Bishop Ze Ravenka

Neutral_Lich's page

Organized Play Member. 44 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:

ok can understand people's hatred for the undead minions but at the very least let me seek lichdom in peace

i mean its my soul and pharasma would obliterate it anyway for rejecting her judgement so there is no crime there

I am fairly certain that Necromancer is a viable player option in the core rulebook of the playtest and will remain there in the next edition book. Pursuing something like lichdom, just to avoid Phrasma's judgment is a perfectly legitimate character backstory that you should feel free to run. Even having the character be evil, or even a neutral character that use spells with the evil descriptor can be fine, but shouldn't be done without consulting the GM, and, in the vast majority of games, consulting with the other players. The core idea you are wanting to play is 100% feasible in the playtest. A lot of players will be fine with this as a background that motivates your character as long as you agree not to be secretly undermining them or working against group goals.

What is not present, and shouldn't be a core feature of the game, is classes, feats, spells, and abilities designed to manipulate and deceive other players without being gated behind requiring GM, and other player approval. And, of all the things that could be included in the core rulebook, antagonistic play rules are near the absolute bottom of things I would want to see in the next edition of this game.

The kind of game where every character agrees ahead of time not to reveal any backstory of their characters, nor their character abilities, and accepts that character motivations may lead to violent conflict is not "bad wrong fun," but it has to the play style chosen by everyone or it is a violation of the core level of trust that is necessary for people to be able to play roleplaying games.

Pathfinder is also not the best game for this model of play though. There are so many die rolls that need to be visible, if not to the other players, at least to the GM. If PF1 was going to...

its not antagonistic i'm not trying to kill or betray the party i just wanna play a class i like without getting killed by the 1 guy who hates necromancers

what should i do when 3 people are ok with necromancy but 1 guy want to kill me first session just for being a necromancer?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

....

All you have to do is be okay with the possibility that you will lose in the end, since "making the PCs/Players look/feel good" is your job. But anybody whose default state is "I want to be the bad guy, I want to rationalize their actions" should probably look into GMing.
That is certainly a really good point. Evil villains are always welcome as the villain. Another option, if you don't like GMing would be asking the GM if they would be willing to have you be an assistant GM and simply play the villain. You might need to be willing to make your character fit what the GM needs for the villain, but if you would enjoy playing the villain. They work the the GM to play the villain. Even if the PCs know your' the villain, it doesn't mean they can't work towards uncovering the truth of the plot so their characters can finally unmask you from the village.

i have never been a gm but i'm pretty sure playing a pc as a gm which already a taboo

and if i reveal that character was a necromancer and the party didn't found out because i gave hims the ability to ignore player rules i think they would be pissed

i could just be a gm and make a lich as a questgiver or ally npc but that would be like teleportation to the finishing line

and there is always the risk of the party deciding they are gonna kill the good lich anyway just cause they hate necromancy


Edge93 wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:

Rather than attacking the OP on the kind of character he wants to play, it's better to ensure that the options are available.

I think most of us would rather not play a game that gave the option to play a d*** character without other people's knowledge OUT of character without requiring approval from the GM. That's the kind of character the OP wants to play, and that's what people are telling off about. XP

Also some comment have indicated they might want to be able to do it without the GM's knowledge too but I might be misreading that.

its not that i wanna do it against the gm's will its that i don't want to rely on the gm to house rule in my favor

for instance if a gm lets me use stuff like ignoring verbal commands or even cover for me in some way other players might call that cheating and to be honest they would be right


ok can understand peopel's hatred for the undead minions but at the very least let me seek lichdom in peace

i mean its my soul and pharasma would obliterate it anyway for rejecting her judgement so there is no crime there


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:

one of the reasons i hate her is because as far as i know atheists who reject pharasma's judgement become trapped in the boneyard until they become vestiges or so i read on the pathfinder wiki

Planar Adventures fixed/clarified this.

Quote:
Many mortal philosophies teach that all atheist souls meet this end, but in truth, most atheists and agnostics whose souls are judged can experience the full range of afterlives just as adherents of any other belief system do, passing on to the Outer Planes best aligned with their convictions.
However, there are two types of souls who do persist on the boneyard until they lose their memories and their personalities- dissident souls and failed souls. Dissident souls are people whose rejection of the metaphysical order is so thorough that they would prefer not to have an afterlife and will opt out of participating in the cycle of souls when presented with the choice, which Pharasma honors. Failed souls are people whose lives were so meaningless that there's no natural place to put them and so bereft of conviction they cannot even opt into the afterlife. Both of these types of souls end up losing their personalities and memories in the Graveyard of Souls, but all the rest of the atheists, agnostics, etc. end up in the most appropriate afterlife.

the option here is oblivion or eternal serfdom as a petitioner them outsider while losing your memories

wait so wouldn't my character turn into either a hunted from abaddon and them into a souls devouring daemon or a undead from urgathoa

disrupting the river of souls is a sin except when i turn you into creature that sole existence is to disrupt the river of souls then its ok

if so i think she is little bit of a hypocrite


Neutral_Lich wrote:
The DM of wrote:

Why would anyone play with you? That's not an insult. It's a question every player sitting down at the table needs to answer.

