if 2e were to make a necromancer class what would you expect it to be like?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

from the thread "What classes would you like to see next in 2e?"

how would you wan't a necromancer class to be [try to keep it balanced and fun]

later i will make a poll from these opinions to find out what type of necromancer people think the best in 2e

i'm making this thread is to get a idea of what people think a fun and balanced necromancer would be like


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pet (just one) oriented class at least as an option. It would be nice if you could actually animate something your party defeated as a temporary pet, probably with healthy penalties to everything to be balanced but at least to make it feel like honest necromancy.

I guess that’s what i would want, not necessarily what i expect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Unsatisfying to most players.

The Necromancer class fantasy doesn't work well in multiplayer TTRPGs.

The two main visions I hear people talk about:

The Horde of undead army approach isn't multiplayer friendly due to turn length/action economy. I doubt any version in PF2 would allow it. The closest you might get is a 'swarm' or 'troop' singleton minion. But I think people wanting necromancers wouldn't like that apporach.

A small number of 'powerful' minions (again I can't see PF2 allowing more than 2 and even 2 is a stretch). If only one, it still would be on par with an animal companion, and typically that's seen as a weaker option. If you have mutliple somehow, they'd have to be even weaker. Which also wouldn't match the class fantasy. The APG's AC related archetypes might gives us some more balancing points, but I have a hard time picturing any outcome that would make necromancer players happy and still be balanced.

The root cause is the necromancer wants to be a full party level of power in itself, or at least that tends to be the vision people have.

As a single-class 'gestalt' or 'uber-gestalt' for playing a one PC party versions an adventure, I can see it working. But that's not a variant I expect to see custom classes released officially for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd really like something similar to the Dread Necromancer from 3.5. Focus it on a single companion. Get some lich-y abilities. Touch attacks. Fear effects. Lean really hard on "I'm working on becoming a Lich."


6 people marked this as a favorite.

A Wizard with school specialization- Necromancy.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
A Wizard with school specialization- Necromancy.

come one dude you can do better just give it a try


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Necromancy in Fantasy is more than animating the dead, especially in RPGs. Necromancer plays with life and death and uses them to his advantage. I think a necromancer class should be able to do more than animating the dead.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
A Wizard with school specialization- Necromancy.

This!

However, I could use some "necromancer" NPC a little bit different than a playable character.

I tend to hate classes which rely on a pet or many pets, mostly because the majority of players is unable to deal with them in a quick way as they were any other "no pets" class. Or in other words, because it would slow the combat phase in a sensible way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rushniyamat wrote:
Necromancy in Fantasy is more than animating the dead, especially in RPGs. Necromancer plays with life and death and uses them to his advantage. I think a necromancer class should be able to do more than animating the dead.

yep one of the main tricks of necromancers in stories is how they avoid death either by pretending to die or dodging through clever spell having a class themed around stuff like false life and becoming a pseudo-undead could certainly work


NielsenE wrote:

Unsatisfying to most players.

The Necromancer class fantasy doesn't work well in multiplayer TTRPGs.

The two main visions I hear people talk about:

The Horde of undead army approach isn't multiplayer friendly due to turn length/action economy. I doubt any version in PF2 would allow it. The closest you might get is a 'swarm' or 'troop' singleton minion. But I think people wanting necromancers wouldn't like that apporach.

A small number of 'powerful' minions (again I can't see PF2 allowing more than 2 and even 2 is a stretch). If only one, it still would be on par with an animal companion, and typically that's seen as a weaker option. If you have mutliple somehow, they'd have to be even weaker. Which also wouldn't match the class fantasy. The APG's AC related archetypes might gives us some more balancing points, but I have a hard time picturing any outcome that would make necromancer players happy and still be balanced.

The root cause is the necromancer wants to be a full party level of power in itself, or at least that tends to be the vision people have.

As a single-class 'gestalt' or 'uber-gestalt' for playing a one PC party versions an adventure, I can see it working. But that's not a variant I expect to see custom classes released officially for.

Maybe a mechanic which works like swarm-creatures.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(Flagging to move this over to the homebrew forum.)

If I were making a PF2 necromancer class, I'd want it to have a proper name (since "Necromancer" would be as confusing as "Illusionist").

