Dr. Aspects's page

My opinion?

S-tier: Sorcerer
A-tier: Animist, Alchemist
B-tier: Barbarian, Bard
C-tier: Commander, Cleric
D-tier: Druid
F-tier: Fighter

I may have misunderstood the task…

I feel terrible for the Wizard

Okay, with the Necromancer preview we saw, we got a glimpse at how their subclasses, Grim Fascinations, work in the release version, as well as four Grim Fascinations (Flesh, Spirit, Bone, and Blood)

In the Necromancer character idea section, I suggested a new one: Ash which gave you a focus spell to essentially turn a thrall into a 15ft cloud obscuring to everyone but you. and an improvement that let your thrall's attacks deal fire damage.

and my brain is like an auto-complete machine so I started thinking that it could lead to other Fascinations, not to mention someone else talking about a mummy themed fascination. It makes me wonder what other fascinations would work well?

How about a Rot themed Fascination? Giving you poisonous abilities.

What would you call a mummy themed fascination? what abilities would you give it?

What other Fascinations can you think of?

OR what about the other half. we have, essentially, a more martial focused and a more caster focused. anything else you can think of?

Okay so! The mummy one i would do is maybe a Dust grim fascination, and its focus spell would allow you to consume a thrall and force the enemy to make a reflex save. On a success, a creature takes 1d6 void damage as wrappings attempt to wrap around it. On a failure, the creature is immobilized until the start of your next turn and takes 1d6 void damage. On a critical failure, a creature is restrained until it takes a successful escape and takes 1d6 void damage per turn until it escapes.

Meanwhile for a thrall improvement, I'd want something interesting. Maybe a debuff to enemies. Like a -1 status penalty to attack rolls? Honestly not sure on a thrall improvement.

The critical success may be a bit strong but I'm not here to balance it so much as I just really want to share what I'd want out of a mummy necromancer that I can't get from a fleshmancer.

Commander at C feels way to low. In fact, the more I see commander in play the more I think it could probably be on S tier.

Gather to Me! is effectively a free positioning tool for the whole party at the beggining of combat, and the perfect repositioning tool in the middle of combat. Strike Hard! effectively allows the commander to hit someone using the attack modifiers and damage of a stronger martial like a barbarian or rogue, and since Drilled Reactions is a thing, you don't even spend their reaction if they have something else to do with it.

And from 7th level onwards the commander is just OP. Demoralizing Charge is effectively a Stride + Strike + Demoralize which gives immense freedom to your teammates. I GM for a commander and I seen multiple encounters where the PCs don't make a single Stride outside of those granted by the commander, allowing the other PCs to effectively play as if movement and positioning weren't a thing in the system.

Plant Banner is insane. Rallying Banner is the perfect tool to heal the party after a nasty AoE damage effect. Fortunate Blow is a Sure Strike effect for an ally every turn.

The commander is really strong.

I'm actually in agreement with you that the commander may be S-Tier or at least high A. It enables the party so much and doesn't lose much personal power to do so.

Zoken44 wrote:

Again I point to carnivores and omnivores. They inherently NEED to destroy other living things, powered by this vitality energy, to survive. Hell, if we're talking about all living things powered by living energy, any animal requires the destruction of a vitality powered living being to survive.

Except bees. Honey doesn't require the death or destruction of any living thing.

Well there are meat eating bees that apparently make honey from meat, but I digress.

No but leshies are crazy fun because I can play Sir Chip Spudley, Knight of Lastwall and champion of Iomedae as a real full fledged character and I just think that's neat

Fear not, Maya, for I, Dr. Thaddeus Aspects, am always a paragon of civility.

Alright, rewriting my post:

Hopefully this is just an oversight that will get clarified by the remaster.

I personally don't think it's intended that the summoner dedication is unable to use share senses or speak telepathically, and choose not to rule it that way while this ruling appears to be ambiguous.

