It's always been a source of frustration for me that arcane necromancers are so much worse than divine necromancers - to me, the iconic evil necromancer with the legion of loyal crafted undead is a wizard, not an armor clad battle priest, but D&D has historically not gone that way (the animate dead spell and higher versions are all easier to cast for clerics than for wizards). I'm glad to see that PFRPG Necromancers might actually come closer to meeting their specific niche - Necromancer specialists SHOULD be better with undeath than priests, unless said priests have the Death domain.
|
See, that's were I disagree. Its the preist that studies the afterlife, and interacts with deities and the dead, both to protect against or use and manipulate based on religion and alignment. Sure, a death priest (and a holy one) should be better than anyone else at undead related necromancy, but preist in general should just be better in general than arcanists at it.
|
See, that's were I disagree. Its the preist that studies the afterlife, and interacts with deities and the dead, both to protect against or use and manipulate based on religion and alignment. Sure, a death priest (and a holy one) should be better than anyone else at undead related necromancy, but preist in general should just be better in general than arcanists at it.
See that's not what I've ever gotten or heard of outside of DnD. Outside of DnD I've seen lots of stories where magicians are using their power to create and control undead. But I can't think of a single non DnD source where an evil priest is creating or controling the undead. I can think of instances where demons/devils are doing it, but not a single non DnD source where a priest is doing it.
Also even including DnD sources I've always thought it was bad that priests made better undead masters than necromancers. Even playing Baldur's Gate which was my intro to DnD I thought it was strange that clerics could control them, but Xandar the evil necromancer couldn't.
Well, Voodoo priests can animate zombies. That's about the only other source. And, honestly, they're likely to be better represented as wizards anyway, based on what they're supposed to be able to do.
When I think evil death master, I tend to imagine them being frail, sickly looking people in tattered robes (or perhaps immaculately beautiful, china-pale individuals in finery). I don't think of folks wielding heavy maces and wearing full plate. Most fiction agrees, it would seem.
|
|
I think the trouble in with RL references is most of those sorcerers and what not are actually priests (not catholic priests). Between "Voodoo" zombies, the Dark Priest in Temple of Doom not undead, but easily mistaken for a sorcerer), anything out of Conan, it is easier to say they are a priest than a sorcerer. Even most "witches" I think fall into the divine rather than arcane. The truth is, it is most often the Arcane side that summons demons in RL reference and the Preist that deals with undeath.
To me it was always off that necromancer really didn't or couldn't do much with undead. They were not master's of undeath as they should have been.
Clerics should not out nercomaster the necromancer.
Surely the Necromancer is going to be able to Turn Undead, not Channel Energy. As it's been confirmed that Turn Undead is now a feat, it will just have the effects of the feat, i.e. making undead run away.
The Cleric will still be able to blast them into little tiny pieces, whereas the Necromancer won't.
That's what I got as well. They don't get Channel Energy, just the ability to Turn or Control. I could be reading it wrong, but that's how I took it.
Well, "necromancers" were suppose to be "sorcerers," i.e. people using forbidden arts to speak with the dead, but originally, that was the extent of the meaning, to speak with the dead. Necromancy then kind of got expanded to encompass magic that deals with the dead, and then to magic that manipulates "life force."
So its kind of a pop culture expansion/evolution thing.
On the Necromancer front, the demarkation between divine and arcane, especially in early sword and sorcery fiction, is a pretty fuzzy boundary. Conan has 'priests' to forgotten or forbidden gods, but they are not 'clerics' i.e. they wear robes not full plate. Remember the argument that clerics are inspired by Templars. Ningauble and Sheelba are regarded as 'sorcerers'. Are we to regard the discriptive terms assigned to these fictional characters as class designations? If so, there is no 'priest' class.
Also remember that the 'wizard' class is the only base class without a real-world basis, and its inspiration lies solely in folklore, superstition, and legend (as well as modern fantasy of course). Any real world inspiration would be in fact regarded as 'divine' magic i.e. druids, priests miracles, biblical figures, witchcraft/witches, etc. Even Faust has the fictional taint of a deal with the devil, arguably making his abilities 'divine' or 'profane' in nature.
|
|
I was actually thinking specifically of faust as as close to Wizard as D&D would allow. He was a scientist and inventer. Part of the point of the book was that he was trying to accomplish things outside of the natural divine order, like completely cure a disease.
