What do Rituals add to the game?


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tectorman wrote:

Okay, can we acknowledge that there is, or (prior to rituals) was, a difference between a caster contributing outside his role and a martial contributing outside his role? The party face, he with the highest Persuasion/Diplomacy/whatever modifier whether a Bard, Rogue, or other class, is the go-to guy for greasing the wheels socially. But on the rare occasions where he isn't available or is otherwise occupied, someone else, even if they be a Wizard, even if their Persuasion isn't as high or even high at all, can step in if need be. Ditto physical challenges that are usually the territory of the Fighter or Barbarian.

Yes, even with rituals, the character with the highest skill mod that the individual ritual asks for is still the point man for leading the ritual, and that individual will probably still be a caster. But at least now, non-casters can try. The dark corner of "no narrative impact" didn't always occur, but I'm still glad to see it go away further.

not without Mastery of the appropriate skills they can't...whether that makes sense for the build or not, take it for the team and LEARN. However they aren't a fatally flawed concept, just need some work.


I mean, skill ups are precious. Non-rogues can only get legendary in 3 skills which would be all of your skill increases. Most people are going to want to be legendary in at least one thing, which would leave them able to master 3 things and be legendary in another.

It's entirely conceivable a monk will want to focus on, say, Acrobatics, Athletics, Stealth, and Thievery and will thus not have the room to master Nature or Religion.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, skill ups are precious. Non-rogues can only get legendary in 3 skills which would be all of your skill increases. Most people are going to want to be legendary in at least one thing, which would leave them able to master 3 things and be legendary in another.

It's entirely conceivable a monk will want to focus on, say, Acrobatics, Athletics, Stealth, and Thievery and will thus not have the room to master Nature or Religion.

This does lead to a weird thing, that because rituals are based on skills, Rogues are likely to be the best with ritual magic. That's kind of odd to me. Maybe actual spellcasters should get a bonus to represent their familiarity with magic. Something like "Spellcasters get a +2 circumstance bonus during rituals to the skill matching their spell list." So wizards get a +2 bonus to Arcana and Druids +2 to nature, etc. It still leaves things open to others, but still allows people with actual magical talent to be better. So in this case, the Rogue would still have the potential for being able to perform the most rituals, but would be more of a Jack of All Trades, with spellcasters as the specialists. Maybe there can be feats to add or increase ritual bonuses. And down the line, maybe a class that has ritual mastery as part of their shtick.


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?


Neutral_Lich wrote:
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?

I think that's the reason villagers went missing.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think that Neutral_Lich's concern is taking away the narrative of a loner individual, with no support of anyone else, raises a band or undead servants and minions. I was going to say army, but perhaps they aren't driven by conquest, just self satisfaction, and prefer to be left alone.

First, this narrative seems to always rely on someone relying on magic in order to accomplish this. That means that it isn't a hard concept that this story could easily include the use of a magical item/artifact/relic that might allow the item to take the place of a normally required secondary caster. Alternately, getting a hold of a specially consecrated location might have a similar effect.

Additionally, it mentions that Rituals can have secondary caster, but at least how I read it, secondary caster aren't a requirement that all rituals must have, so although I believe all example rituals include secondary casters, there could exist some that don't require them. (or as I mentioned above, perhaps an item could have an ability to allow a primary caster to fulfill a secondary caster role as well, unlike the normal prohibition.

There might also be the possibility of short term animation spells that might last 8 hours that could animate a skilled servant for the eight hours of the ritual being preformed.

All that is to address the actual narrative of the absolute loner.

On the other hand the Narrative of a natural loner, one who 'prefers' to be alone, doesn't have to preclude them from interacting with others to achieve their desired ends. It is commonplace for stories of evil, or at least selfish/self-centered souls tricking the local peasants or craftsmen into helping them, via deception, bribery, blackmail, or kidnapping.

So, I don't think Rituals actually eliminate the stories, but in some specific cases it might involve leveraging magic items or locations more, or even potentially involve a plot designed to leverage others to assist them in their plans. (admittedly the latter might feel counter the intended feel of some loner personalities, so you might have to rely more on the former options)


Loreguard wrote:

I think that Neutral_Lich's concern is taking away the narrative of a loner individual, with no support of anyone else, raises a band or undead servants and minions. I was going to say army, but perhaps they aren't driven by conquest, just self satisfaction, and prefer to be left alone.