...I don't see why you couldn't play an evil goblin? You were able play evil characters of otherwise neutral or good ancestries prior, just as an outlier. Now its just not biological determinism deciding whether or not an entire ancestry is evil.

Play whatever kind of goblin you want if the table is down for it. I think it's more realistic that the kinds of creatures your adventurer is most likely to encounter are extreme outliers on either side with the vast majority being some flavor of neutral.

Okay so I think the relevant rules have been discussed fairly at this point, and not to make a bad problem worse, but there are multiple messages to moderators on this thread that are either passive aggressive or plainly hostile in wording. Maybe we just agree to disagree at this point, go our seperate ways, and keep our thoughts about each other in our head, eh?

Hey OP, are you like... good? Not to put to fine a point on it but you sound... off. Maybe take a breather and come back when you're feeling better?

It's a bit off-topic but do you think of how thralls would be very useful for small daredevils as props!?

Props! Everywhere!

Now we're thinking with portals thralls!

Dr. Aspects wrote:

So I like the concept of the Slayer. I think it has nice flavor, obviously the tools could use some reworking to bring them all roughly in line with each other, mark quarry probably shouldn't be 10 minutes, etc. etc.

Possibly an unpopular opinion I'm about to share, but... I think Paizo should just get wild with this.

Trophies should be more like the chymists eye. Where you get to steal a specific ability or trait from a monster depending on which tool you picked. Maybe that could justify the 10 minute timer on it. Maybe make it a feat tree where you can unlock more types of trophies as you go on.

I think the trophy system is inspiring and I think it needs some cooking. Let me use the head of a Medusa to turn people to stone, let me take the eye of a cyclops to get their Flash of Insight, stuff like that.

C'mon Paizo. Make this weird.

Although I agree with the proposal, I still think the 10-minute Quarry restriction needs to be removed, and it needs to work with any humanoid creature. However, creature parts could be restricted to creatures that don't use or carry items, making only this type of creature valid for trophies, but the combat abilities universally functional.

To be clear, I do agree with you! I don't think quarry should be 10 minutes and I do think that monster lore should be allowed with humanoids - you can already Mark Quarry on any creature as far as I can tell regardless of type.

Zoken44 wrote:

I've said this elsewhere, but that suggests two issues to me:

1: Slayer becomes the new Kineticist as you have to design trophies and trophy feats around every different monster type, and likely multiples. This would be a HUGE undertaking. I don't deny that would be a cool class, but they have stated how time consuming and labor intensive the Kineticist was. I don't seem them likely to do that again.

2: that would then be a class that CANNOT choose it's own feats as the options available would be limited by the enemies available in the campaign.

I don't think it needs to be that complicated to work.

Let's say the "you ignore an amount of that resistance equal to 1 + the number of weapon damage dice", "your first Strike each turn deals 1d6 additional damage of one of the trophy’s damage types", "Make a Strike with +2 circumstance bonus to the attack roll and ignore the target’s concealed condition (if any)", "You gain one special vision ability the creature the trophy was claimed from had", "Creatures in a 15-foot cone take 2d4 damage with a basic Reflex save against your class DC. The damage dealt is one of the trophy’s non-physical damage types", "You gain a +1 status bonus to saving throws against creatures with any of the trophy’s traits", "you gain resistance to physical damage equal to 2 + the value of the armor’s potency rune", plus other effects from slayer feats were instead part of a list of possible benefits that you can choose from a trophy, allowing the slayer to prepare them each day, would IMO be more than enough to represent the concept of the class.

The problem I have with the tools is that I don't really feel like I'm the "prepared ranger" the class implies it is, because even if you can prepare your trophies each day, if you chose bloodseeking weapon you are always preparing in regards to damage, when I feel that, individually, the effects of the tools aren't really that good to begin with. Yes, the bloodseeking blade's ignore resistances, extra...