I think it would pretty much have to be balanced against the Druid. Divine list caster based on charisma, with your first level class path being a choice between a powerful undead minion (the equivalent of an animal companion), a swarm of undead (lower health and damage, but using troop or swarm rules so that accuaracy isn't a problem), personal modification (the lich-lite route, roughly equivalent to the Wild Shape route), and casting (fear effects, draining, and all that other non-undead necromancy, roughly equivalent to the blasting Druid route). All the paths start out with a focus spell and another perk, with the minion and swarm getting those as their perks and having four feats to keep them from falling too far behind to be useful. Personal modification gives you a reaction you can take once per day to stave off death, and casting gives you something that improves your intimidation a little bit.

Excellent fort saves, decent will saves, goes up to expert in simple weapons (with a few specific additions) and unarmored. Casting goes to legendary, as per usual. As compensation for the lack of armor as compared to the Druid, the class can get one top-level necromancy spell from off-list per day.

Includes an uncommon feat to help with rituals to create undead.

If we're being more unrealistic, the class would get a customized spell list, since Divine includes way too much holy and buffing stuff, and you probably need to swipe things from Occult to make up for it.


the idea was not to homebrew but to give the community a general idea of what people expect of a necromancer such as strong single minion, undead shifter like a vague concept but if you feel that way be my guest


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spiritualist


ArchSage20 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
A Wizard with school specialization- Necromancy.
come one dude you can do better just give it a try

You can already make a Wizard who is a specialist in Necromancy. What sort of Wizard feats or an arcane thesis would create the kind of necromancer you want?


As some have pointed out, I think that when people usually set out to make a Necromancer, they generally want to have their hordes of zombies and etc. I don't know, I might be wrong, but that's what I perceive, at least.

Yeeet, as some other people have also pointed out, I do agree that this very important facet of the trope is hard to work with and in a tRPG.

I guess... That if, or when, a Summoner eventually comes, the Necromancer that people usually picture might work as a class archetype for them, depending on how they work? But we neither have the Summoner, nor class archetypes right now, so there's nothing to explore with that idea.

Uhm... I think that troop-like enemies are supposed to show up soon, right? In the APG, or the next bestiary? Wouldn't a troop-like ''pet'' work for a horde that a Necromancer could summon? They could advance similar to animal companions, for example.

And also maybe a series of downtime activities? Like ''Heal horde'' and stuff like that?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think a real pet class can work, its just that the pet feature has to be given a greater portion of the power budget than the abilities the character itself can use, trying to do an even split is usually the downfall of the 'beast masters' we've seen in the past, since its somewhat hard to do.

But I'm thinking of the Summoner, lets see how the new summoning spells and the feats in the APG help shore up the necromancer conceptual space before we assume it really needs its own class. Really, I think class feats that enhance summons can probably do the job for the wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We're definitely going to get a pet class (the summoner is pretty important to the lore in New Sarkoris), but the first one is most certainly the Summoner, and "your eidolon is a big spooky skellington" might fulfill enough of the fantasy for some.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
We're definitely going to get a pet class (the summoner is pretty important to the lore in New Sarkoris), but the first one is most certainly the Summoner, and "your eidolon is a big spooky skellington" might fulfill enough of the fantasy for some.

IMO. I would prefer to come at it from a crafting angle, rather than a summoning angle.

You build a pet (out of bones, stone, fire, armor, trees, etc...) not just find one.


ArchSage20 wrote:
the idea was not to homebrew but to give the community a general idea of what people expect of a necromancer such as strong single minion, undead shifter like a vague concept but if you feel that way be my guest

I think Spiritualist is as close as Paizo will get to a Necromancer class. It's not feasible to have a full class locked into evil, and that's what a traditional Necromancer (i.e. one that raises undead) would be in Paizo's setting. So, it's a class that has lots of necromancy spells and gets something that is similar to a ghost or an undead with enough distinctions to allow for good-aligned or Pharasmin Spiritualists.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
A Wizard with school specialization- Necromancy.
come one dude you can do better just give it a try
You can already make a Wizard who is a specialist in Necromancy. What sort of Wizard feats or an arcane thesis would create the kind of necromancer you want?