If I want to play a pickpocket who steals from every npc, that could cause problems for the group. I should probably tone it down, and I definitely shouldn't steal from my fellow players. That wouldn't be fun for them.

If I want to play an assassin sent to kill another player, that might be fun for me, especially if I hate that person. It won't be fun for them. Oh, and if I hate someone at the table, why would I play with that group? Maybe I need to tweak that character concept to not be opposed to the party.

You can't have fun at everyone else's expense. How are you going to make accommodations to fit?

Bringing a spirit back from the dead and enslaving it to your will consigning it to an unlife of torturous pain is evil. Anyone who would do that is a sick puppy. You'll violate the sensibilities of heroes and authorities and become a major distraction. Unless the rest of the party is evil, and the gm is in on an evil campaign, you're going to ruin the rest of the table's fun.

This is a multiplayer team game of friends for fun. If you're not there to have mutual fun...

you do realize the dead bodies that the good party is gonna kill are bandits, murderers, devil cultist etc... right?

i mean the afterlife i'm taking them from is literally hell how bad can it be? if i remember right they turn into lemures in the afterlife but i might be wrong

could you link me that?

i know the maelstrom is chaotic but you should still be able to walk on it right? i mean there are creatures who inhabit it right?

one of the reasons i hate her is because as far as i know atheists who reject pharasma's judgement become trapped in the boneyard until they become vestiges or so i read on the pathfinder wiki


The DM of wrote:

Why would anyone play with you? That's not an insult. It's a question every player sitting down at the table needs to answer.

If I want to play a pickpocket who steals from every npc, that could cause problems for the group. I should probably tone it down, and I definitely shouldn't steal from my fellow players. That wouldn't be fun for them.

If I want to play an assassin sent to kill another player, that might be fun for me, especially if I hate that person. It won't be fun for them. Oh, and if I hate someone at the table, why would I play with that group? Maybe I need to tweak that character concept to not be opposed to the party.

You can't have fun at everyone else's expense. How are you going to make accommodations to fit?

Bringing a spirit back from the dead and enslaving it to your will consigning it to an unlife of torturous pain is evil. Anyone who would do that is a sick puppy. You'll violate the sensibilities of heroes and authorities and become a major distraction. Unless the rest of the party is evil, and the gm is in on an evil campaign, you're going to ruin the rest of the table's fun.

This is a multiplayer team game of friends for fun. If you're not there to have mutual fun...

you do realize the dead bodies that the good party is gonna kill are bandits, murderers, devil cultist etc... right?

i mean the afterlife i'm taking them from is literally hell how bad can it be? if i remember right they turn into lemures in the afterlife but i might be wrong


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

I'm hoping he's a troll actually, and this is only going to become more ludicrous. Every thread, this guy is posting about his secret necromancer concept and how PF2 is thwarting his hijinx. /r/secretnecromancerincels ?

In all seriousness, folks complaining about concepts they can't do anymore are complaining prematurely. Sure, get your gripes out there for the record. Then relax. This is supposed to be a materials-light playtest, not a full content system. It has way more content than I expected, but it's still missing things. So don't give up. One day you WILL be a secret necromancer and enjoy all the devilry and excitement that entails (while annoying your fellow players, GM, the community, etc. just kidding, or am I?)

don't worry i'm not gonna be posting anymore if that is what you are so bothered about

its not about annoying anyone for instance the last table i played where i was a veteran one of the new players literally pm'd me saying he was gonna kill my char "during the character creation" because he didn't like necromancers and i was forced to play a character that i hated more than anything in my life, and he wasn't even good aligned

its either play in secret or don't play


Corwin Icewolf wrote:

You could still be someone who secretly researches undead when the party's not looking. Having a big army of undead secretly following you around is silly.

Making or partially making undead to learn more about how they work, how to defeat them, and how to make more useful minions in smaller numbers is more viable imo.

It would still require GM cooperation since it normally costs gold in Onix form to make undead, and you'd probably need help making sure your wealth isn't being spent on essentially nothing, but that's a problem with your secret zombie army too since you have a big pile of your gold following you around in zombie form basically doing nothing most of the time.

usually blood money, false focus and stuff like runesage can be useful to deal with the onyx problem


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like minions should not be massive action economy enhancers, since that encourages people to stack minions and makes game turns take forever.

I mean, I'm going to veto your "Summon hundreds of lantern archons" build in PF1 not because it's evil or disrupts party dynamics, but because it makes every turn take (at least) twice as long.

If people want to have minions who act independently, they should be limited to 1 (to allow for animal companions, eidolons, and phantoms.)

