernable difference between itself and sorcerer, warlock, mage, whatever. The game could easily lose the wizard class and lose nothing

Unless a Class Archetype fixes Wizard it is very much playable just boring till you get to the levels where you get stuff like secondary detonation which is a super powerful feat exclusive for wizards but comes online far to late for most people to use it. They just need some help rather it is better focus spells, hyper unique focus cantrips via feats (Which be cool), Spell Subsection as base class feature. Just something to make them go, "Hello, I am the master of the arcane arts and everyone else is just a copycat."

I do also agree that far too many feats for the wizard are upshifted too high. Knowledge is Power should be a level 1 feat or feature but is a level 8 feat

You're focused on the prepared casting because it's all you have to argue for the wizard. Which should tell you something about the class when it is so lacking in class features comparatively to other caster classes that you can't even tout good builds compared to other prepared casters.

I could breakdown great builds for the druid, cleric, and magus using prepared casting. I can't do that much with the wizard.

I'd be quite satisfied with the wizard as a prepared caster if their feats and class features better supported the versatility so often attributed to them and their feats made for some fun builds.

Cleric is a complicated one because it is the best class in the game. Divine list is stacked, it has a great chassis, divine font and good feats only lacking wr2 focus spells for some domains. I don't think it should be our measure because it over performs compared to everything... But I this isn't important really. I was going to go on a tangent about how I think the druid is actually insanely boring and not very good, but you and I don't disagree that giving the wizard a few things would be welcomed. The disagreement is that you want to make them more like other classes, but I see their issue as having too low of a skill floor, and not too low of skill ceiling. The skill ceiling of the wizard I would only put barely below the best casters in the system, but I would put the floor even lower because it requires system mastery wr2 prepared casting. This is why my recommendations have been about raising the floor and steering players in the right direction. The wizard has sneaky power hidden in otherwise very unglamorous feats and features. I would also welcome a change that gives those feats and features more aesthetic appeal to emphasize them more, but I don't agree with positions such as making spell substitution too good(which defeats the point, purpose and fun of prepared casting) nor that they should have more and stronger focus spells. Of all the casters I think the wizard in specific should be the one designed without focus spells in mind and if they didn't already have them I would like to see experimentation with the wizard class and designing them without any at all. It's the one class that I think should be build around those daily preparations primarily and exclusively. So my push back will always and primarily be against removing this identity from the class as it is to my mind the central thing

We both want the class to have more toys, but I specifically do not like when suggestions seek to homogenize casters too much. They're already too homogeneous

You claim I'm wrong while not providing any evidence than a theory video. I play all these classes. I have listed multiple feats, spells, class features, and the like proving what I am stating is true. You ignore all of it because you seem to play one caster and no others so you don't even have knowledge of the other casters to compare.

If you have been playing so much, please provide multiple examples where constantly changing out your spell load allowed you to perform at superior level in combat?

I've already stated that a Spell Substitution wizard with a well built spellbook can shine in non-combat situations where time allows them to load out problem solving spells.

Problem is will they perform better than a rogue using skills or a group coming up with a plan using their pooled resources? Is it more fun for the group to wait for the wizard to solve the non-combat problem with spells or do so as a group?

When you call someone wrong, please provide more evidence as I have provided sufficient evidence to the contrary where a statement "Deriven is wrong" with no evidence to prove why as an extremely weak counterargument.