First, this narrative seems to always rely on someone relying on magic in order to accomplish this. That means that it isn't a hard concept that this story could easily include the use of a magical item/artifact/relic that might allow the item to take the place of a normally required secondary caster. Alternately, getting a hold of a specially consecrated location might have a similar effect.

Additionally, it mentions that Rituals can have secondary caster, but at least how I read it, secondary caster aren't a requirement that all rituals must have, so although I believe all example rituals include secondary casters, there could exist some that don't require them. (or as I mentioned above, perhaps an item could have an ability to allow a primary caster to fulfill a secondary caster role as well, unlike the normal prohibition.

There might also be the possibility of short term animation spells that might last 8 hours that could animate a skilled servant for the eight hours of the ritual being preformed.

All that is to address the actual narrative of the absolute loner.

On the other hand the Narrative of a natural loner, one who 'prefers' to be alone, doesn't have to preclude them from interacting with others to achieve their desired ends. It is commonplace for stories of evil, or at least selfish/self-centered souls tricking the local peasants or craftsmen into helping them, via deception, bribery, blackmail, or kidnapping.

So, I don't think Rituals actually eliminate the stories, but in some specific cases it might involve leveraging magic items or locations more, or even potentially involve a plot designed to leverage others to assist them in their plans. (admittedly the latter might feel counter the...

And another idea, there are spells to control existing undead, so maybe they have to find and bind an intelligent undead or two and then use them to power the ritual for a mindless army.

This is tricky for non-casters though.


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.

Page 274 says: "Many rituals require secondary casters;" which means that as written they can print rituals that don't.

Also, I feel like a pretty reasonable tweak to the rules is you can perform a ritual without secondary casters and it counts as having those roles automatically failed. So you take a -4 circumstance penalty on the your primary check. That's a sufficient penalty to the check to ensure most parties will make it a group effort, but not enough to prevent a very high level caster from reliably doing lower level rituals. It also means a lone madman can perform a level appropriate ritual. His odds of success aren't great, but IMO that's not important for letting you tell a story where he does succeed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


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


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neutral_Lich wrote:
[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

I actually don't think this is anything like the debate around the sale and ownership of real life weapons, but I don't think making that comparison is going to get you any sympathy if it did. Plenty of people are actually for restricting real life access to weapons.

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

If you've got a paladin and a cleric of Pharasma in your party, you were already dead in the water. They cleric would already have to destroy your minions on sight, and the Paladin would probably want to do the same. If you're playing in a party/campaign that allows necromancy and/or evil characters, odds are you can get your party on board to help out.

Seems to me that your issue has more to do with alignment based assumptions of the setting on Golarion. I can't tell if that's because you don't want to play a non-evil necromancer or you want more games that support evil characters, but either way it sounds like the mechanics barely intersect with what you're upset about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neutral_Lich wrote:
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

I mean, I can't believe it needs saying but how about just don't play a necromancer when your pals you go on adventures with would have a major issue with that? Not every valid character concept is going to work in every party, and it's not like those characters are going to be cool with "showing up for the dungeon with a horde of shambling undead behind you" even if they didn't see you raise them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a lot of design space to address assorted complaints with feats. Consider the following 2 example feats:

Lone Ritualist: You are used to casting rituals without secondary casters. You can cast a ritual without secondary casters, instead, making the secondary checks yourself.

Ritual Master: You are an expert in ritual magic. You get a +2 circumstance bonus to skill checks in casting rituals and to learn or research rituals. Further, your skills count as one proficiency step (UTEML) step higher for the purposes of learning and casting rituals (ie. You can learn and cast a ritual with an Expert proficiency rather than Master. This proficiency step up does not change your proficiency bonus on rolls)).

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:
[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
I actually don't think this is anything like the debate around the sale and ownership of real life weapons, but I don't think making that comparison is going to get you any sympathy if it did. Plenty of people are actually for restricting real life access to weapons.

It's a very similar argument because it involves base assumptions about people. I agree with him, max sympathy points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:
[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
I actually don't think this is anything like the debate around the sale and ownership of real life weapons, but I don't think making that comparison is going to get you any sympathy if it did. Plenty of people are actually for restricting real life access to weapons.
It's a very similar argument because it involves base assumptions about people. I agree with him, max sympathy points.