But I'm generally opposed to the idea that everybody gets one character except for this one person who is playing 5 or 6 at once.

to be honest that does sounds better than the current situation to me i would trade 4 broken minions for 1 that works any time


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
...Out of curiosity, have you run this concept in PF1e? Because even in PF1e the verbal command thing was already there in Command Undead. And with Animate Undead it's straight-up written into the spell that unless you just leave them to guard a specific room they're going to follow you like love-sick puppies. Maybe NPC Necromancers can command at a distance through the power of GM Fiat, but not a Player's Necromancer.

to be more specific i'm talking about how you need spend a action to issue the verbal command otherwise the undead just stays there

if i just need to command once in a while like "stand here" "attack" "go there" there are many ways to circumvent it granted its takes a lot of work but not impossible until p2e where i need to dictate every turn by sacrificing my actions which means i have to stand still commanding them while they fight and the fact i need to contact them every minute so i cant just leave them outside a city and come get them later


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

For anyone interested, Neutral Lich has started a whole other thread to whine about this on:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42em5?concerns-about-the-impossibility-of-a

It's a lot more of the same "I want to play the character I want, no matter how much it messes up a given campaign or hampers other people's enjoyment, without having to work with other players or even the GM" nonsense but if it all moves over there maybe we can unclog the ritual thread here.

i create it because Nettah mentioned i should create my own thread

"but if you don't think so, I would probably start a dedicated thread on the sole purpose of making sure Paizo is aware"

just scroll up and you will find it

Nettah also said:

Nettah wrote:
The rest of your "points" about everybody trying to ruin the game for you etc by not letting you play a necromancer together with a paladin, it seems immature and takes away from what is otherwise a valid point.

but that didn't keep you from sticking all that extra stuff in there in addition to the assertion that maybe Animate Dead shouldn't take secondary casters. ;P

Though I still really don't get why a loner Necromancer couldn't go find and bind some intelligent Undead (There are spells that do this for like a day at a time potentially) and use them as secondary casters. Works just fine from a story perspective.

your point being? the point of creating the tread was to let people use the ritual thread

i can tell that you had bad experience in the past but i hope you understand that there is a difference between games and real life

if you want to create your version of the thread you are welcome


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

For anyone interested, Neutral Lich has started a whole other thread to whine about this on:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42em5?concerns-about-the-impossibility-of-a

It's a lot more of the same "I want to play the character I want, no matter how much it messes up a given campaign or hampers other people's enjoyment, without having to work with other players or even the GM" nonsense but if it all moves over there maybe we can unclog the ritual thread here.

i create it because Nettah mentioned i should create my own thread

"but if you don't think so, I would probably start a dedicated thread on the sole purpose of making sure Paizo is aware"

just scroll up and you will find it


1 person marked this as a favorite.

to me there is no difference between a devil cultist and a cleric of sarenrae in my view they are people who sold their souls to a outsider and will get turned into servant outsiders after their death forever

a necromancer on the other hand can become a lich (and in pf1 resurrect people via spell sage) and if he feels like humiliating pharasma he can create undead which interferes with afterlife by tearing pieces of a soul he is basically the closes thing to an anti-god in the game

but the reason undead minions worked so well is because they lasted enough and were obedient so you can basically tell them go get lumber or go hunt go destroy that orphanage etc...

summons don't last enough to do anything significant, maybe golems but they are kind of expensive (my gm is stingy) and too late game to use

playing a outright evil character would mean i would have to leave the party and come up with a alibi


5 people marked this as a favorite.

ever since i was introduced to table top games this has always been my main character concept

in fact i believe the first video about table top i watched was about someone making a elf who pretended to be a ranger but was actually a necromancer

i think it was called crafting a elven necromancer or something i'm not gonna look for the link because i don't know if i can post it

the idea is playing a character without revealing that he is a necromancer to the rest of the party

i understand some people don't like necromancer and honestly i never hold any hard feelings if my character gets killed or abandoned if i'm found out

my problem is that in pathfinder 2e this character has become impossible to make

normal since you didn't need to keep undead close and didn't need to speak to control them you could just animate them on secret and have them follow you from a big distance and do your bidding meeting during your turn in the nigh watch

but on 2e you have to keep them with you and can only control 4 minion via verbal commands and since animate dead is likely going to be a ritual i fear that it might require secondary casters (or worse)

even if i get help from the gm and get npcs to help me with rituals it doesn't solve the first 2 problems and makes the character dependent on the gm's cooperation which is usually very hard to get

i urge people to think about what necromancers are

what was the last time you saw a lich commanding his army of undead with verbal commands?

remember that necromancer that kept sending powerful undead minions against you yeah i wonder how he did it without loosing control of them?

i understand the worry about balance but this isn't a mmorpg its a tool to tell stories so the player should be able at least to some extent to do as the vialins do

of course not command an giant army but at least not needing to speak outloud to command them


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
Neutral_Lich said wrote:
just because you don't care doesn't mean the necromancer players don't care, could you be a little more considerate to other players or are you one of those who believe minorities aren't worth consideration?

I'm starting to consider whether you are just trolling at this point. He just said that in his experience (and I think most peoples experience) necromancer player characters are rare to the extend that rules for this is not the first priority for most groups, therefore several other aspects of the rules that also aren't included in the current playtest and likely won't all make it to the final rulebook would share the same importance or a larger importance to him and others. That is a very valid view and you immediately accuses him of not caring about minorities.

I personally feel the necromancer is worthy of being included in the core book, and I wouldn't have minded to see it in the playtest (just like rituals, solely for the purpose of reading their current thoughts on it) but no necromancer would have fitted into the actually playtest scenarios though.

It seems to me that your view is that a necromancer needs to be able to perform either spells or rituals solo for the sack of the lone necromancer fantasy (or to more easily conceal his true character) and I think that is valid. I do expect any rituals or spells of this caliber to be uncommon, which would prevent you from playing a necromancer without the agreement of the GM, which you seem to think is a deal-breaker or am I wrong?