Neither here nor there, though, and not really my intention to go so off topic..
As for preist not being cleric, while true, I think that Cleric covers the preist the best, (except the Adept). Not all Clerics wear Fullplate.
I was actually thinking specifically of faust as as close to Wizard as D&D would allow. He was a scientist and inventer. Part of the point of the book was that he was trying to accomplish things outside of the natural divine order, like completely cure a disease.
Yeah, I think that there is a fine line, but still a line, between someone that thinks, say, a demon or devil or Great Old One is worthy of being worshiped, and then ends up as a conduit for their power, and as such, can be cut off from that power, and someone that gives up something, such as their soul, or their first born, or whatever, to learn to see and manipulate forces that a mortal being normally can't see or manipulate, and once said mortal has seen and learned such "forbidden lore," that mortal can't "unlearn" or be cut off from that power . . .
If that makes any sense.
As for preist not being cleric, while true, I think that Cleric covers the preist the best, (except the Adept). Not all Clerics wear Fullplate.
I don't want to derail either, so I'll be brief.
I feel that the cleric class should be done away with, and we should have a Priest class and a more robust Paladin.
weak schools.
(hopefully weak school.)
To me it was always off that necromancer really didn't or couldn't do much with undead. They were not master's of undeath as they should have been.
Clerics should not out nercomaster the necromancer.
Well I think they should.
necromancy isn't just about the undead.Necromancers have RoE and the powerful Horrid Wilting. One of the best evocation spells in the game....and it isn't even an evocation spell ;-)
....and they have the rest of the wizard spell list.
yeah but ya see a necromancer studies life and death, the engry that heal and harms. How to create and unmake.
Sure clerics know about some of this , however they do not study it as much. Even undeath domains and such would be god granted ablitys an not true understanding.
It's like the cleric is a general practice doctor and the Necromancer wizard is a brain surgeon. Sure the cleric knows some of that stuff and knows it better then most folks but the necromancer has studied it and only it, he has dove past what every cleric knows, well and past
cleric is good enough at alot of this but, they should not out do a specialist in his field
As for preist not being cleric, while true, I think that Cleric covers the preist the best, (except the Adept). Not all Clerics wear Fullplate.I don't want to derail either, so I'll be brief.
I feel that the cleric class should be done away with, and we should have a Priest class and a more robust Paladin.
I'll be brief, too: No. :P
yeah but ya see a necromancer studies life and death, the engry that heal and harms. How to create and unmake.
Sure clerics know about some of this , however they do not study it as much. Even undeath domains and such would be god granted ablitys an not true understanding.
cleric is good enough at alot of this but, they should not out do a specialist in his field
I was just saying a similar thing to my DM last night, although from a cleric's viewpoint. Necromancers understand what they are doing, Clerics instead have faith in the power their god channels through them. They may not 'scientifically' understand how undead are created but that is because they do not have to. the question should be are necromancers specialist enough that they outshine (or should that be outdarken) a priest of a death/undeath god such as Nerull, Myrkul and Orcus? In effect the nature of the clric's god makes them a specialist as well.
Nerull, Myrkul and Orcus?
The Pallid Princess laughs at your wannabe necomancer-gods. Especially those who have died and let it stick.
|
The issue I didn't see resolved was whether people can move through the {HotA} weapon's square or not. I've ruled that they can but can't end the round occupying the same square, but I'd relax that last, too, if context demanded it.
Well, I'd assume it didn't fill a square, grant or receive flanking bonus, or block movement.
Does a dancing sword do so? Or a Spiritual Weapon?
|
|
yeah but ya see a necromancer studies life and death, the engry that heal and harms. How to create and unmake.
Sure clerics know about some of this , however they do not study it as much. Even undeath domains and such would be god granted ablitys an not true understanding.
It's like the cleric is a general practice doctor and the Necromancer wizard is a brain surgeon. Sure the cleric knows some of that stuff and knows it better then most folks but the necromancer has studied it and only it, he has dove past what every cleric knows, well and past
Thats it sort of proving my point. It is the Cleric that studies, and lives this stuff. They are the ones that naturally experience and work with it. With Wizards, however, they one don't actually focus exclusively on Necromancy, even as a specialist, but also don't (usually) focus any special training on studying with priests, learning the spiritual side of it, or anything outside of book knowledge and basic arcane training. While the Cleric also doesn't exclusively focus on Necromancy magic, it does represent a larger portion of their overall and generic spell list.
