|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We basically just had this thread. For people's answers look at said thread here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
would it be absurd to want a necromancer class?
like not a wizard but a class dedicated entirely to being a necromancer
maybe something with a eternal youth feat like the monk and druid (timeless ????) and the lvl 20 capstone being a skill like (many lives) that the pf1's reincarnated druid got at level 5
or maybe similar to the twilight sage arcanist archtype
of course it would most certainly be banned from pathfinder society for being related to necromancy but at least it would be fun for home brew campaigns
would it be absurd to want a necromancer class?
Would be great - a nice differentiator to 5th's warlocks...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, with PF2's tactical bent, you are never going to see a "minionmancer" kind of class. At best you will have one fight buddy and it will generally eat some of your actions.
People seeing Necromancer class will expect something akin to PF1 Agent of the Grave 1254 HD of skeletons spam, and PF2 has put a rather strong kibosh on having dozens of minions out.
Yep. I certainly would want to see a decent necromancer build. But balancing it would be a real design challenge.
I would like a pet class, but wider than necromancer to include more type of pets. So undead, fire/water/wind elemental, golem, clockwork, spirit animal, and maybe others.
Not sure what a good name would be. Animancer? Mechanic? Engineer? Artificer? Puppeteer?
And while I certainly don't want 20 minions. I would like to see an see the option for 2 by level 4. Maybe a 3rd as legendary.
People seeing Necromancer class will expect something akin to PF1 Agent of the Grave 1254 HD of skeletons spam, and PF2 has put a rather strong kibosh on having dozens of minions out.Yep. I certainly would want to see a decent necromancer build. But balancing it would be a real design challenge.
i think there are many interesting ways to balance it and they could do a playtest exclusive to the class to make sure it works
i have an idea i will try to make a thread to see what people would expect of necromancer class and them make a poll to see what type would be most popular
there made it its called [if 2e were to make a necromancer class what would you expect it to be like?]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the meaningful difference between "a necromancer who has one minion" and "A summoner whose eidolon is spooky"?
Just the nomenclature of "naming a class after one of several schools of magic" has issues. Like right now you can have a Wizard who specializes in Necromancy- how is that not a Necromancer?
would it be absurd to want a necromancer class?
Absurd to want it, no, but I don't think it's coming from Paizo. Antipaladin is as close as they'd get to a functionally evil-only class, and that's now a part of Champion. As you noted, it'd be an entire class banned from PFS. They're not planning on writing any more evil campaigns, so it wouldn't really have a home in most APs either.
Once you've got a class concept that doesn't fit with Paizo's core business of writing adventures, it probably either needs to be something smaller than a class (a specialization of a broader class, or an archetype), or it needs to be written by somebody else (third-party or homebrew).
would it be absurd to want a necromancer class?Absurd to want it, no, but I don't think it's coming from Paizo. Antipaladin is as close as they'd get to a functionally evil-only class, and that's now a part of Champion. As you noted, it'd be an entire class banned from PFS. They're not planning on writing any more evil campaigns, so it wouldn't really have a home in most APs either.
Once you've got a class concept that doesn't fit with Paizo's core business of writing adventures, it probably either needs to be something smaller than a class (a specialization of a broader class, or an archetype), or it needs to be written by somebody else (third-party or homebrew).
so they are going down that profit over fun route? damn that is sad, i guess its capitalism then, there is nothing that can be done about
so they are going down that profit over fun route? damn that is sad, i guess its capitalism then, there is nothing that can be done aboutwould it be absurd to want a necromancer class?Absurd to want it, no, but I don't think it's coming from Paizo. Antipaladin is as close as they'd get to a functionally evil-only class, and that's now a part of Champion. As you noted, it'd be an entire class banned from PFS. They're not planning on writing any more evil campaigns, so it wouldn't really have a home in most APs either.
Once you've got a class concept that doesn't fit with Paizo's core business of writing adventures, it probably either needs to be something smaller than a class (a specialization of a broader class, or an archetype), or it needs to be written by somebody else (third-party or homebrew).
I think this is the case where the two things overlap. While a dedicated Necromancer class might be a lot of fun for you and me, a class that can't play in Society and doesn't fit a lot of APs (or groups) is going to have a lot of people it's not fun for (including every player who primarily plays PFS).