Mainly because I'm not interested in rehashing any arguments, nor am I particularly invested in convincing you in specific. You have shown in the details of how you play that you simply don't interact with the tools prepared casting gives you in order to maximize its potential, and because spontaneous is actually very good in this edition you simply think prepared sucks because it isn't always better and not leaps and bounds better. They're simply both viable options and I don't need you writing the same walls of text about the same class features and feats again and again. I don't agree with your assessment, I think the way you play is not suited to prepared casting, but also that this is fine. There is simply a large personality difference between us here. For example you see it as an inconsistency that I mention both substitution and blending as things which provide a lot of power and potential to wizards because they cannot be taken simultaneously, but to me it's an open ended question. These are abilities which push the power and capacities of the class in different powerful directions

I don't know if it is worth my time to argue with someone who is convinced the same handful of spells are the only good ones, that top levels slots beyond 3-4 are not worthwhile, nor really sees the power and potential in the modularity and flexibility of changing your entire load out day-to-day, and I mean this sincerely. I do think frequently getting the most out of prepared casting is in practical terms going to mean you swap well over half your spells according to the situation and team composition. You don't play in a way or with people where this would be necessary or facilitated well. We simply will not see eye to eye on this. It won't happen

Oh, and the video is not a theory video. It's instructional, just need to clarify that point

You can change your spellbook day to day, but why would you if you already have most useful spells in your repertoire ?

Cuz Deriven is simply wrong that the best way to play any spellcaster is to simply have and use the assumed power house spells. Generally prepared casters do best in sandbox adventures and anything with this degree of freedom where you can use your time to learn what you'll deal with each day. If you only prepare your fears, slows, haste and such, you will be worse than a spontaneous caster, but that's absolutely not how a prepared casters should be played at all. I'll just link video that's good on the subject

This stuff has already been answered:

1. 2 more top slots spell blending equates to one extra fight per day if you have a lot of fights. At high level it is extremely rare you run out of slots at all.

The sorcerer who builds to blast or with some useful focus spell, can use a top level focus spell in place of a spell as long as they can refocus.

Why do those arguing for more top level slots with the Spell Blending thesis keep overlooking focus spells?

2 more top level spell slots, even make it four if you blend for a two more one level lower spell slots, can often be matched by a quality blasting or utility focus spell.

If you even manage to go through enough encounters for the top level slots to matter.

2. Changing out spells: A wizard has 27 normal slots and 9 school slots and one use of Arcane Bond, maybe another if they take the feat 2 levels slot.

This will give them 36 total slots per day with 9 limited to a school spell and one spontaneous casting of a spell they already cast.

Whereas a sorcerer with Arcane Evolution knows 36 spells know, 9 of them bloodline spells limited to the type of bloodline, Then one additional spell from their spellbook that is either an additional signature spell or an additional spell know of the highest level.

This gives them a total 37 spells known.

Then if they take Greater Mental Evolution at level 16, they know another 9 spells, maybe 10 if the DM is particularly generous with allowing them to know another level 10 spell.

Then if they take Greater Crossblooded Evolution. They know 3 more spells from another bloodline heightened to maximum level.

This gives them 48 spells know plus one flexible spell known from a spellbook for a total of 49 spells known.

So a level 18 sorcerer with signature spells will have up to

Bloodline Spell
4 Spells Known
3 spells from another bloodline
1 Flexible spell from Arcane Evolution
And 8 lower level signature spells.

So with their 4 maxi level slots, a sorcerer at level 18 has 17 total...

That's cool, spontaneous casters have their advantages. As it should be. Spontaneous still can't completely change their repitiore day-to-day. As a prepared casters I can just decide to be a whole different guy tomorrow and it rocks. Spontaneous casters have encounter to encounter flexibility but are rigid otherwise. That encounter to encounter flexibility is very good and cool, it's not always better though. There is also something disingenuous about framing it as 45 spells known. Wizards can and will be able to fill each of their slots with a different spell. 4x9+1 is already 37, and 43 with cantrips, 44 with their starting focus spell even if their starting focus spell isn't fantastic. Split slot at 6 can bring us to 45 even, and scroll adept brings it to 47. You can get the second focus spell going to 48. Need I go on? It's clearly not a meaningful way to talk about either class and involves framing that doesn't really get at the core strengths or weaknesses

Teridax wrote:

as I understand this is one of the reasons why the Wizard and the Magus have a below-average number of baseline trained skills.