Couldn't agree more exequiel, I like Slayer significantly more than Daredevil but I think it needs to do more with the trophies to really stand out. Tools are cool, but I'd rather they emphasize the Trophy system.

So... this idea would lead to this class essentially becoming another Kineticist. and a lot of abilities would be gated behind VERY specific campaigns or your DM choosing to add them into your setting.

Personally I don't see this as an issue. Plenty of monsters have really interesting and unique abilities. Kineticist is also among the most mechanically interesting clssses - if its not number one in that regard with its only major drawback being that its primary mechanics have not been supported by the content that's come out since due to its impulses not counting as either strike or spell.

The way I envision this potential trophy change, Slayers would still be a martial class with all that entails but with a grab bag of monster tricks. If we wanted to prevent cheese and force players to interact more often/carefully with the system, we could fo a thing where the trophies abilities wear off after a certain number of uses with maybe a high level or even capstone that lets you do it more often.

I'm in agreement with Cellion about it more or less being in line with summon spells. Letting you use a monster (or in this case a monsters ability) to do a thing. I think it's a neat concept, and would absolutely give the Slayer a unique identity to the Ranger, Gator, and Thaumaturge.

So I like the concept of the Slayer. I think it has nice flavor, obviously the tools could use some reworking to bring them all roughly in line with each other, mark quarry probably shouldn't be 10 minutes, etc. etc.

Possibly an unpopular opinion I'm about to share, but... I think Paizo should just get wild with this.

Trophies should be more like the chymists eye. Where you get to steal a specific ability or trait from a monster depending on which tool you picked. Maybe that could justify the 10 minute timer on it. Maybe make it a feat tree where you can unlock more types of trophies as you go on.

I think the trophy system is inspiring and I think it needs some cooking. Let me use the head of a Medusa to turn people to stone, let me take the eye of a cyclops to get their Flash of Insight, stuff like that.

C'mon Paizo. Make this weird.

Squiggit wrote:

You don't really. These are variations on a theme. Certain characters will work better as a Daredevil than they would have as a Swashbuckler or Monk or whatever, but there's no profound paradigm shift here.

In Paizo's defense, does there need to be though?

... The Slayer does really just feel like Paizo's own Revised Ranger thing though, yeah.

There doesn't need to be, but I lament other character concepts which are not currently well supported mechanically, languishing while the Daredevil is being printed.

Being honest, while I do give Paizo credit for a lot of things and tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm inclined to agree that we didn't quite need Daredevil.

Not that I don't think it looks neat, or that I think it should be a class archetype. But it's not... necessary. I'd rather a primal gish or something with different flavor. Would I be happy changing the flavor of Daredevil? Of course. Flavor is free and I can pull off a wrestler quite nicely with it.

But I could already sorta do a wrestler with other classes. Not perfectly, but you get the idea. I'm happy with Slayer, as it fulfills one class fantasy I couldn't do before bare minimum and as I continue to think on it, I think it's shaping into my favorite class flavor in the system. But we didn't need Daredevil right now

That makes sense, but all of it's abilities are just so... situational. it is a terrible weapon to use until level 7, at which point it becomes just a bad one.

Agreed. I like the flavor, but the mechanics need a massive buff. Shooting daggers out of a crossbow is objectively cool, but they should get the benefits of the crossbows property runes bare minimum.

While I don't agree that Slayer lacks identity, I do agree that trophies should do significantly more. If for no other reason than I think more powerful and varied effects on Trophies would just be more fun.

I personally also think tools could be heavily expanded and improved, but if no one gets to that thread before me, I'll make it.

I think you should at least have a trophy feat tree with some basic monster abilities baked in. Like a trophy with petrifying gaze from slaying a Medusa or Basilisk.

This could be overpowered but I'm just spitballing based on what I feel the class fantasy should offer.

Definitely intended to include giants, given they're listed as viable trophy options. Good catch, John.