Sympathy was probably the wrong way to put it. You aren't going to unify people to your point of view on game design by envoking divisivereal world issues. For every person who agrees with your point someone else is going to disagree, and it's frankly moving the issue further from the actual topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I agree, talking to your GM is the best way to get a chance to play the character you are talking about. However, it also is worth noting that the game is a cooperative game, and so all players (in my opinion including the GM) need to be sitting down and understanding that they all need to have a commitment to providing that they are making choices that are going to be cooperative with people's collective fun.

I say that is a requirement at this point because of a couple points. It sounds like you have identified Pathfinder and specifically PFS as both being restrictive because you couldn't bring your character to come play at the table. You have identified that your character is an evil, loner, necromancer. If I were the GM in this situation, I'd be asking you. How, and why is your character coming into the story as one of the heroes? What is it that is their purpose in the story, and how will you be helping the party.

Intentionally choosing a role that is frequently considered the villain, the weight of answering these questions are not on the other party members or even really the GM in my opinion. I as a GM would be willing to listen to such a player's answers. I've even had an idea for an Undead Lord character that I would really love to play, but it would be on me to make them a potential hero and compatible party member. Doesn't mean there couldn't be some interesting situations generated, and be potential conflicts or misunderstandings popping up. If I heard one of the other players was going to be a Pharasmin priestess, I'd probably reconsider and go with a different concept myself for that game, because I have trouble imagining how they could maintain a working relationship. (or would understand I might need to replace my character once the truth got out)

One of the most fun campaigns I played, I ended up coming in as a replacement character, early on in a Rise of the Runelords PBP game. My character would have super quickly been identified as a foe in the game based on prejudices. I suggested a scene, where witnesses would attest to despite people's normal presumptions that my character was on the village's side. In the end the player who first reaction was to hate me (quite valid racial hatred), became my most trusted battle buddy. But, I owned my starting disadvantage and presumptions, and the GM decided to accept me and work with me, and in the end we had a lot of fun. But my character wasn't there to take away from others, but to help highlight what heroism was, and my character had a reason to want to be one of the heroes, even despite people's prejudices.

So while not saying you can't use these concepts. Both LONER and EVIL are two aspects of personality that often are not compatible with cooperative play in a hero story, which is the typical campaign. If you want to play characters with even one of those traits, you need to be on board for figuring out how you fit into the story.

In then end, I don't think the game rules wise, per-se is going to be in a condition to insure you can play such a role. I think that is always going to fall on you and your chosen relationship with your GM and fellow players. If you are wanting to make sure you can play in almost any game, I'd have some more readily compatible concepts available to pull out. I don't blame PFS for banning evil characters, although I know evil characters be interesting to play at times. [and they can really be cooperative players, if their players choose to]

That, is at least my recommendations.

Somewhere there was a setting where it was commonplace for non-intelligent undead to be animated, and it wasn't considered evil. I think it was an island chain and the dead were frequently animated and used for labor. If it is just the idea of a character animating dead, perhaps finding such a setting and getting a GM to run an adventure in that setting might enable you to play the sort of character you would like.

The fact that Pathfinder is more closely tying their rules system to their setting will mean there would potentially need to be tweaks when adapting to a completely different setting. Actually, I considered it a 'Plus' to pathfinder, that the rules in its core, had death domain having undead related spells associated with it, and for its 'setting' there was an alternate set to bring it in line with the setting. For years I considered it more setting agnostic, which was a plus. Going closer to Golarian in its core is really a slight negative for me personally. Not a big negative, but a smidge of a negative for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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.

which means the entire party has to have the skill mastery to do the ritual.. Yay? Unless I missed something, that is way less fun than leaving the ritualist to it and going to do basically anything else.


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.

The rules aren't banning evil alignment or necromancy. Nor am I trying to. Rituals aren't targeting either anymore than they are targeting Consecrate, or Resurrection. Evil characters can still exist, they just work aren't the best fit for stories about classical heroes, and your should probably discuss it with your table before showing up with one.

But your argument is "my Pharasman party members won't help me make undead" makes no sense because they also wouldn't let you bring undead to the party.

How big do you figure the gap is between "I will travel with undead and let them be created by my co-worker in front of me" and "I would never help my co-worker make undead." Because that'd what you're fighting for here. And even that is a hypothetical, because we don't actually have the Animate Dead ritual or know if it will require secondary casters.