well for instance one of the ideas mentioned was to be character who gains undead like abilities and focuses on avoiding death and preserving his life which is something necromancy is supposed to be good at according to the description

that should be less of a problem in pathfinder society since its your body and your souls hence your choice to experiment on yourself on the principle of bodily autonomy

even the very deity who started undeath did so to avoid dying not to create minions the supposed epitome of undeath the lich is about avoiding death and people often seek vampirism to avoid aging

i think a character who experiments on himself because he is afraid of dying and going to the boneyard is a very realistic and common trope that doesn't require you to be evil

if anything its just a struggle for freedom that could fit the chaotic neutral or if you were born in rahadoum or Geb it could be lawful or simply out of fear of being locked in the graveyard of souls, morals aren't exactly told everything about the afterlife so fear even if no reasonable is quite realistic

who is to say a vampire doesn't have the right to pay for some blood with his hard earned gold and that a person doesn't have the right to sell her own blood, if both parties have agreed its their right and freedom to do as they wish


Mellored wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
We're definitely going to get a pet class (the summoner is pretty important to the lore in New Sarkoris), but the first one is most certainly the Summoner, and "your eidolon is a big spooky skellington" might fulfill enough of the fantasy for some.

IMO. I would prefer to come at it from a crafting angle, rather than a summoning angle.

You build a pet (out of bones, stone, fire, armor, trees, etc...) not just find one.

That would be great!

They will just work on a single class and balance stuff around it.

Then .one the one hand.the players would be able to customize ( flavor, lore, feat combinations, etc ) the summoned creature the way they want, while the developers could focus themselves into something more useful ( not wasting time on a class "similar" to another existing class ).

I'd really support this.


ArchSage20 wrote:

well for instance one of the ideas mentioned was to be character who gains undead like abilities and focuses on avoiding death and preserving his life which is something necromancy is supposed to be good at according to the description

that should be less of a problem in pathfinder society since its your body and your souls hence your choice to experiment on yourself on the principle of bodily autonomy

even the very deity who started undeath did so to avoid dying not to create minions the supposed epitome of undeath the lich is about avoiding death and people often seek vampirism to avoid aging

i think a character who experiments on himself because he is afraid of dying and going to the boneyard is a very realistic and common trope that doesn't require you to be evil

if anything its just a struggle for freedom that could fit the chaotic neutral or if you were born in rahadoum or Geb it could be lawful or simply out of fear of being locked in the graveyard of souls, morals aren't exactly told everything about the afterlife so fear even if no reasonable is quite realistic

who is to say a vampire doesn't have the right to pay for some blood with his hard earned gold and that a person doesn't have the right to sell her own blood, if both parties have agreed its their right and freedom to do as they wish

Becoming a lich violates the principle of bodily autonomy pretty hard by generally involving a lot of sacrifices. In general, becoming undead means replacing your vital aspect's tie to positive energy with a tie to negative energy. Your vital aspect is tied to instinct, and mucking about with it tends to result in some pretty deep-rooted issues (ghouls craving flesh, vampires blood, etc.). "Non-evil vampires are rare and at odds with their basic nature. Such vampires typically give up a fraction of their power in exchange for some of their lost humanity."

Not that these aren't valid approaches for a character! But they're exceptional, rather than being something that is baked into the setting enough for a full class.

I could be too pessimistic about all this, of course. I would be happy to be wrong! I just don't think it's likely. In any case, I've posted what I felt would be be a balanced and interesting necromancer.


QuidEst wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:
the idea was not to homebrew but to give the community a general idea of what people expect of a necromancer such as strong single minion, undead shifter like a vague concept but if you feel that way be my guest
I think Spiritualist is as close as Paizo will get to a Necromancer class. It's not feasible to have a full class locked into evil, and that's what a traditional Necromancer (i.e. one that raises undead) would be in Paizo's setting. So, it's a class that has lots of necromancy spells and gets something that is similar to a ghost or an undead with enough distinctions to allow for good-aligned or Pharasmin Spiritualists.

This may be true for right now, but I could see them branching out into more specialized classes in the 4th or 5th year of the edition. Core+APG classes should have good support by then, so it might be in a solid enough position to do something weird.