StarMartyr365 wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

I'm really excited by the idea of playing a Daredevil that's a kooky older woman. I love the trope of the older, retired badass at a specific skill who's getting too old for this body abuse. So when I hear about a class meant for doing handspring-grapple-shove-flips, I imagine a retired backflip-badass who winces as her joints crack doing her signature technique.

Maybe as a sorta Meta gag, say that she's so old, she was a 1e Acrobat back when that MEANT something! Whippersnappers these days don't know!

Just make sure she has her walker!

Adventurer #1:

"Why are we dragging Granny through a dungeon? What could they possible do? Break a hip at something?

Adventurer #2:
"Trust me. She'll be fine and I'd watch your mouth unless you want to be the one she makes an example of."

Adventurer #1:
"Whatever. I'll tell the other we're now the Company of Granny-sitters. Does the nursing home even know she's missing?!"

Adventurer #2 just slowly shakes his head and sighs.

SEVERAL ADVENTURES LATER...

Adventurer #1: <Visibly shaken>
"She tied the Giant King Grishdundaaaaar's legs into a pretzel after she ripped his kneecaps off!"

Adventurer #2:
"But she made us cookies! In a dungeon!"

Adventurer #3: <Obviously in a state of shell shock>
"She broke the Lich of Rythdangon's face with a sandal. A sandal."

Adventurer #1:
"Cookies. In a dungeon."

Adventurer #4: <Retching and vomiting>
"She tore the Sorcerer of T'trq'iln's entrails out through her nostrils."

Adventurer #2:
"Cookies. In. A. Dungeon.

The End

See also:

Robert Jebediah "Granddad" Freeman from the Boondocks

Serious Dungeon Crawler Carl vibes, here! Daredevil could definitely be a class in that world.

I hadn't even considered a DCC build! Now I'm even more excited!

Does anyone here even like this game at this point? I swear every time I come here after a big announcement its "Doom! The end times are upon us! Paizo has fallen and millions will die!"

Anyway for what this thread is actually about, I wanna do a goblin Luchadore with the vigilante dedication for the Daredevil and while i don't have anything solid for slayer yet, I do like the look of the class as like a martial blue mage.

Oooh, that's great to hear! I was expecting to have months to wait before the next playtest. Very excited to hear it won't be much longer.

Speculation: Last December was the Impossible Playtest, so I'm betting it's new Pathfinder classes to playtest.

The Possible Playtest

I'm kinda in agreement with everyone else so far. I understand everyone being busy and the schedule being packed. I'm hyped for the next year and I really want to know about the impossible playtest. But... Paizo's communication has really suffered despite the best efforts of Maya and James.

I try to stay positive on the forums about Paizo, but this lack of communication really really sucks, y'all. No update on the starship playtest for SF2e, no update on the impossible book, no playtest for this year... and now no errata.

I know not every company does this, but I hold paizo to a higher standard. Especially since communication is one of the main reasons I became a diehard fan of your games.

I dunno. Thanks for bringing the information when we asked at least, Maya.

Edited to add: For the record, most of the issues would be understandable and even okay if we just had more information more often. I don't really care about not getting the pathfinder playtest this year, and if the Starship playtest was delayed so be it. The errata sucks but it sounds like this year was rough. I just feel like I would be less frustrated if I knew about this stuff being delayed.

Honestly a lot of the issues here feel like the result of a general lack of support for the summoner. Which is just kind of a larger issue in this edition for non-core classes.

The passive power issue could be somewhat remedied with more eidolon gear, the errata ignoring the fact that the eidolons non-basic attacks were severely nerfed either intentionally or not, we've only gotten a couple new eidolons - though admittedly the summoner is fairing better in the new subclass department than most, I would like to see another Occult eidolon that isn't a phantom.

No new feats, no new class archetypes. Draconic codex didn't update the Dragon eidolon in any way... I mean the summoner isnt special in this lack of support, kineticist is also often cited here and I imagine someone will mention another oft ignored class.