I can see you have already replied in several threads on this subject, so I think Paizo already knows your point of view, but if you don't think so, I would probably start a dedicated thread on the sole purpose of making sure Paizo is aware that you (and likely others) would really like to see the necromancer being able to animate undeads without the need of secondary casters.

The rest of your "points" about everybody trying to ruin the game for you etc by not letting you play...

as far as i know necromancy has always been part of wizards and core so treating them as if it was secondary stuff sounds like a demotion

"we can afford not to put them in the core rules since they affect a comparatively small number of games or characters"

this doesn't sound like someone who cares about minorities to me to me them again maybe its just me seeing things because i like necromancy


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

In my personal experience, Player Character Necromancers are exceedingly rare. I have never GMed for one nor have I ever seriously considered playing one.

So it wouldn't bother me if "rules for players creating undead" just ended up in a later book. A lot of things are going to need rules eventually (mass combat, naval combat, underwater combat, intrinsic properties of outer planes, organization building, psychic magic, interplanetary travel, etc.) but we can afford not to put them in the core rules since they affect a comparatively small number of games or characters.

just because you don't care doesn't mean the necromancer players don't care, could you be a little more considerate to other players or are you one of those who believe minorities aren't worth consideration?


Charon Onozuka wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:
players are not supposed to always agree, a party where everyone agrees on the most optimal choices is metagamey as f+~* and not interesting in the slightest in fact they are not supposed to know i'm a necromancer until i decided to reveal it except its gonna be hard to keep it a secret on 2e with his ritual b@%#+%@+

Wait... are you keeping this a secret from the other characters or their players? Because a secret like this can be an engaging roleplay when other characters don't know, but can be a dick move if their players don't know and it directly causes inter-party conflict to the point that they can't work together anymore the moment it is revealed. Smaller secrets can be fun to reveal to players, but game-changing/party-destroying secrets like this really need to be known to everyone at a meta-level, even if their characters are in the dark about it.

Neutral_Lich wrote:
BUT STOP HARD CODING THE RULES SO THAT PEOPLE CAN ONLY BE EVIL IN A EVIL PARTY WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE GM

Evil characters always could work with non-evil parties... within reason. If I bring my Antipaladin of Genocide into a party full of Paladins and good Clerics as part of a quest to retrieve the holy grail, things are probably not going to work out. On the other hand my evil assassin can work in a campaign where the party needs their services, even if the good cleric is trying to pull a redemption arc on them to justify why they stay together.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever heard regarding character creation in a TRPG is to always remember that this is a group game. The loner-archetype can work in other fictional mediums where a single author has full control over the events and party dynamics, but easily falls apart in a medium where multiple authors (GM+Players) craft the story and don't all have reasons to justify why they're still working with that uncooperative loner. And it is not their responsibility to find a reason to stay together when your character is...

i would completely agree with you if we actually had any plan on plays testing rituals and necromancy but unless i'm wrong they have no plan to do so and that is why i disagree

unless you are suggesting i wait until they have already print the book in which case i most definitely disagree with you


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:
as a player i shouldn't need the gm permission to select a option that the rules give to me

Then you'd be pretty out of luck with a great many GMs, both on this site and elsewhere. GMs can and will decide what is and is not okay for their game (frequently involving banning entire books, and sometimes even extending to banning or houseruling core classes if they don't fit the setting,) and while a good GM will work with the players to help them create characters they want to play, ultimately the GM is the one laying the setting and determining what works or doesn't work for their game. So just expecting to show up with an off-the-wall concept that sounds more like a big-bad than a hero and just assuming it's fine is quite a stretch.

Neutral_Lich wrote:
again with that b!@@~*+% argument of wait until they have hard coded it released it and made it official to ask for a big change will you stop with it its a cheap dishonest tactic to dismiss criticism

You're literally the one assuming that rules that don't exist yet are bad. Yes, there is a possibility that things might go the way you fear. There's an equally valid option that they might go the way others are saying. And frankly, being argumentative and dismissive of others' ideas (which calling it a "b!@@~*+% argument" and "cheap dishonest tactic to dismiss criticism" is straight up being argumentative and dismissive) isn't likely to sway the devs towards your preferences.

Neutral_Lich wrote:
they are not supposed to know i'm a necromancer until i decided to reveal it except its gonna be hard to keep it a secret on 2e with his ritual b#@%%*~!
...How long were you expecting to keep it a secret? Whether it's a ritual requiring multiple people, ritual requiring 1 person, or a 1-Action Spell, that secret is out the moment you try to, you know, Animate some undead. And if you're trying to do this in a party with a Paladin and Pharasmin Cleric, well, chances are it's PVP time, and even if you have...

i honestly cant believe anyone actually believes that paizo would change such a huge mechanic after the book has been print and released, how would that even work would they release a free errata for people who already bought the physical copy which is why i assume anyone ho says it has ulterior motive

fine if you insist on the "we don't know if its gonna be like that" then lets talk about something we know like planar binding who clearly says it takes 4 people and change necromancer for cultist and there goes that excuse what now?