The Cleric is the brain surgeon, while the Necromancer is the general practice doctor. They are not givine up non-Necromancy magic, just slieghtly neglecting it.
The Cleric is the brain surgeon, while the Necromancer is the general practice doctor. They are not givine up non-Necromancy magic, just slieghtly neglecting it.
Huh? The necromancer gets one (1) specialist school: necromancy. The cleric gets two (2) domains, one of which may or may not have anything at all to do with the afterlife. Both can cast spells outsider their domain or specialist school, but the cleric does so in all cases at full efficiency -- whereas the necromancer uses 1/4 of all other magic at half efficiency (2 slots per spell).
Personally, I'd like clerics with the Death domain to be the best, then necromancers, and then (as a distant third) everyone else. On the other hand, the idea of a cleric (one with, say, the Laughter and Music domains) being better at matters involving undead than a necromancy specialist... that just makes no sense to me.
The Cleric is the brain surgeon, while the Necromancer is the general practice doctor. They are not givine up non-Necromancy magic, just slieghtly neglecting it.Huh? The necromancer gets one (1) specialist school: necromancy. The cleric gets two (2) domains, one of which may or may not have anything in the world to do with the afterlife. Both can cast spells outsider their domain or specialist school, but the cleric does so in all cases with no restrictions -- whereas the necromancer uses 1/4 of all other magic at half efficiency.
I think the point is that arcane magic tends to cover a wider range of effects than clerical magic (which is more narrow in what it can do, albeit still pretty awesome).
|
|
So it would be fair and balanced for a Necromancer to be better with undead than a Cleric of Death and Undeath?
What I am saying is, that Wizards have much larger selection of spells. Even Core material only. So Necromancy spells take up a smaller percent of their full spell list than it does for Clerics.
I think the point is that arcane magic tends to cover a wider range of effects than clerical magic (which is more narrow in what it can do, albeit still pretty awesome).
The arcane list has more total spells on it, but with regards to range of effects: wind walk? Also, core clerics all gain armor and shield proficiency (even if they choose not to use them) and better martial training (3/4 BAB) -- do these require no training?
So it would be fair and balanced for a Necromancer to be better with undead than a Cleric of Death and Undeath?
Personally, I'd like clerics with the Death domain to be the best, then necromancers, and then (as a distant third) everyone else.
|
|
I think the point is that arcane magic tends to cover a wider range of effects than clerical magic (which is more narrow in what it can do, albeit still pretty awesome).The arcane list has more total spells on it, but with regards to range of effects: wind walk? Also, core clerics all gain armor and shield proficiency (even if they choose not to use them) and better martial training (3/4 BAB) -- do these require no training?
This is true. They train to be in the eye of the storm, so that they can act to heal or bring down. That is what I mean about living the experience. As far as all simple weapons, I have always viewed this as the norm, which is why only Wizards (and a few classes with specialized training like Monk) get simple weapons. By the definition, they are the common impliments of combat that take little training to master, and even the sorcerer gets them. Armor and BaB, is because they serve their temples also in a militaristic way. They are both knights and priests, in a sense. I would prefer a bit more custimazation on a Cleric's players part, like maybe trading heavy armor for more magic abilites, and sort of a small ability to build the cleric as you want, but that isn't going to happen.
The arcane list has more total spells on it, but with regards to range of effects: wind walk?
I don't understand what you're saying: since clerics have Wind Walk, that means that they can do more different types of things than wizards?
I don't understand what you're saying: since clerics have Wind Walk, that means that they can do more different types of things than wizards?
No: not "more than wizards" -- but certainly "a lot more than has been claimed for clerics."
Personally, I'd like clerics with the Death domain to be the best, then necromancers, and then (as a distant third) everyone else. On the other hand, the idea of a cleric (one with, say, the Laughter and Music domains) being better at matters involving undead than a necromancy specialist... that just makes no sense to me.
This I totally agree with. Unfortunately with 3.0/3.5/PF the domains do do not differentiate clerics from one another enough.