I do hope the remastered summoner receives lots of love, but if the theories of it appearing in the same book as Runesmith, Necromancer, and Magus are correct, it's going to be fighting for page space and likely won't have enough space to thrive.

Blinding light would not hamper a person with darkvision, since they can only see the dark, and not the light, like a lightvision person can.

;P

Finally a reasonable take. Paizo's failure to implement a Blinding Dark spell is just another reason why playing a Darkvision character and only adventuring at night is the ultimate meta.

Dr. Aspects wrote:

Maya Coleman wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Maya Coleman wrote:

Hey all! Guides are great, but please don't include generative AI images in them! It puts them in a kind of weird grey area where it's not us using the AI, which is something we don't do, but having AI associated with our content and on our forums puts us in a tricky position. The things on our forums are things we promote and support, and we do not promote or support the use of generative AI in our products or products associated with them. Please continue to make the guides, but just make sure the art you're using is from an artist!

We'll just go back to stealing original artwork directly from the artists then. *shrugs in jest*

Any of the art used on our blogs is free for you to use with proper credit and association (abiding by our Community Use Policy), and we're currently working on compiling it all (the art files) in one place for easy access and use.

I know other companies also do this and it's genuinely for the best health of the community in my experience, so thank you to Paizo for looking for a solution that benefits creators.

Generative AI genuinely has no place in creative content. Call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer to have no images in a guide to images from generative AI. It would make me question the integrity and passion behind the guide as a whole.

I'm sure the guides have passion and integrity behind them, but the use of AI at all makes me hesitant to share with my players as if you used AI for one piece of the content, there's no reason to assume you didn't elsewhere.

My guides are for my own reference and are useful to the community. They are in no way commercial or for profit.

My guides had no images in them and I often got badgered to dress them up with art. I carefully respected copyright so I didn't steal images - which seems to be the traditional practice. I'm not aware of much in the way of protests about actual copyright...

A lot to address here.

I never claimed your works were commercial or for profit. I'm glad your guides are a product of genuine passion and never meant to disparage your name like that.

I am not saying what everyone should do, I am saying what I personally find. And what I tend to find is when something is using AI for one portion of the work, there will be more used elsewhere. I personally will not share a work with my players that utilizes AI as AI has a nasty habit of hallucinating, creating connections where there are none, or simply being wrong.

There are multiple concerns beyond protecting artists, though as something of an artist myself that is my primary concern. These include of course environmental and psychological effects this technology is having.

As for the comment about change being inevitable and how "Amish" my mindset is, I do not believe that an industry that seems constantly on the edge of bursting is anything I would rest my hat on.

Finally, for the last point about being against AI being unpopular among the average consumer, the average consumer couldn't care less about either side. The only thing they care about is the quality of the product being created, and as of right now, the more consistently high quality product is the one made with human hands.

I'm sorry that you feel my concerns may lead to others leaving the community. I hope they do not.

Ravingdork wrote:

Maya Coleman wrote:

Hey all! Guides are great, but please don't include generative AI images in them! It puts them in a kind of weird grey area where it's not us using the AI, which is something we don't do, but having AI associated with our content and on our forums puts us in a tricky position. The things on our forums are things we promote and support, and we do not promote or support the use of generative AI in our products or products associated with them. Please continue to make the guides, but just make sure the art you're using is from an artist!

We'll just go back to stealing original artwork directly from the artists then. *shrugs in jest*

Any of the art used on our blogs is free for you to use with proper credit and association (abiding by our Community Use Policy), and we're currently working on compiling it all (the art files) in one place for easy access and use.

I know other companies also do this and it's genuinely for the best health of the community in my experience, so thank you to Paizo for looking for a solution that benefits creators.

Generative AI genuinely has no place in creative content. Call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer to have no images in a guide to images from generative AI. It would make me question the integrity and passion behind the guide as a whole.