Nah. It's bad design driven by legacy assumptions, which, for some reason, didn't merit correction in the remaster. These are the only classes without an effective 4+Int trained skills at base.

The Wizard and the Wizard alone is the only Int class that Paizo felt the need to "control" for Int.

Every other Int based class has 4 skills, either directly or given for use via a class feature to bring it up to 4.

I run out of skills I want to use on a wizard before I finish filling them out. Tf you need more skills for

A wizard starts with 9 total skills, 9 of 17 base skills. That's roughly 53%. You really only need the int skills plus a few flavor skills, and you'll really only be progressing three skills. So, sincerely, the hell do you need more skills for? Most classes are gonna start with something like 3-4, maybe 5, skills and that's it. Which is plenty

I was playing Diablo 4 because of this play test class making me really want to play a necromancer somewhere, and was kind of thinking about how making undead "mages" appears to be a big part of the fantasy, but something extremely tricky to pull off for a class like this. Likewise Tiny Tina's Wonderlands has a class called the "Graveborn" that has a demolich companion that also casts spells. Typically in games it seems these are just undead that shoot projectiles, which is quite uninteresting in a ttrpg... but I was thinking, what if all the class's low level spellcasting got put into some kind of spellcaster thralls you could create via a feat somewhere in the mid levels. The class switches to bounded casting, but instead of something like studious spells, you can summon one or two thralls that have set spells memorized. During your daily preparations you creation a thrall or two with spells ranks up to -2, -3 or -4 prepared as the case may be. You get a set list of guys with thematic spells that you can choose from, and a later feat can maybe let you rotate them out midday

This is absolutely weaker than what we have now with more restrictions, but wins out on flavor and may give us a little more power budget to juice up thralls even more and still have a spellcasting fantasy

I see alot of mentions of the void being part of the vital essence but I don't think this neccesarily holds true.

This is explicitly stated with no ambiguity in Secrets of Magic. Void and Vitality make up the two halves of the vital essence, described as positive and negative energy in the book as it was pre-ogl crisis

I honestly hate when things that could have been text are instead turned into a video, but maybe I'm just old.

Especially for lengthy detailed things.

I cut portions of text to respond to. I can think and make a detailed response myself.

With a video....none of that is happening.

I only like video where a visual of something can be incredibly helpful in ways that words cannot describe. Like the assembly or disassembly of something.

Also (and not saying this was OP's intention) but a ton of people post youtube videos trying to get internet famous/clout and get "youtube monney" and I'm not interested in participating in that.

They're a YouTuber, it's what they do. ThrabenU is a Magic: The Gathering YouTuber who primarily makes content playing the legacy format and this is their second channel they recently made dedicated to Pathfinder. Far as I'm concerned they already have "clout" and this is a courtesy to let some of us know this content exists, and I for one am glad because I like ThrabenU

Maybe the problem is that they mixed up "the wizard list" and "the arcane list" too much.

To me at least, one of the key themes of a wizard is someone who studies the fundamentals and tries to get around the apparent limitations. It's part of the class identity that they're doing things no god intended. Wizard magic should be a bit outside it's appointed lane.

So they could have kept the arcane list a bit more pure, but let wizards color more outside those lines specifically as their class trick.

An arcane sorcerer would be practicing more purely arcane magic, and a wizard through hackery can do things the sorcerer won't have access to. (And an arcane witch gets some lessons from the patron to color outside the lines too..)

I believe that across the board the lists should be much smaller, much tighter and less all encompassing. Then we just give classes the ability to add more spells to their list according to theme. Maybe wizards do this more, maybe they don't. Wizards already seem to have a theme in manipulating spell slots and doing better meta magic so I think that's their lane... But I digress. We won't see this resolved until 3e though

Class feats, and by extension focus spells, are also not unlike class specific spell lists in posing the same problem of needing to be continually updated...

I really don't want this class to be pick-a-list and will grit my teeth at occult to avoid that. Pick-a-list is such a thematic void

Personally, I don't want to go back to a bunch of class-specific spell lists (that end up with 80-90+% overlap; at which point, why were they differentiated).