Also, I stand by that it is less disruptive to actively ask permission for a house rule than go down a road that requires your frustrated GM to make a house rule. We should strive to make games less frustrating for GMs. That's how you keep them GM'ing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

The rules aren't banning evil alignment or necromancy. Nor am I trying to. Rituals aren't targeting either anymore than they are targeting Consecrate, or Resurrection. Evil characters can still exist, they just work aren't the best fit for stories about classical heroes, and your should probably discuss it with your table before showing up with one.

But your argument is "my Pharasman party members won't help me make undead" makes no sense because they also wouldn't let you bring undead to the party.

How big do you figure the gap is between "I will travel with undead and let them be created by my co-worker in front of me" and "I would never help my co-worker make undead." Because that'd what you're fighting for here. And even that is a hypothetical, because we don't actually have the Animate Dead ritual or know if it will require secondary casters.

Also, I stand by that it is less disruptive to actively ask permission for a house rule than go down a road that requires your frustrated GM to make a house rule. We should strive to make games less frustrating for GMs. That's how you keep them GM'ing.

or they could just not put in rules intentionally designed to mean that multiple characters have to max skills to perform a ritual, because as far as I can tell, secondary casters have the same requirements as the primary, and requiring them wipes out all 'soloist summons x that should not be' stories...and if paizo includes them anyway, they break their own rules, which was a massive flaw with 1e, and should be avoided at all costs. Rules are all we have to define the world, stories that break them have no place in that world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


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


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The basic premise of roleplay is generally built on the concept of a band of heroes working together to save the day, the village, the city, the country,the world, the universe.

So bringing a I will bring death and undead to the world character to that scenario would put a big weight on your side to explain to the GM how you are going to contribute collectively to the story. This is the 'group' nature of role playing games. It is pretty much not an issue with solo adventure/campaigns as long as the GM is interested in the same sorts of stories you are. [which isn't a concern limited to necromantic or evil characters]

There are ways even an evil character can be built to have a tie in to a story, where their intentions will primarily fall in line with the party. In some cases, a GM might have a use for a double-agent in the party, although that can be a dangerous mechanic for a game, as some could feel betrayed personally out of game in such a game.

Before saying this is targeting you and evil and necromancy, it isn't. It is the nature of this being a group activity, and it affects any of the more extreme character concepts. Your purist, goody-two-shoes paladins have long had similar issues with not always being welcome in any campaign.

It is a privilege to play with other players at a table, not a right. It is your responsibility to put forward something that the other players will want their collective story to include. When you can, know your fellow players and keep them in mind. If you can, work to tie your back story in with another player. Arrange to be the brother of the Paladin or the Pharasmin priest. It could be an interesting conflict of family bond vs. choice. Family honor might even keep them from feeling like they can share knowledge of your choice to be a necromancer.

A fundamental part of any extreme character concept, is it being able to be vetted to being appropriate to the story. In some cases, only the GM may need to know, but others, simply having everyone on board is the easiest way to make sure you... and the others have fun.

Again, these aren't P2 rules, these are realities of role-playing dynamics due to it being a group activity. Unlike in a sport where players might tolerate a fellow player who hogs the ball, if they score enough points to win the game, so the team will eventually win a championship. In role-playing, winning is determined by if people had fun in the session. If you make the group playing no longer fun, you won't be invited back. That is just the way it works.

You don't have to be in an evil party to be evil. But the party needs a reason to continue to have you with them, even if you are evil. Maybe a family connection, maybe you are in love with one of the other party members and would do anything for them, perhaps key members of the party have reason to think you can be redeemed, or maybe you hate their primary nemesis even more than they do. (although that one has a definite ending point for cooperation, once you all succeed in destroying the nemesis)

If I bring a barbarian who insists on smashing to smithereens all magic items she sees, and pounding anyone she sees cast a spell to a bloody pulp to teach them a lesson, that player or at least character isn't likely to be kept around for very long, unless perhaps none of the other characters cast spells or want access to magic items, or likes the idea of only keeping such resources hidden from the other character.

This is a cooperative activity and so choices should keep that in mind.

Rituals may accent this concept of cooperative play, so in that sense, it is probably a plus. However, really, rituals don't create the dynamic. That dynamic was already fundamentally there the whole time.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
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 undead to outnumber them, well, given the undead will probably be weaker than party members, you're probably going to be the one re-rolling.