I'm sure the guides have passion and integrity behind them, but the use of AI at all makes me hesitant to share with my players as if you used AI for one piece of the content, there's no reason to assume you didn't elsewhere.

Maya Coleman wrote:

Hey all! Guides are great, but please don't include generative AI images in them! It puts them in a kind of weird grey area where it's not us using the AI, which is something we don't do, but having AI associated with our content and on our forums puts us in a tricky position. The things on our forums are things we promote and support, and we do not promote or support the use of generative AI in our products or products associated with them. Please continue to make the guides, but just make sure the art you're using is from an artist!

No it doesn't put you in that position. You don't own our content, or our commentary on your content. You never have.

Don't try to enforce a principle that you endorse on others. We don't all agree. Let us make our own decisions. You can try to persuade us.

Okay well it's well within paizo's rights to take anything that doesn't reflect their values as a company off their official forums if they so choose. They are taking a hardline stance against AI, and have expressed that they do not want it on the forum.

If you use AI to create, illustrate, or otherwise "improve" a work, don't expect to be able to use an official paizo platform to promote it. Its really that simple.

Are you referring to how the necromancer and runesmith might end up or what other new classes we might get?

How the necromancer and runesmith might end up. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

Some discussion on another thread popped up about the Runesmith - I'd link it but I'm unfortunately rather unused to the forums and don't know how - but I was curious what you speculate the new classes might look like.

thats what i was thinking; a friend of mine was arguing it has to be the specific jaw attack associated with the perks, like listing out jaws (werecrocodile), jaws (dragon heritage), jaws (ratfolk) and theyre all 'different' jaws that only work with the 'correct' perks. I couldn't find anything saying this, it would affect using like gorilla barbarians ape arms as a monk and other such things too and seems needlessly complex/limiting.

If that were the case, I'm sure they would've listed Draconic Aspect (Jaws) as a prerequisite instead of the more generic "Jaws Unarmed Attack"

I believe you'd be able to benefit from it, I don't see anything on the feat that specifically prohibits using other types of unarmed jaw attacks.

Though unarmed attacks that are not jaw based wouldn't benefit.

The Bestiaries were written prior to the remaster and thus contain information and monsters and content that have since either been remastered or removed from the games lost omens setting. Things such as alignment for example have been removed. The bestiaries are still useful because the content inside only needs a bit of tweaking to make sure it functions with the current mechanics.

Monster Core 1 and 2 are more or less continuations of each other, with new monsters appearing in both. The cores largely updated the bestiaries but there are also plenty of brand new beasties inside for your pleasure.

Yeah, the people who are interested in Daggerheart aren't likely going to be the same types that would be interested in PF2e. While its not the most mechanically complex system I personally have played, for groups that are moving to daggerheart they're likely either looking for a story forward system over a mechanic forward system like PF2e or are fans of Critical Role and might not be interested in the larger hobby. Nothing wrong with either of those things necessarily, but I say let them convert to their preferred system and maybe a couple of their friends will look further into pathfinder itself if DH is unsatisfying to them for one reason or another.

A 5e conversion of AV is what got me to look at it and its now my groups primary system.

I really don't like having multiple, drastically different magic systems. It starts becoming too many things to understand as a GM for me. That's why I banned Psionics in every edition of D&D I ran where they added it. It was a striaghtforward case of "I do not have the spoons to understand a second magic system when the first one is already so complicated."

I would like to second this. As nice as it sounds on paper, having to understand every seperate magic system to play each different caster would be a complete nightmare for the GM and it likely would result in one or two classes getting the vast majority of content - I'd probably bet on Sorcerer being drastically overrepresented in this theoretical because of their customisation and popularity.

I do think that if I were to design a magic system for a PF3e, I'd expand the idea of focus spells so that casters would still have a limited amount of spells in combat, but could recharge them outside of it to ensure they never feel "worse" than martial.

There are drawbacks to this I'm nearly certain, but I'm also sure such a thing would feel better for caster players.