If there is a specific small selection of divine spells (harm or heal, necromancer's generosity, etc.), then a class feat that adds those 3-5 specific spells (similar to the way a cleric gets a handful of spells added to their available list based on deity) is IMO the best way to handle this within the paradigms of PF2. You can have a "White Necromancer" that adds heal and a few vitality spells from the divine list and a "Black Necromancer" that adds harm and a few void spells from the divine list.

only looking at the divine list and not on occult:

It's not 3-5 lol

I imagine a primal necro would be throwing elemental skeletons at dudes

Massacre I overlooked, and you make a pretty good argument there. Curious that it’s on arcane and primal, but not occult. That brings up something to consider; this class should be very good at death effects. If the occult list lacks those, and that’s one thing I did not check, then that’s a problem.

Necromancer Generosity I did see, but I counted it as a healing spell. It looked like many of the ones not occult were more on the healing side, or I could see living without. But again, you’ve got a point about massacre.

Arcane lacks the undead spirit spells that occult shares with divine. I assume those were what tipped the scale towards occult; certainly they were what caused me to be okay with occult.

I think this is why this thread is asking for a unique spell list, like the elemental ones. Ofc that has issues, but the game has a tag system and we can reference those for spells appropriate for various necromancer themes to bolster a baseline spell list. The fact this class has to learn spells like a wizard, and has very few slots that are prepared I think will help force people to pick a theme, pick a lane, and stick with it even if we expand the occult list to include these spells for this class in particular. Otherwise we could have subclasses have a spell or two of each level it adds like cleric domains

Actually I'm sick of pick-a-list casters, and I rather have occult only than have pick-a-list again. We have witches, sorcerers, summoners and the animist also gets close. Rune Smith uses every tradition for their abilities. I don't find pick-a-list interesting or compelling... But I should make this argument on that thread

For me, that’d be the worst of all worlds. You’d water down anything interesting about picking the occult list AND reinforce my least favorite aspect of the divine tradition. If healing is that important, then they should just use the divine list and be done with it. Then at least something interesting and transformative, namely that this would be a divine clash with no particular reference or need for any outside entity empowering you, is going on.

Also, had this class been based on primal or arcane, then yeah, sure, that’d make sense. But not occult. That’s too close to divine for that to make enough meaningful difference, aside from the increased access to healing.

I’m probably sounding harsher than I intend, and I apologize for that. If that helps you play the character you want, then it is impotent fur you to say so. But for me, it’s probably the most boring option they could possibly take.

There is a list of spells I found on the divine list, and not on the occult list, that would be included on this list that occult doesn't get including Massacre and Necromancer's Generosity. In fact most were void tagged and not vitality or spirit tagged. So it does a lot more. I also wouldn't be opposed to them being arcane and then getting this feat/feature, as frankly anything occult has for a necromancer it appears arcane has it too...

Yeah, the more I think about the more I think the compromise is a class feature, or a feat(less desirable), that adds non-sanctified void, vitality and spirits spells from the other three lists to the occult list (so you *may* learn them). Not only do I think this doesn't increase the power budget much at all (two slots per level is a huge restriction), but I think it also bridges the gap in flavor. Occult I think was partly chosen because typically divine requires faith to access, but occult, like arcane, is accessed with knowledge and learning (mind essence). This feature could be given the name "divine transgression". "You've learned to transgress the boundaries preventing ordinary learned spellcasters from accessing the full power of the vital essence. This heterodox, perhaps even heretical, approach to magic has allowed you to count any spells with the void, vitality and spirit traits as occult spells as long as they don't also have the sanctified trait." Or something to this effect. I think this is how we square the circle. It's a bit more than a ribbon feature, but for a good number of necromancer themes I think it will be a ribbon feature

They can also keep it occult but extend the list or have a low level feat/feature extend the list by adding vitality, void and spirit spells from other lists

I also thinking being an intelligence class transgressing the boundaries into divine magic is well and truly the kind of heterodox approach that is befitting the necromancer in any conception

Basic occult spells will "utilizes the powers of life and death in combat", like Soothe and Void Warp.