"How long were you expecting to keep it a secret?"

as long as i feel like its my character after all

"that secret is out the moment you try to, you know, Animate some undead"

you are assuming i will walk around with the undead on my side its not like the undead have my name on their face i could just have them do my bidding form the distance

(which is why i'm so worried about this vocal command requirement and not being able to leave unattended for 1 minute)

"Maybe when you stop trying to bring the most obviously, openly evil concept possible"

that is the f+%~ing problem im complaining about i don't want to be open about it but if i need a hour long ritual and acolytes to do it its and i need the undead to be at my side all of the time kinda of hard to keep it a secret

what is so weird about a necromancer walking in secret with a paladin and a priest without them knowing, he is gonna know their plans and he will be able to animate the monster they kill without them knowing, unless of course they change to rules so he can't because people don't want evil characters in the party

again i respect the concept of a good party i just don't think it should forced upon everyone who isn't outright evil some people actually enjoy intrigue and secrets on the party

and despite some people thinking adventures are good by standard there are many adventures where people play neutral as mercenaries hired for money etc...

still that doesn't mean they will help em with necromancy specially when that means pharasma will send you to the abyss for it

which is precisely why me needing their help is stupid considering i never needed it until now

i could ask the gm for a number of acolytes if he is very benevolent he might agree but that is stupid to walk around with a congregation of ncps

the hunter the warrior the druid and the necromancer and his 8 acolytes each with 4 undead hordes (its retarded) that is as bad or worse then having a large number of low lvl undead and i doubt any gm would allow that

this basically means i could be on good as secret, neutral and evil parties but now only evil are available and even them if the party and the gm feels like it


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:

Yeah I'm not getting the beef here. As a player you should just assume, by default, that your GM does not want you to make an evil PC unless it's an evil campaign. Even if they don't bring up alignment restrictions, that's probably because they haven't yet dealt with an evil PC in a an otherwise neutral-good party. Any character concept that logically would result in the party splitting due to irreconcilable differences or never partnering up in the first place is, well, a bad concept. It's kind of dickish, it forces other players to twist their own characters so that you the player at the table can play that night. It's kind of like making a rogue that steals from their party, it can only end one way and the rogue player is basically holding themselves hostage - if the party does the logical thing and kicks them out, then the rogue's player won't play the game and then the group will have to cancel because there won't be enough people.

Non-evil necromancers being a thing is a possibly valid concept and I dig settings that have that as an option, but for the default Golarian setting you're basically setting up a big 'ole OOC argument and severely restricting what other players can play.

I imagine any necromancy meant to be a player option is going to be a lot different from PF1, there's gonna be new rules so it's not insufferable during play. It's kind of dumb to speculate that it'll be RUINED FOREVER at this point, it's not even in the Playtest. Doomsday Dawn assumes there's a bunch of heroic parties willing to do selfless things to save the world and "loner evil" necromancers kind of run counter to that, so it just didn't get priority over the other stuff.

as a player i shouldn't need the gm permission to select a option that the rules give to me which is precisely why i don't want you people to create these rules otherwise then yes i will need the gm's permission

again with that b@@+@~#% argument of wait until they have hard coded it released it and made it official to ask for a big change will you stop with it its a cheap dishonest tactic to dismiss criticism

players are not supposed to always agree, a party where everyone agrees on the most optimal choices is metagamey as f*!% and not interesting in the slightest in fact they are not supposed to know i'm a necromancer until i decided to reveal it except its gonna be hard to keep it a secret on 2e with his ritual b%$*+*$&

your hole argument is i a opinion and as i said you are welcome to ban necromancy and evil on your party

BUT STOP HARD CODING THE RULES SO THAT PEOPLE CAN ONLY BE EVIL IN A EVIL PARTY WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE GM

oh the hypocrisy all those two faced liars keep saying "you just have to talk with your gm to houserule" when its clear they themselves wouldn't accept and just want ammo to ban necromancers


Captain Morgan wrote:

I also feel like it's much less disruptive to talk your GM into relaxing the restriction on secondary casters than it is to:

1) Show up with a bunch of undead that your fellow party members would object to.
2) Show up with a bunch of undead that NPCs are going to object to.
3) Utilize a half a dozen minions, have your turns take 3 times as long and completely encounter results until the GM learns better and houserules your stuff to taste.

And it might be worth mentioning that I'm pretty sure they are looking at using something like the troop template to let you command hoards of undead or whatever else, so those options aren't disappearing.

you are being intellectually dishonest

1) and 2) are the same and are equally difficult in both first edition and second

3) houserule: you wont use more than X undead minions

in the case animating dead requires secondary casters

houserule: you now count as multiple players for the sake of rituals

both can be solved with 1 rule

the difference is the first is a nerf that can be avoided if the necromancer doesn't abuse the mechanic while the second is a buff that no different form asking to have wings at level 1

that if we ignore skill requirements that are gonna prevent me from selecting other things

evil alignment and necromancy are available for players to chose so they should be usable if you dont like them you have the right to ban them in your table but don't try to force that on the rules


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Rituals having secondary casters means the party has to work together when they're doing a magic thing. Activities which involve everybody are more fun than those that do not.

As for NPCs, as the GM you can just give them accomplices. Perhaps the Necromancer has Necromancer friends who get together every so often to combine efforts and then go their separate ways.

oh yeah the priest of pharasma and the paladin are gonna have a lot of fun raising undead with me

Megistone wrote:

It's really too soon to complain about that, as we know for sure that raising undeads will be in the final game but we still know nothing of how it will work.