As far as the capitalism thing is concerned, it does mean we're likely to get a third-party developer interested in stepping in and doing their best to write an interesting and balanced Necromancer class.
so they are going down that profit over fun route? damn that is sad, i guess its capitalism then, there is nothing that can be done aboutwould it be absurd to want a necromancer class?Absurd to want it, no, but I don't think it's coming from Paizo. Antipaladin is as close as they'd get to a functionally evil-only class, and that's now a part of Champion. As you noted, it'd be an entire class banned from PFS. They're not planning on writing any more evil campaigns, so it wouldn't really have a home in most APs either.
Once you've got a class concept that doesn't fit with Paizo's core business of writing adventures, it probably either needs to be something smaller than a class (a specialization of a broader class, or an archetype), or it needs to be written by somebody else (third-party or homebrew).
I think this is the case where the two things overlap. While a dedicated Necromancer class might be a lot of fun for you and me, a class that can't play in Society and doesn't fit a lot of APs (or groups) is going to have a lot of people it's not fun for (including every player who primarily plays PFS).
As far as the capitalism thing is concerned, it does mean we're likely to get a third-party developer interested in stepping in and doing their best to write an interesting and balanced Necromancer class.
i think there are some fundamental flaws with that way of thinking
1- not all classes have to be pathfinder society allowed some can be for enemies and then players outside of the pfs its not like your are forced to play in the same table as every single necromancer
2- i for instance absolutely hate paladins and cleric but that doesn't mean i would want then to be unable to be played even outside of pathfinder society
3- it assumes everyone players pathfinder for pfs in my case i much prefer homebrew sandbox campaigns since they allow for the gm to build a story and give the player much more freedom of choice instead of railroading everything
so they are going down that profit over fun route? damn that is sad, i guess its capitalism then, there is nothing that can be done about
I don't think that's fair. If they were really worried about profit they wouldn't make absolutely everything open content.
What's keeping you from publishing your own "fun" content?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1- not all classes have to be pathfinder society allowed
Hard disagree. Building a class is a significant undertaking. Designing one that's fundamentally incompatible with a huge chunk of what Paizo's trying to promote seems like a really bad idea on their part.
"A class that won't work in every campaign, or with every group, or with something like PFS" is something for 3PP developers to publish, not Paizo.
Which is fine, 3PP folks do a lot of good work and need some low hanging fruit to develop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that said in general I think the forums here are really quick to dismiss a concept as "unworkable" in PF2 and I hope Paizo ends up being a little more adventurous with their class design.
so they are going down that profit over fun route? damn that is sad, i guess its capitalism then, there is nothing that can be done aboutI don't think that's fair. If they were really worried about profit they wouldn't make absolutely everything open content.
What's keeping you from publishing your own "fun" content?
well i mean nothing i just thought after 4e that pathfinder would be different i'm not blaming then i understand how taxing capitalism is and how it forces people to make hard choices i'm just lamenting that i will miss their old style that is all
I feel like you're really reaching to ascribe motives here.
well i mean nothing i just thought after 4e that pathfinder would be different i'm not blaming then i understand how taxing capitalism is and how it forces people to make hard choices i'm just lamenting that i will miss their old style that is all
What old style? What on earth are you talking about?
well i mean nothing i just thought after 4e that pathfinder would be different i'm not blaming then i understand how taxing capitalism is and how it forces people to make hard choices i'm just lamenting that i will miss their old style that is allWhat old style? What on earth are you talking about?
you know doing stuff just for fun even if its not balanced or practical for instance the reincarnated druid ability to self reincarnate or the clone master ability, stuff like that i dont think we will ever see that again with that pfs focused philosophy
I have no reason to believe we won't get an "auto-reincarnate" druid option in PF2.
It just might not come online as early as it did. But the main reason we don't have one yet is that the "reincarnate" spell doesn't exist in this edition yet.
you know doing stuff just for fun even if its not balanced or practical for instance the reincarnated druid ability to self reincarnate or the clone master ability, stuff like that i dont think we will ever see that again with that pfs focused philosophywell i mean nothing i just thought after 4e that pathfinder would be different i'm not blaming then i understand how taxing capitalism is and how it forces people to make hard choices i'm just lamenting that i will miss their old style that is allWhat old style? What on earth are you talking about?
They'll do stuff that's not for PFS. They probably won't do an entire class though, given the amount of work and page space that goes into those. But spells, class feats, and archetypes will probably come along that won't be good for PFS.
The APG is getting all the evil Champion alignments. That's just smaller than a class.