One issue here is that soothe is not a vital spell. It was enchantment before, and now still is about calming the mind, not healing someone with vital essence. It's really not the power of *life*

I only care about the real world origin of the term necromancy for the class because my character I want to play I would like to commune with the dead. I want them to have the heal spell not because I think necromancers must heal, but because it comes with the domain of vital and void. Life and death. I just want options in the class that allow this kind of necromancer. He summons the aid of spirits, consults the dead, put restless spirits to sleep, utilizes the powers of life and death in combat, and if he does make undead it's temporarily using the corpses of slain enemies (or specially prepared remains perhaps) to give his spirit allies/friends a more tangible form

Players who want to go full evil, raise zombies and only wield death magic should be able to do so, but that's hardly enough for one class

Frankenstein doesn't need to be a part of this discussion. The novel was the first ***science fiction*** story. Frankenstein was not a necromancer, or an inventor, or an alchemist. He was a doctor

And his creation was not undead, or possessed by a spirit, or anything. The creation was just kind of a guy. He liked the novel Paradise Lost quite a bit

A lot of people may disagree with me, but I believe a necromancer should have abilities like healing and raising the dead. What kind of necromancer can't revive people? People have become too accustomed to the Diablo necromancer and have forgotten that the whole point of being a necromancer is to resurrect the dead.

Yeah, the ability to express the full range of necromancy should be in the class. People can simply choose to not prepare heal if they find this all to be too outside of their purely edgy conception. I want my necromancer holding void and vitality in each hand and connected to the spirits

Unfortunately there are a lot of undead it won't work on though. Many are immune to Mental abilities and Soothe has the Mental trait. Thos includes Thralls (so no healing the special thralls with Soothe).

Soothe having the mental trait is one of those things that makes the occult list feel like a poor fit thematically

Why would a Necromancer ever prepare Soothe if they have access to Heal (or Harm to heal their undead thralls) ?

I really feel this would be stepping on the Divine casters' territory way too much.

MC Divine caster should be enough to fill the need for those who want it IMO.

They wouldn't and shouldn't. Heal is necromancy, soothe isn't. My take has been that the necromancer should be divine. No toes are being stepped on, necromancy is power over life and death and divine does it the best

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Bringing up necromancy as divining the future by speaking with the dead, I do think this class should get a feat that allows us to speak with the dead, but specifically I think it should be a skill feat and not take up a precious class feat

I have good news for you.

HOW DID I MISS THIS? Well, never mind, class doesn't need this

Bringing up necromancy as divining the future by speaking with the dead, I do think this class should get a feat that allows us to speak with the dead, but specifically I think it should be a skill feat and not take up a precious class feat

Kekkres wrote:

why? Why should death makes gain access to healing? That doesn't line up with the vibe of the class or pop culture necromancy at all

Because the point is Mastery of *Life* and Death, Heal was in the necromancy school after all.

Pretty much this. I want my necromancer to be a master of vitality, void and spirit

Tridus wrote:

Kekkres wrote:

one thing i would like to see is something along the lines of "A necromancer can add spells with the Void or Death Tags to their dirge even if those spells are not normally on the Occult spell list" it

Maybe not *all* of them (since thats quite a few spells), but a Divine Access like feature where you get to grab some of those would definitely play up that part of the class identity.

currently that would add

1 Harm
2 Sudden Blight
3 none
4 none
5 Toxic Cloud,
6 Necrotize
7 eclipse burst, execute, hungry depths
8 Dessicate
9 Massicre

its not really that many
edit forgot harm

Necromancers should get heal and other similar such spells

I personally was just going to reflavor everything to fit the spirit subclass, personally. Grasping limbs? A giant spectral mass of arms :)

one thing i would like to see is something along the lines of "A necromancer can add spells with the Void or Death Tags to their dirge even if those spells are not normally on the Occult spell list" it