Also, Neutral_Lich, while you have every right to play the kind of character you like, you can't blame the setting because there's a god who hates undeads and their raisers, nor PFS for having rules that don't allow evil PCs to screw up their groups (I'm not talking about you, but it's a fact that mixing good and evil characters in the same group can very easily become a problem unless the players really want to cooperate, and you can't guarantee that if you don't know who will show up for the session).
No one is asking you to play your undead master, either.

Please consider another point. The problem behind the limit of 4 minions and the harsh rules to command them that you can find in the playtest is simple: playing your turn when you are moving multiple minions typically takes a lot of time, and that can be unfair/boring to the other players.
I guess I was lucky that all the necromancers, spellcasters with summons, actual Summoners, never ever used more than one minion, summon, eidolon or animal companion together.

so basically wait until rules that can ruin the game for you get hard coded into the game to complain really?

"you can't blame the setting" until it stopped begin a setting and started being mechanic "pharasma can shut down any Resurrection"

your multiple minions problem can be easily solved with a gm house ruling or even just taking with the player but having a gm allowing the other way around it almost impossible

this is like a knife ban just because some people use it wrong you don't ban everyone from using it and the people who do it bad will find another way to be bad so in the end it just serves to hurt good people

"No one is asking you to play your undead master, either"

that is no different from saying no one is asking me to play

the game is supposed to help tell stories if 1 narrative that was possible before is now impossible for no good reason then its a bug

i find it sad the 1 game that allowed to play my favorite character is gonna be ruined for me and its clear other people don't even care


1 person marked this as a favorite.

make no mistake i'm totally ok with martials having more power in the narrative and being able to use magic is they invest skill points

but i cant stand is completely removing stuff that i could do in the previous editions

can anyone point me to any proof that they wont require secondary casters on necromancy or that there will be a way to skip those requirements?

its was already extremely frustrating in the first edition that i was hated by the very god that judges people after death ,that my practice was illegal almost everywhere and that i couldn't play pathfinder society because no evil character

and in the second edition its likely that a lot of stuff i could do previously like using blood money to not need gems or using spells sage to get access to resurrection without gods will either take time to get there or wont even come out

(oh yeah i actually need pharasma's permission now way to go)

(and i can only have 4 minions while commanding 3 if i give up all my actions and needing verbal commands meaning a silence spell can insta-break my char along with the fact they need to be on my side and only leave for a maximum of a minute)

so what you are asking me is to play a neutered butchered character while still need at the very least the gms cooperation to gimme 2 npcs who could easily betray me or screw me by incompetence if the gm feels like it just to do basic necromancy

as if finding parties that allow evil chars wasn't hard enough

yes i could not be the case but it could also be the case and that would mean the death of this game for me because i chose pathfinder because it allowed em to play the character i wanted


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The DM of wrote:
Actually, you take the tool away from the spellcasters who already had it.

I feel like rituals benefit casters (who likely already have the investment in the appropriate stat and skill) much more than they do non-casters.

Like every wizard is going to have high Int and eventual mastery of Arcana, but very few Barbarians or Rangers will. So this is essentially a free resource for spellcasters, as they will have the stat and skill for other reasons and it does not expend spell slots.

What it does, however, is guarantee that you never need a specific class on hand to raise the dead or bind a demon. A cleric is always going to be your #1 choice if you need a resurrection, but if you need to resurrect the Cleric then anybody else who has mastered religion and has a good wisdom score (the druid or the monk perhaps?) has a chance.

how? you are forcing a requirement of secondary casters i don't see how that will ever be a benefit specially when animate dead will probably be a ritual as stated, how is a LONER necromancer HATED by people gonna benefit from EXTRA UNNECESSARY REQUIREMENTS HOW?


Tectorman wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:

why must undead be hated we just don't wanna get our souls stolen by tyrannical gods and them turned into outsiders against our will

f%&~ pharasma and the rest of the gods i wanna be undead

#UndeadUnlivesMatter?

great now we only need a dank meme to start the movement


why must undead be hated we just don't wanna get our souls stolen by tyrannical gods and them turned into outsiders against our will

f#$! pharasma and the rest of the gods i wanna be undead


i like rituals my only problem is when they detract from the caster experience, why cant we have it both ways


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:

What is happening, man? You made one thread about a class concept and were told that the bulk of Necromancy was left out of the playtest. Then you made a second thread to ask about rituals which really isn't a big deal.