QuidEst wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:

well for instance one of the ideas mentioned was to be character who gains undead like abilities and focuses on avoiding death and preserving his life which is something necromancy is supposed to be good at according to the description

that should be less of a problem in pathfinder society since its your body and your souls hence your choice to experiment on yourself on the principle of bodily autonomy

even the very deity who started undeath did so to avoid dying not to create minions the supposed epitome of undeath the lich is about avoiding death and people often seek vampirism to avoid aging

i think a character who experiments on himself because he is afraid of dying and going to the boneyard is a very realistic and common trope that doesn't require you to be evil

if anything its just a struggle for freedom that could fit the chaotic neutral or if you were born in rahadoum or Geb it could be lawful or simply out of fear of being locked in the graveyard of souls, morals aren't exactly told everything about the afterlife so fear even if no reasonable is quite realistic

who is to say a vampire doesn't have the right to pay for some blood with his hard earned gold and that a person doesn't have the right to sell her own blood, if both parties have agreed its their right and freedom to do as they wish

Becoming a lich violates the principle of bodily autonomy pretty hard by generally involving a lot of sacrifices. In general, becoming undead means replacing your vital aspect's tie to positive energy with a tie to negative energy. Your vital aspect is tied to instinct, and mucking about with it tends to result in some pretty deep-rooted issues (ghouls craving flesh, vampires blood, etc.). "Non-evil vampires are rare and at odds with their basic nature. Such vampires typically give up a fraction of their power in exchange for some of their lost humanity."

Not that these aren't valid approaches for a character! But they're exceptional, rather than being something that...

i pointed out the lich in the sense that the final goal of necromancy is just to preserve life and not having minions as animate object does the same without dooming you to abbadon

ultimately if the goal is to avoid death by age giving up a lot of power from the vampirism wouldn't be a issue

but if we are assuming the character goal is to become undead we can assume he is researching a lot about it and looking for the way that will bring the least amount of negative traits

vampires and other undead usually get it by disease from a evil demon lord , curse or accident etc... that is hardly the optimal way and its no wonder they become evil

in the same way clone isn't nearly as evil a lichdom a character who is actively seeking for it would probably try to avoid those traps the best he could and hence wouldn't be nearly as evil

the twilight sage arcanist archtype is a good example, the beastbound witch and the reincarnated druid as well as clone master alchemist and spirit binder wizard show that a dedicated character can find ways to do incredible things early on

now whether that spirit is completely lost on 2e is up to the devs

and the idea of pharasmites killing large number of people and telling them their goddess will send them to horrible place for eternity for making a personal choice they don't like is not something i'm found of its unpleasantly similar to racism


ArchSage20 wrote:

now whether that spirit is completely lost on 2e is up to the devs

and the idea of pharasmites killing large number of people and telling them their goddess will send them to horrible place for eternity for making a personal choice they don't like is not something i'm found of its unpleasantly similar to racism

1.) In-setting, the act of creating undead is evil. Period.

2.) It is nothing like racism.


Saedar wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:

now whether that spirit is completely lost on 2e is up to the devs

and the idea of pharasmites killing large number of people and telling them their goddess will send them to horrible place for eternity for making a personal choice they don't like is not something i'm found of its unpleasantly similar to racism

1.) In-setting, the act of creating undead is evil. Period.

2.) It is nothing like racism.

and no explanation shall be given to why or any sort of consistent logic in other words simply because the author wanted it

if the author wrote iching your face is a act of extreme evil would you be fine with pharasmites murdering anyone who iches their face?

that is just a cheap and transparent dismissive tatic


ArchSage20 wrote:
Saedar wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:

now whether that spirit is completely lost on 2e is up to the devs

and the idea of pharasmites killing large number of people and telling them their goddess will send them to horrible place for eternity for making a personal choice they don't like is not something i'm found of its unpleasantly similar to racism

1.) In-setting, the act of creating undead is evil. Period.

2.) It is nothing like racism.

and no explanation shall be given to why or any sort of consistent logic in other words simply because the author wanted it

if the author wrote iching your face is a act of extreme evil would you be fine with pharasmites murdering anyone who iches their face?

that is just a cheap and transparent dismissive tatic

Authors can set whatever rules they want for their worlds. Also: Pharasmites won't all go genocidal on any given undead. Some might. Not all. It isn't any more wrong than "the sky is purple on this world".


Saedar wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:
Saedar wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:

now whether that spirit is completely lost on 2e is up to the devs

and the idea of pharasmites killing large number of people and telling them their goddess will send them to horrible place for eternity for making a personal choice they don't like is not something i'm found of its unpleasantly similar to racism

1.) In-setting, the act of creating undead is evil. Period.