The Pallid Princess laughs at your wannabe necomancer-gods. Especially those who have died and let it stick.Nerull, Myrkul and Orcus?
Except Orcus died and did came back! He is only biding his time before he takes Golarion...the only obstacle in his path is that pesky James Jacobs :)
|
|
The issue I didn't see resolved was whether people can move through the {HotA} weapon's square or not. I've ruled that they can but can't end the round occupying the same square, but I'd relax that last, too, if context demanded it.Well, I'd assume it didn't fill a square, grant or receive flanking bonus, or block movement.
Does a dancing sword do so? Or a Spiritual Weapon?
It doesn't threaten so can't grant flanking bonuses or impede movement; sharing a square with someone, though, doesn't make much sense to me (even though it's small). Mind you, I don't know the rules on dancing sword, although that's a more powerful enchantment anyhow.
|
|
This is true. They train to be in the eye of the storm, so that they can act to heal or bring down. That is what I mean about living the experience. As far as all simple weapons, I have always viewed this as the norm, which is why only Wizards (and a few classes with specialized training like Monk) get simple weapons. By the definition, they are the common impliments of combat that take little training to master, and even the sorcerer gets them. Armor and BaB, is because they serve their temples also in a militaristic way. They are both knights and priests, in a sense. I would prefer a bit more custimazation on a Cleric's players part, like maybe trading heavy armor for more magic abilites, and sort of a small ability to build the cleric as you want, but that isn't going to happen.
See this I disagree with. A cleric never focuses just on the nature of death. Even a cleric with the death domain has a second domain that he has attention too and even a cleric of a god of undeath has things that they have to train and spend time mastering. Even simple weapons take some proficiency, not nearly as much as martial, but certainly more than hey you can just pick this up and use it to great effect. Hence why wizards, monks, and commoners don't get all simple weapons. A commoner can have one simple weapon proficiency, that's what you get without training. Also they train with their armor. They also have to perform rituals, observe prayer, and spend time worshiping. Not to mention that clerics don't question things, they just have faith. Why does that zombie not spawn when ghouls and vampires do? Because Nerull made it that way.
A necromancer does none of these things. He doesn't waste time praying to some being he doesn't understand, he studies, he delves. He doesn't waste time putting himself in a tin can and swinging a stick. He cuts into cadavers. He dissects a ghoul and a zombie to learn the physiological differences. He devotes himself to undead. and thus he should be the hands down master of it.
In my opinion it goes Necromancer, Cleric with the undead domain, Misc. Cleric, then Generalist wizard.
The wizard! The cleric!
Who. is. DEADLIEST!?
|
|
That's not really true. It all depends on your view of Divine Magic. I think that they do question things moreso that almost any other class, as a generalization. Monk being the exception, to a point. That is was wisdom is about. Though D&D sort of skews it, at it's heart, wisdom, the stat, means your understanding of things rather than your memory of what you have read and otherwise studied (int). It isn't blind faith, it is tfaith that comes from understanding the true meaning of things. Whereas your necromancer disecting a corpse might understand the physical means wy which a certain undead's body functions, they likely don't understand the other magical or metaphysical reasons. Also, keep in mind, I'm talking about it going both ways. I think good Clerics should also be better at good Necromancers at fighting and warding off undead.
|
|
The wizard! The cleric!
Who. is. DEADLIEST!?
Depends what you mean. A Cleric vs a Wizard, granted both are well built, and generally equal and also not specifically built for this purpose, Cleric. Barring Save or Dies, which are a poor test. The Wizard just doesn't have many option that are likely to work on the Cleric as well, that also don't totally screw themself.
However, against enemies and general random encounters, I think the Wizard has the upper hand. Much better utility option, and a much wider range of things that they can handle under similar circumstances.
The issue of whether an arcane or divine necromancer is "better" depends on what the necromancer is supposed to do.
If the necromancer is the mythological one, a diviner who speaks with the spirits of the dead, a divine caster has spells better suited to this role.
If the necromancer is a human or lich spellcaster who assembles an army of skeletons to conquer the world of the living... well, it's somewhat hard to handle this in the game. Neither class can directly control enough undead to do this; intelligent corporeal undead tend to be chaotic and difficult to control; and manufacturing undead is expensive.