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

Maybe when you stop trying to bring the most obviously, openly evil concept possible and then get upset when people that, you know, fight evil as a profession take offense to that. Assuming you even get the concept past the omnipotent GM you're trying to avoid checking with.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Shinigami02 wrote:


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.

we have exactly zero reason to assume that it will not be a multi person ritual. All the examples we have require huge skill investment by multiple people to work, and have not been playtested or surveyed about so we have to assume that the massive barrier to entry is standard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just unsure what kind of story we're telling about the Dread Necromancer, the Pharasman Cleric, and the Shining Oath Paladin that is going to be fun for all three players.

Like, "the Necromancer is doing something I consider unforgivable, but the GM is preventing me from doing anything about it" isn't going to be fun for those other two players.

I mean, I don't know if "the players can use all the rules without talking to the GM first" has ever been standard, and PF2's "rarity" system is designed to explicitly delineate stuff you absolutely cannot have without the GM's permission. Like all rituals in the playtest are already marked as uncommon which is "only available on taking an option that unlocks it, otherwise on GM permission". Creating an Undead Horde is almost certainly going to likewise be uncommon, if for no other reason than to give the GM veto power over concepts that are going to ruin the party dynamic.


I am probably breaking a forum rule saying this but I feel it should be said so meh.
To Neutral Lich, the intent of this forum is to give constructive feedback on the playtest. Please take your impotent, toxic and childish tantrums elsewhere. I hear 4chan is nice.


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


neutral_lich said wrote:

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

I don't disagree with the hope that some rituals could be performed solo (maybe with a penalty or require feats etc) especially a ritual like animate undead (or whatever it will be) and personally I wouldn't mind if they also made a spell with similar effects of animate undead.

But the whole argument that maybe the rules would limit your chance of playing a necromancer in hiding in the party is pretty fragile at best. I have a hard time seeing anything other than a single sessions (and in agreement with the GM) would ever get an enjoyable experience for all parties by being a necromancer in the midst of a good (or even neutral) party. Necromancy and animating the dead is among the most evil acts I can think of, so the second your true nature were revealed it would likely by PvP or at best the group will part ways.

I think it's pretty standard that any GM's either bans certain alignments or at least read the players character sheet and after discovering that a character was evil would talk with the player about how they ended up with the group and what their long term goals were with the evil character. (If nothing that would enhance the game/ story experience could be decided, then it likely wouldn't be allowed). So even standard evil characters would be limited in most parties, let alone a necromancer that is not only evil, but who's core essence is the usage of said evil.

So if you could do single caster necromancy (which I do hope you can) at best it would be like one session before that fact was known by the rest of the party. So playing a necromancer where that would be the end just seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
EDIT: And I don't see why this wouldn't be the case in pathfinder 1 as well.


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 busy providing reasons that they shouldn't. No matter what character you are making, as long as you're playing in a group, they need to be able to play nice with others.

This doesn't mean the character necessarily has to enjoy being social and cooperative, but they need to have a reason why they're doing it anyway (& not rely of everyone else making that reason). One of my best received characters at a table was actually an antisocial, cynical deadpan snarker who constantly muttered insults towards the rest of the party under their breath (“Group of Weirdos”, “Midget”, “Religious Nut”, etc.) and was evil-aligned in their vigilante identity (while being neutral in their social identity). This worked primarily for three reasons:

1) Prior to making the character, I already knew the story would have our characters assigned together through no choice of their own - so regardless of my character's feelings, she had to make the best of the situation she was in (story provided reason to not go loner).
2) While the character didn't enjoy being part of the group, she never shied away from contributing the best she could for their benefit, went out of her way to help solve things for them even when she disagreed, and avoided doing anything that would cause a party-split.
3) Her biggest secrets (human-looking tiefling & vigilante identity) were known at a meta-player level by everyone at the table even though their characters agreed to remain oblivious.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:


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.

we have exactly zero reason to assume that it will not be a multi person ritual. All the examples we have require huge skill investment by multiple people to work, and have not been playtested or surveyed about so we have to assume that the massive barrier to entry is standard.

We also have the rules text stating that: "Many rituals require additional secondary casters; like the primary caster, secondary casters do not need to be a member of a spellcasting class." This seems to imply that while the currently printed rituals in the rulebook all have secondary casters, that it not mandatory for them and there will be future rituals which do not. And in fact, the rituals in the bestiary don't have secondary casters (though they are currently written for monsters).

And again, remember that we are still in a Playtest where none of the rules are finalized yet. It is fine to argue that we need to expand options for more rituals to be performed by a single individual (I'd actually agree), but it does no one any good to just assume how the future will be and use that as the basis for saying everything is horrible.