2.) It is nothing like racism.

and no explanation shall be given to why or any sort of consistent logic in other words simply because the author wanted it

if the author wrote iching your face is a act of extreme evil would you be fine with pharasmites murdering anyone who iches their face?

that is just a cheap and transparent dismissive tatic

Authors can set whatever rules they want for their worlds. Also: Pharasmites won't all go genocidal on any given undead. Some might. Not all. It isn't any more wrong than "the sky is purple on this world".

if the sky in questions looks blue then yes that is a issue

you know what else is evil according to the book?

goblin they are portrayed as chaotic evil in the monster rules

does that mean that every goblin even if they aren't evil should be discriminated against?

should it be ok to wack goblin player to death because of how inherently evil their race is

if you turn into a goblin should people then be allowed to kill you because goblins are evil?

of course not so why should undead who are not evil be hated just for being undead

you get to define something a purple but you don't get to change the meaning on of word purple itself


All goblins aren't CE. Bestiary goblins, who are intended to be adversaries, are typically CE. Genocide is also evil in-setting. In-setting, undeath is destructive to the foundations of reality because it borks up the flow of souls.

If you need some more clear info on the setting, you should go check out the Ask James Jacobs thread. Several years of interesting content and your entire post here is explained multiple times by the person who nominally created the setting.


Saedar wrote:

All goblins aren't CE. Bestiary goblins, who are intended to be adversaries, are typically CE. Genocide is also evil in-setting. In-setting, undeath is destructive to the foundations of reality because it borks up the flow of souls.

If you need some more clear info on the setting, you should go check out the Ask James Jacobs thread. Several years of interesting content and your entire post here is explained multiple times by the person who nominally created the setting.

if that is the case you should give the players a ancestry option to be soulless it would be just as arbitrary makes just as much sense and satisfy both sides


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Undead are usually evil as a result of the thing that makes undead run. Making undead is evil for a couple reasons. There is lore behind it; Saedar is just not going to look up all the notes about it.

Pharasmins don't care about undead being evil (theologically; individual priests probably don't like the evil part), they care about undeath generally mucking about with Pharasma's work keeping souls flowing so that reality doesn't dissolve too much around the edges and life continues.

ArchSage20 wrote:
if that is the case you should give the players a ancestry option to be soulless it would be just as arbitrary makes just as much sense and satisfy both sides

Huh? I'm not sure I follow. At least in setting, souls are pretty closely tied to free will, I think. If you just don't want to have a character that will get sent to some plane after death, you can always play a principled Rahadoum. Their rejection of the gods is respected, and their souls just rest after death.

(Anyway, I messaged you to avoid sidetracking your threads too much; sorry that it's a bit late for that.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Creating undead is always evil because of the metaphysics of the setting (you are preventing that person's soul from being recycled in order to preserve the continued existence of the multiverse). The metaphysics are the way they are because of "that's the way the setting authors set up the metaphysics of the setting to work."

But if the whole "river of souls" thing were shut down, the Maelstrom would rapidly consume the entirety of the multiverse. That is why making undead is evil.

You can say "surely a handful of skellingtons is not going to upset the cosmic balance, and are useful to me" but that sort of selfishness -"I understand that this would be a problem if everyone did it, but it's okay if *I* do it"- is basically the most banal kind of evil.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Creating undead is always evil because of the metaphysics of the setting (you are preventing that person's soul from being recycled in order to preserve the continued existence of the multiverse). The metaphysics are the way they are because of "that's the way the setting authors set up the metaphysics of the setting to work."

But if the whole "river of souls" thing were shut down, the Maelstrom would rapidly consume the entirety of the multiverse. That is why making undead is evil.