Like, what you're looking for isn't anything that was included in the playtest and no one has seen anything about it yet. You can read the rulebook that's been out for awhile before jumping to conclusions so quickly.

in the thread i was actually asking if there was a way to get access to the divine list without a god

but someone on the tread mentioned that the resurrection requires 2 other people

then i remembered that they said in a stream that animate dead was gonna be a ritual and was left out because of space or something

then i realized that there isn't a single ritual without secondary casters and its stated that you cant do it without them

maybe im jumping to the conclusion that animate dead is gonna require a secondary caster

but if i don't voice my complaints now and its comes out requiring one then p2e is gonna be lost to me

i always went through great lengths on pf1 to ignore any form of reliance on players and gm like getting blood money or rune sage or even false focus to ignore the need for gems and be able to raise dead when i want

i'm really worried about it


please tell me that is not the case

i'm asking that because i'm worried, i believe heard animate dead might be a a ritual

i like the idea of rituals and i cant stand a lot of bad stuff like the 4 minions limit and not being able to leave then for 1 minute and even the vocal command

but i really don't want to need another person to make basic skeletons like really this is kinda of a deal breaker for me


Shisumo wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Resurrection is handled by rituals, and rituals are accessible to anyone who can a) find some way to learn them and b) have sufficient proficiency in the relevant skill. All you need is two friends and Expert in Religion and you're fine.
wait what do you mean by that do i need the help of 2 other people as in i cant do it alone anymore?
A lot of rituals, including resurrection, require more than one participant. You're the only one who needs to know the ritual, but you do require at least two other people to help you (acolytes, friends, intelligent undead servants, whatever).

oh my god and they are gonna make animate dead into a ritual as well?

that is literally the worst possible thing you can do to a necromancer

how i'm going to hide i'm a necromancer if i need 2 acolytes with me all the time the party is gonna realize it the moment they show up

and where in the hell i'm going to find 2 evil acolytes at low levels? or even worse what if the adventure is on a forest

why would anyone think this is a good idea?


Shisumo wrote:
Resurrection is handled by rituals, and rituals are accessible to anyone who can a) find some way to learn them and b) have sufficient proficiency in the relevant skill. All you need is two friends and Expert in Religion and you're fine.

wait what do you mean by that do i need the help of 2 other people as in i cant do it alone anymore?


citricking wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:

my favorite type of characters in pathfinder are necromancers i have always found them to be iconic of tabletop rpgs

one character i have always tried to do is one who through study and intelligence (not through gods) has found the power to defy death both for himself and others

in pf1 i used a spell sage to get access the the resurrection spells, so i was wondering if there is anything similar on p2e

Not currently. Check back when pf2 comes out next year.

damn not even with multi-classing?

i remember somewhere in the sorcerer page where its says your magic is disconnected from it source so maybe a wizard/sorcerer with demon blood could pull it off?


my favorite type of characters in pathfinder are necromancers i have always found them to be iconic of tabletop rpgs

one character i have always tried to do is one who through study and intelligence (not through gods) has found the power to defy death both for himself and others

in pf1 i used a spell sage to get access the the resurrection spells, so i was wondering if there is anything similar on p2e


8 people marked this as a favorite.

i would like to voice my opinion but since animate dead was not in the playtest i ddnt even get the chance to build a opinion

the very fact they chose not to test it worries me


spell sage its my favorite class ever, on second spot i guess rune sage would be my next favorite its a shame i cant mix both


seriously now is there any actual way of upgrading your undead?

i would certainly be more willing to play with a single powerful minion if i didn't had to look up for a bodies with just the right number of dice, expend a s%@$ ton of onyx and then try to put it under my control


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Sorry, let me expand.

Summoning was bad too.

Anything that gave you more than 1 minion was pretty awful for every else at the table. I've played with too many necromaners that had pets with special senses and other special abilities that simply outshone what PCs could accomplish easily within the rules. And this was equally true of summoning/binding.

As someone who didn't play characters that could do those things, I absolutely hated them when they we're brought to the table. Especially necromancy because it didn't reduce day to day capabilities because the undead stuck around, unlike summons.

Sure, a necromancer isn't any worse than a summoner. But that's because both suck for everyone else at the table to deal with.

Minionmancy was a huge problem in PF1, and frankly I'm happy to see it put to rest.

if you hate them so much why not just ban or houserule them? the book basically says gm's are the law

or if he is you friend you could talk to him and ask him not to do it?

i understand you don't like it but ask yourself how many times has a player convinced you to buff a class or change rules

its important for the people who specially like this class and want to play it on other tables

If you really want to play as a character who takes up 50% of the turns during combat then you can set up a house rule with your GM that allows you to do that. But that should not be the standard. I'd much rather like Jason mentioned a troop or swarm-like system where you can control an undead horde but it acts as one. And this is coming from a necromancer player in PF1e (Undead Lord cleric to be exact).

maybe you didn't read my thread earlier but i don't use those undead for battle

i understand you don't like this specific style and me neither but please consider how hard it is to get a gm to completely change a class feature to buff a player

and above all try to understand how it feel for a player to need to get buffed to do something villains do all the time

from the moment the gm buffs you everything you accomplish feels meaningless because you are no longer following rules

at this point you might as well just write in a sheet of paper "i win" and continue with your life


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

Sorry, let me expand.

Summoning was bad too.

Anything that gave you more than 1 minion was pretty awful for every else at the table. I've played with too many necromaners that had pets with special senses and other special abilities that simply outshone what PCs could accomplish easily within the rules. And this was equally true of summoning/binding.

As someone who didn't play characters that could do those things, I absolutely hated them when they we're brought to the table. Especially necromancy because it didn't reduce day to day capabilities because the undead stuck around, unlike summons.

Sure, a necromancer isn't any worse than a summoner. But that's because both suck for everyone else at the table to deal with.