The Despair Dragon is officially a favorite for my table

Far as I can see, the interactions should work fine. There's nothing about having to have it be specifically your natural unarmed weapon, and I don't see anything in the traits that specifically kills HotW interacting with Untamed Form.

Titan Breaker only specifies that your Ikon needs to deal bludgeoning, which energized spark lets you do.

I'm admittedly hazy on the rune question myself so I'll let someone else handle that.

I openly support this use of click bait.

40 is awesome and definitely makes me excited to pick up this book.

QuidEst wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Yes, please, some slowdown for new classes and more options for existing classes, especially some of the newer ones with unique mechanics like Kineticist. More class archetypes as well, those help porting over old 1E character concepts.

I honestly think this glut of something like six new base classes per year is very quickly going to lead to burnout. I remember very well that by Occult Adventures in 1E many of my players were just done with the constant churn of new base classes.

... Six? I'm really not following the math there, unless you're counting Starfinder's core classes. It's generally been two classes.

Apologies, time really passes more quickly as you get older (I'm turning 50 on Monday, oy very). The release of War of Immortals seems just like it happened a few weeks ago.

I'm pretty sure, though, that the Necromancer and Runesmith might still come out this year, which would make it four new base classes this year, independent of Starfinder.

Well its July and we don't even know the name of the book they'll appear in. Haha

Maybe Rhea Ripley for Amiri?

Also, could people please not burn the forum or the plane? Even in case of a tragedy? :(

I make no promises

Grimmyr here is a beautiful man. And if anything happens to his family or iivlars then I will burn this plane to the ground!

Occult is the best choice with the exception of maybe Arcane.

Divine draws power from a “divine” source. While it does have perhaps the best setup theoretically - being body and spirit, and an almost monopoly on the vitality/void/spirit damage types, it’s not really all that good for it when you look at it from a lore perspective. Necromancers gain power from their dirge, and are more similar to bards in their power source than for instance Clerics.

Primal is a complete no go. The primal list draws off of nature and natural things. Undead aren’t natural. Urgathoa alone shows that being undead in and of itself is a perversion of the natural order.

Arcane is probably the second best. But my issue with Arcane is that when it comes down to it, it’s a massive and versatile list that if we look at it, Arcane could fit every caster class that isn’t a divine caster and it would still largely work. Arcane to me seems like the biggest reason that the wizards core chassis is weak. They get so much power just from that spell list.

Occult, from a lore perspective, is perhaps not the best. It’s the mystery spell list, and paizo went out of their way to differentiate phantoms from undead. But occult has a wide and flavorful list that works extremely well for the Necromancer. It isn’t entirely devoid of spirit damage, and it’s sort of the spooky list.

Necromancers should be occult.

graystone wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

That is precisely the problem: deep down, you don't even see it as a religious practice.

Deep down I know of no religion that calls themselves Necromancers or that claim to practice necromancy. I know some that practice what I'd call divination but that's a distinct difference. If you have a specific example you're talking about, please enlighten me. You are talking about hypothetical harm to a hypothetical group if we both aren't on the same page.

I just did some research, and it's far worse than I thought. There is a video titled "The Dark History of Zombies" by Christopher M. Moreman. It seems that the current portrayals of the undead are far more racist than I initially believed.

If you think about it, the very notion of a group of evil beings that can be immediately differentiated by their appearance is inherently racist. To answer your question, Wiccans and Druids don't call themselves witches either, but that doesn't make their portrayal as human-sacrificing devil worshipers any less offensive, does it? If you look at the necromancy page on Wikipedia and check the "See also" section, you will find links to Haitian Vodou (African), Macumba (African) and Witchcraft(paganism as a whole). This association can damage these cultures, whether they accept the label or not.