I would be fine with spells that have Void, Vitality and Spirit traits, but maybe barring the sanctified trait. All are counted as occult spells the necromancer can potentially learn on level up or via the learn-a-spell activity

I'm just gonna say. I like everything about this class, except the occult list for thematic reasons(the occult list is actually really cool and if Paizo says it must be occult, I won't complain after release). I think this is a necromancer. I think it feels like a necromancer. I like that it is intelligence based. I like that the thralls are table friendly. I like that it's a battlefield control class. I like it splashes a little spellcasting but focuses on cool, powerful and thematic focus spells. I like the promise of a melee version of the class, and I hope there is a class archetype that turns it into a martial and removes spellcasting or makes it bounded. I like that thralls don't do much because the way I see it is making undead in 2 seconds is gonna be such a hasty version of whatever you could do normally that they would be like thralls as they are now. Weak, hardly move, easy to destroy. This class is it stays this direction and gets some tweaks here and there may be my favorite class on every level. I think it rules, and I am only upset I'll have to wait a year or more to see the final version! I'm even impressed with playtests of the class! It looks really strong!

And it would be trivial to ask a GM that I hold a spellbook instead and call myself a wizard. I doubt anyone would say no to that

Yeah, I am just very of the opinion necromancer should be Int and nothing else fits. The idea of a charismatic necromancer is hilarious, but certainly off type

I don't think 2 slot per level is taking up all that much power budget at all, and frankly I think y'all should consider that something like getting an undead companion is already covered by the undead master at the same efficiency as it would appear in the class itself. The class will still keep the core thrall mechanic no matter what changes occur

I think it's just that zombies have more to leave behind that creates difficult terrain compared to spirits and skeletons?

I mean, if I had a player who was playing a Necromancer who wanted to become a Lich, I would pretty much always give them access to the archetype if a character that evil wouldn't be a disruption to the party, story, etc.

Or just one of the other undead archetypes, really. "You died and came back a ghost" would be less of a problem for the Necromancer than for a lot of classes, and you can do that at level 2.

Or just choose "Skeleton" as your ancestry. So level 20 is a super-weird place for this.

Yeah, like, R3st8, if you were in my playgroup playing a necro, I'd just let you choose lich with free archetype without much hesitancy. Especially for a campaign like Bloodlords

So you think a random person from Discord is my parent now? Don't you see the issue in taking for granted certain qualities about the GM?

It's figurative language

I like the spellcasting and it's pretty important for the class fantasy if you ask me. If anything I would say the power of these abilities would only marginally increase without the spellcasting. Thralls having actions is a table consideration and I would want them to remain like this even if they removed spellcasting, otherwise this class will be a headache

I thought a dirge was a song.

It is, and it is also what was stated above. Which is why I think it's just like, idk, poorly conceived and vague in a bad way? It is certainly occult, but it feels very much like "death themed bard" and less "necromantic wizard"

kwodo wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

Also, NO, a level 12 rare feat is not better than a level 20 feat, even a flavor one, because a level 12 rare feat is functionally a non-existent feat. Seriously, do people in this forum play with GMs who allow everything?

I do, yeah. Our table basically ignores rarity altogether.

If you never felt this feature being weaponized against you then you wouldn't understand why its so bad.

It's not weaponized against you. These things are off limits for a reason and a GM can allow these things. The GM is the nice parent you ask and Paizo is the mean parent. This is deliberately the case. Things locked behind rare are such for a reason. It's typically better to not allow them. It's perfectly reasonable for most campaigns and settings that being a lich or undead generally is off limits. A level 12 rare feat is better because it is easy to disallow where appropriate and comes in at a better time during the campaign for maximum fun when it is allowed. If your GM restricts being a lich, or the skeleton ancestry, I think it's perfectly valid