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.

In my personal experience, Player Character Necromancers are exceedingly rare. I have never GMed for one nor have I ever seriously considered playing one. When I've run Necromancer villains, I never really paid attention to how they managed to create all the various bony terrors the PCs have to fight.

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, guns, 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.


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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neutral_Lich 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 not saying "don't print the rules for it", I'm saying that some things are going to have to wait for later books since we can't print a 900 page rulebook. People are already going to have to wait to play Aasimar, or Oracles, or Witches, or Kitsune, or Changelings, or Gunslingers, or Dhampir, or Occultists, etc. no matter how much those might have been our favorite things in PF1- they just aren't going to be in the core rules. But that's fine since Paizo is going to just keep printing more books and we can all play something else in the meantime. I don't think there's any danger of never getting rules for that stuff, since it exists on Golarion already and *never having rules* for a thing that canonically exists is akin to a retcon.

But in terms of "what things should go in the core rules" given that space is at a premium, priority should go to things that are going to come up most often or things which improve the experience of the largest set of players. So print the base rules for rituals, with maybe a couple of zombie making ones, and if those aren't up to snuff you can always print other ones in other books.

Remember, a comparatively small number of PF1 characters or campaigns can be supported solely by the rules from the PF1 CRB, and that's the level we're operating on here. All the things that come in later books are also likely to have greater focus and will be informed from things learned from earlier books, after all.


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 a necromancer together with a paladin, it seems immature and takes away from what is otherwise a valid point.


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


Playtest has a lot of necromancy in it: Abyssal Plague, Bind Soul, Bind Undead, Blindness, Breath of Life, Call of the Grave, Celestial Brand, Chill Touch, Cloudkill, Deafness, Death Knell, Death's Call, Disrupt Undead, Disrupting Weapons, Enervation, False Life, Field of Life, Finger of Death, Gentle Repose, Ghoulish Cravings, Glutton's Jaws, Goodberry, Grim Tendrils, Harm, Heal, Heal Animal, Healer's Blessing, Healing Font, Hero's Defiance, Horrid Wilting, etc. are all spells you can cast right in front of a Pharasman Cleric and they will tolerate (well, maybe not Bind Soul without a really good reason.)

What it does not have is "rules for creating undead", which can probably wait since it's less likely to come up than what most of those spells do.

So Necromancers who heal or kill people are good to go, whereas Necromancers who want to raise armies of skeletons might need to wait a bit. It might be for the best since "permanent minions" like familiars and animal companions aren't exactly strong right now. Plus Necromancy should probably be worse at being the minion oriented school than Conjuration is, anyway.


Neutral_Lich wrote:
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?

And could you be a little more considerate to other players by not trying to demand that the rules be hard-coded to allow someone to play one of the most d***ish character concepts in Golarion without the knowledge of other players (Players, not characters. Important distinction) and judging by some of your comments possibly even the GM, completely regardless of whether or not such a character would damage their enjoyment of the game?


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


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.


Neutral_Lich wrote:
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

(Emphasis mine)

Yes, that is exactly what they would do. That is exactly what they do every time they do errata, which often comes with a decent chunk of re-balancing and rule-modifying. But at the moment there is nothing to modify, as the rules openly state that single-person rituals can (and arguably should) be a thing, and we don't have the rules for Animate Dead yet. And to be quite frank, there may well be a spell for creating undead without the ritual, just like how there are spells for reviving the dead despite there also being a ritual for that.

Neutral_Lich wrote:


"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)

...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.

Neutral_Lich wrote:
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

For the record, I have nothing against Evil, even outright Evil, being in a party of Good. Heck, a couple of the most memorable parties I was in had Chaotic Evil characters alongside an unwitting Paladin (and in one case an LG Inquisitor of Ragathiel too, that was a crazy game.) It's just going to involve subtlety (and in PF1e no small amount of hoop-jumping for Paladins or Inquisitors, that at-will Detect is quite the game-changer) and Necromancy is generally anything but subtle.

EDIT: Slight change, forgot Paladins don't get the same Detect Evil they used to.


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.
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


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. I respect this as a theorycraft exercise but if you actually bring this to a table you're actively disrespecting other people's time.

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.


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


That would be called an animal companion. XD
I wouldn't mind an option along the lines of the Skeleton Companion from PF1's Undead Lord Cleric archetype or the FFD20 Necromancer.

101 to 150 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / What do Rituals add to the game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.