For what it’s worth, Vodou is far far closer to the Animist in practice and there’s very little in the way of proper necromancy - or even improper necromancy in the practice. Most of Vodou is working Lwa, which are more spirits - or apparitions. They commune with Lwa, which can be an ancestral spirit but with the exception of the zombi, a Vodou houngan would fit as an animist medium far far better than the thrall raising necromancer.

Arcane Cascade (One Action)

Traits: Concentrate, Magus, Stance

You use a specialized technique to imbue your attacks with additional magical force, cycling the energy of your spells into your stance. While you're in the stance, you no longer add your Strength modifier to the damage rolls of your melee Strikes, and instead your melee Strikes deal additional force damage equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier. This damage increases to 4 if you have weapon specialization and 5 if you have greater weapon specialization. Any Strike that benefits from this damage gains the arcane trait, making it magical.

Your stance requires a constant influx of magical energy. You exit the stance at the end of your next turn, but you can Sustain it to prolong its duration. Each time you Cast a Spell or make a Spellstrike, you automatically Sustain Arcane Cascade, and if the spell used can deal damage, the damage from the stance changes to the same type that spell could deal (or one type of your choice if the spell could deal multiple types of damage).

This is really interesting. I’m gonna Playtest this and the innate heavy armor thing I think. If I have anything interesting come up from this I’ll let you know.

Given the changes to Spellstrike, how's this for a simple buff to the class: just give them proficiency with heavy armor.

Currently, there are I think three subgroups of Magi:

Starlit Span, who uses ranged weapons, can completely ignore Strength, and thus can easily build Intelligence for save spells.

Most melee Magi, who need Strength for their damage rolls (and often their weapons), will want to wear heavier armor, but will also still want to build Dexterity for saves, and therefore can't easily build Intelligence for save spells.

Aloof Firmament and Laughing Shadow Magi, who really need Dex for AC, but will still want Strength for melee damage rolls, and therefore can't easily build Intelligence for save spells.

With heavy armor proficiency, Starlit Span Magi wouldn't really be affected, but group #2 would be able to ditch Dex and go for a Strength/Con/Int/Wis setup, leaving only group #3 as the remaining MAD hybrid studies. It wouldn't be a comprehensive solution, but it could still be a quick and easy win for many subclasses.

In theory, I like this change. It’s still MAD as hell, but would it really be the Magus if the stat spread was simple?

Whoa, I disappear for a couple months and everyone turned into a bunch of negative Nellies! What happened?

Honestly I get it to some degree, Paizo going largely radio silent on things is a bit disheartening but… Can’t we cut them some slave since they had to basically restructure the entire game, continue their my early release schedule, and Playtest 6 classes in an extremely short time?

Paizo is a big fish in a small pond dominated by a whale that’s taking up most of the room.

Has the content from the last year been perfect? No. But acting like it’s all horrible awful trash? That feels to me like hyperbole.

We don’t have to be positive all the time, but these forums hardly ever seem positive. I dunno maybe it’s just me.

~~~~~~~~~~~End of Whinging~~~~~~~~~~

Also hi Maya! You’re doing Abadar’s work!

I mean to me it’s obvious they’re going to nerf this in the future. The dedication is powerful and steals too much of the Exemplar’s class identity. So why not just tell your players you aren’t comfortable with them using the dedication until it gets fixed?

That way you still can allow them to play the class, but the dedication is off the table until it’s brought into a territory you - presumably the GM - finds acceptable.

No, it’s not necessarily fair to allow the class but not the dedication, but it’s pretty clear that the dedication as of right now would be too strong on a vast majority of martials with - as far as I can tell - only the Magus not getting much benefit.

But sometimes communicating an issue with your players is the only way to move forward. I trust Paizo to fix this if not immediately after release then fairly soon after. At that point, I hope it’s in a good state. If not, my players will understand and just not use the archetype.

I really, really like animist's whole deal. Animist, and the covenants that are releasing in Divine Mysteries, have me more excited to play a divine character than I have been in, well ever.

Ooh, I hadn’t heard about covenants yet, what are those?