Minionmancy was a huge problem in PF1, and frankly I'm happy to see it put to rest.

if you hate them so much why not just ban or houserule them? the book basically says gm's are the law

or if he is you friend you could talk to him and ask him not to do it?

i understand you don't like it but ask yourself how many times has a player convinced you to buff a class or change rules

its important for the people who specially like this class and want to play it on other tables


Charon Onozuka wrote:

Outside of the potential for a Necromancer archetype that uses troops (which is unlikely to be the core book), I'd say most of these are features rather than bugs.

In PF1, any type of minion was a no-brainer to take if possible, since they doubled your actions in a round by default. Summons did mostly the same, only with the added benefit of not caring if they died in battle. Even if a minion/summon had a difficult time contributing to damage, every hit aimed at one was a hit not aimed at a PC. Not to mention that in numbers, they could clog up the battlefield and keep certain enemies unable to contribute until the party was done with the rest.

In-combat, having too many minions slogs things down. And while you're right that they can also have uses out of combat... one of the big focuses in PF2 seems to be removing the ability for casters to outright replace mundane party members through magic (in addition to everything else they're doing with magic). And if you have a load of disposable undead minions, it is really easy to assign them tasks that make other roles useless (who needs a trapfinder if the skeletons just trigger every trap by walking into it?)

In short: Addressing your concerns here seems (to me at least) like something that would create far more problems than it solves.

i understand what you mean nobody should have to compete for a role but ask you to take into consideration that those caster can only cast so many time

i have no intention of denying that casters can fill the role of other party members but also consider that a skeleton would have a hard time competing with a seasoned warrior

also remember that not all parties are balanced so sometimes its good to have a caster patch them

i agree with people that having a troop/swarm monster could be potentially more fun than either of the extremes

but i also think that we are losing sight of what a necromancer is

what was the last time you saw a lich issue verbal commands that just feel lame it ruins the speechless mysterious feel

seriously at the very least remove this verbal command bit and change it to concentrate, talking is too lame


j b 200 wrote:

Skeleton 1 attacks- can't hit

Skeleton 2 attacks- can't hit
Skeleton 3 attacks- can't hit
Skeleton 4 attacks- can't hit
Skeleton 5 attacks- can't hit
Skeleton 6 attacks- gets lucky, rolls a 20 and does 1d4+3 dmg
Skeleton 7 attacks- can't hit
Skeleton 8 attacks- can't hit
Skeleton 9 attacks- can't hit

i would sugest talking with the necromancer in question?

i cant think of why anyone would use such strategy but i'm sure nobody likes to be hated by the party

im sure that some dialogue could convince him to have not have his skeletons participating in the fights specially if they are indeed that useless

the reason i'm particularly worried is because you can use less undead or having them not be in the fight but convincing a gm to buff a class is not just hard but it feels horrible to be a special snowflake

also undead can be used in many diverse ways besides fighting


6 people marked this as a favorite.

i made a post a while ago about necromancy

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ble?can-i-ask-a-question-about-necromancy

i love playing as necromancer wizard and that is why i'm worried about it

and make no mistake i really appreciate changes like bind undead that skip the annoyances and let players have fun

i understand its not being tested yet but its precisely because of that i want to be more vocal in the hopes that it can be addressed before its too late

1 - having only 4 minions at max

2- having to use 1 action to issue verbal commands with concentration per minion

3- not being able to leave undead alone for more than 1 minute

these 3 things can potentially completely ruin what makes the class fun

i'm reading the rules wrong or is there a reason i shoudln't be worried?


any info on necromancy?


The Once and Future Kai wrote:

That does seem to be RAW.

Quote:
Minion A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions. A minion acts on your turn in combat when you spend an action to issue it verbal commands (this action has the concentrate trait). If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for at least 1 minute, mindless minions don’t act, whereas intelligent ones act as they please.
Hopefully Necromancer would get a feat or a spell that allowed issuing orders to a group.

yeah i was also hoping for some sort of group control so i don't have to play a turn for each undead

I appreciate the devs work to try and solve the problem of large number of undead or summons slowing the combat

i don't want to spoil the fun for the rest of the party so i usually have spooky skeletons do something else during combat

it would be cool if there was a spell to create non-combatant undead just to keep the versatility in


I know we aren't testing necromancy yet but I have been reading the rule book and I'm worried about some things

If any of the devs could answer I would like to ask what is the role of a wizard/necromancer in 2e?

not any particular information but just what you are supposed to be in general

in 1e I usually play by using the mindless skeletons by having them scout, go around activating traps, checking for enemies, collecting items, watching over exists/entrances carrying the party stuff(or the party if we are tired), distracting enemies or guards, burying them and using them as traps (or having them prepared to shot, throw fire into oil etc...), holding mechanisms (like a lever) in place or even keeping a door shut, go around setting things into fire with torches, sending them to look for food, taking the night turns so the party can sleep(the dark vision comes very handy), staying back fighting enemies so we can flee, digging, working as chairs,stairs,bridges,beds etc...

the versatility of the class is what makes it my favorite but I'm worried about being limited to 4 minions and being unable to leave them unattended for 1 minute could reduce their utility a lot

also I'm not sure if i'm reading it wrong or you can only control 1 minions per verbal action?

also when is necromancy going to be tested?