For this, you really need intelligent zombies that have a means to reproduce and can serve as lieutenants in a hierarchy. Wights are probably the most useful, altho awfully tough. Perhaps if there was a wightspawn template, like the vampire spawn template, that would make 1-HD wights without an energy drain attack enslaved to their sire.
Most of the splats focused on making good multiclassed necromancers, or necromancers that were really disgusting and powerful individual combatants.
You'd think that the arcane necromancers would be the ones tinkering with animating rats and housecats, grafting living and unliving tissue, and assembling skeletal armies. Surely the devotees of Orcus would make sure that animate rat would be a common 1st-level spell. Unless the demons are destroyers and it's the devils who are tempters.
It makes sense, though, that the worshippers of an evil god or demon lord would find it easier to warp life and death than a wizard who is twisting the boundaries of life and death on his own. Arcane casters have a more extreme power curve, where they start out really weak and grow to enormous power; the stereotypical lich is always a wizard.
I like what they did except for one thing... they burnt down web with wizard's fire and then used gust of wind on the ashes.
Huh? The necromancer gets one (1) specialist school: necromancy. The cleric gets two (2) domains, one of which may or may not have anything at all to do with the afterlife. Both can cast spells outsider their domain or specialist school, but the cleric does so in all cases at full efficiency -- whereas the necromancer uses 1/4 of all other magic at half efficiency (2 slots per spell).
Not quite the same.
Domains consist of 9 spells (one per level) and a couple of powers. You have to choose one of your two domain spells per level. Unless it's also a cleric spell, he cannot use it more than that once.
Schools consist of dozens of spells and apparently several powers. I haven't seen the school abilities, but I guess they're more powerful than the domain powers - compare beta domains and schools.
Personally, I'd like clerics with the Death domain to be the best, then necromancers, and then (as a distant third) everyone else. On the other hand, the idea of a cleric (one with, say, the Laughter and Music domains) being better at matters involving undead than a necromancy specialist... that just makes no sense to me.
The problem is that this would mean that domains grant you a lot more power than specialist schools, because the death domain would have to boost you past necromancy. And then you get another domain. Too big a change for PF.
Maybe PF 2.0 will change the cleric to put a lot more emphasis on domains.
Anyway, I still think that necromancers shouldn't be one-offed by clerics. They should be equals at most.
|
|
I'm not sure why there is all this talk about Clerics being better than Necromancers. Didn't Pathfinder fix this? Clerics, in Pathfinder RPG Final, do not get Turn Undead (or Rebuke Undead) automatically, they must take a feat. Necromancers sound like they get that feat (and the ability to Turn/Rebuke) as their 1st level ability for free.
Sounds like Necromancers got better at it to me.
A necromancer does none of these things. He doesn't waste time praying to some being he doesn't understand, he studies, he delves. He doesn't waste time putting himself in a tin can and swinging a stick. He cuts into cadavers. He dissects a ghoul and a zombie to learn the physiological differences. He devotes himself to undead. and thus he should be the hands...
I agree but do not come to the same conclusion. A cleric does not have to understand - he has faith. He does not have to know about undeath as he uses his faith to channel the power of his god to work his profane magic. When a cleric of Orcus creates undead he does not necessarily know about the intricacies of the magic and how it interfaces with the dead flesh he just has faith that Orcus can do these things and the power then manifests through him.
Just because the necromancer knows these things and probably has to know these things in order to get the same results does not mean he should be better than it. The two are different routes to the same power. One through faith the other through knowledge.
Wow. This thread has derailed into a land of pure opinion.
Fair enough.
When the thread is vaguely on-topic about the new wizard, we sometimes get helpful tidbits from Mr. Bulmahn et al.
I doubt Cleric vs. Wizard going to be as helpful, since we're no longer making projections or inferences, or asking questions, we're just jousting about which class is better now. That's what I mean by "opinion". There can be no resolution to this, by definition.
I do love a good threadjack though, have at it.
edit: I apologize if I'm being a jerk, my neighbors just took it upon myself to mangle my hedge without asking, then sent their kids to tell me to mow my lawn. I'm irritable, and I want new wizard talk.
I apologize if I'm being a jerk
Not at all. I love a good opinion-based threadjack, because talking mechanics quickly becomes frustratingly non-productive ("Whattya mean, the math doesn't work? 3.5 is perfect!").