You can say "surely a handful of skellingtons is not going to upset the cosmic balance, and are useful to me" but that sort of selfishness (I understand that this would be a problem if everyone did it, but it's okay if *I* do it) is basically the most banal kind of evil.

so what? worlds are gonna end even if the river keeps going anyway that is the point of the ushers

the same goes to outsiders who will be absorbed by the plane eater by fiends or remain slaves to the gods

there is even a place in the maelstrom made of remains of worlds

its not like life outside that doesn't exist, the outer gods, great old ones etc...

its like creating a world that can only exist with you and requires the sacrifice of its inhabitants then using the fact the world cant exist without you as justification for sacrificing them

people lose their memories get turned into planar matter over the time and eaten by fiends, world end one after another

even places like heaven nirvana elysium are in constant conflict with evil

when it comes down to it this system serves only one purpose and that is to preserve her life and some gods

so no i don't wanna have my soul rest being an atheist would be her win as she would lock me up in the graveyard and them use my soul to feed groetus

both of us want to avoid death but because she was lucky to be born early and overpowered that somehow gives her the right to sacrifice me and im wrong if fight back by becoming undead

i can understand she being neutral as in she is trying to survive but why am i evil when in essence she is just a giant lich

and why would i be ok with dying if want to avoid death at all cost?

i would rather have like the daemons destroy my soul than be a sacrifice for her world/phlactery


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Creating undead is always evil because of the metaphysics of the setting (you are preventing that person's soul from being recycled in order to preserve the continued existence of the multiverse). The metaphysics are the way they are because of "that's the way the setting authors set up the metaphysics of the setting to work."

But if the whole "river of souls" thing were shut down, the Maelstrom would rapidly consume the entirety of the multiverse. That is why making undead is evil.

You can say "surely a handful of skellingtons is not going to upset the cosmic balance, and are useful to me" but that sort of selfishness -"I understand that this would be a problem if everyone did it, but it's okay if *I* do it"- is basically the most banal kind of evil.

Which is one of the reasons why I prefer "crafted' pets. They have no soul, no cosmic morality, or other metaphysics implications. No more than a bone spear or bone armor would have.

Also, I am thinking the name should be something along the lines of "Awakener" or "Animator".

But I guess it depends on whether you want necromancer the-minon-master or necromancer-the-litch-caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:
so no i don't wanna have my soul rest being an atheist would be her win as she would lock me up in the graveyard and them use my soul to feed groetus

That's some old and incomplete information. Yeah, I know it's still on the wiki…

I dunno where you're getting the idea that her world is somehow like a phylactery, though?

Anyway, that sounds like some solid in-universe reasoning for a necromancer. And the daemon soul-destruction does sound like a likely outcome in-setting…


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
ArchSage20 wrote:
Rushniyamat wrote:
Necromancy in Fantasy is more than animating the dead, especially in RPGs. Necromancer plays with life and death and uses them to his advantage. I think a necromancer class should be able to do more than animating the dead.
yep one of the main tricks of necromancers in stories is how they avoid death either by pretending to die or dodging through clever spell having a class themed around stuff like false life and becoming a pseudo-undead could certainly work

Which stories are you referring to here? I don't recall Necromancers being described like that in Pathfinder, but I could be wrong.


QuidEst wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:
so no i don't wanna have my soul rest being an atheist would be her win as she would lock me up in the graveyard and them use my soul to feed groetus

That's some old and incomplete information. Yeah, I know it's still on the wiki…

I dunno where you're getting the idea that her world is somehow like a phylactery, though?

Anyway, that sounds like some solid in-universe reasoning for a necromancer. And the daemon soul-destruction does sound like a likely outcome in-setting…

very well describe to me what would happen to the soul/petitioner of a wizard who cares about immortality and nothing else

did everything to try and avoid death (except for undeath) in this case but failed and died possibly killed by psychopombs like an army of morrignas, the mantis god or similar

he absolutely abominates the idea of becoming a outsider and resents the gods specially pharasma because she effectively killed him

what do you think its gonna happen to him? and how would you justify that him predicting this outcome should not become undead

what exactly makes this horrible cycle fair or humane?

because if in the end he would end up in abbadon becoming a daemon or eaten by one then i must ask how is that any better than being undead or just continuing as a neutral wizard and how does it contribute in any way to the universe?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
A Wizard with school specialization- Necromancy.

It is just not enough as it currently stands.

It could be enough if they added some more spells, rituals and items. But then its open to every arcanist. It really needs some extra features


ArchSage20 wrote:

very well describe to me what would happen to the soul/petitioner of a wizard who cares about immortality and nothing else

did everything to try and avoid death (except for undeath) in this case but failed and died possibly killed by psychopombs like an army of morrignas, the mantis god or similar

he absolutely abominates the idea of becoming a outsider and resents the gods specially pharasma because she effectively killed him

what do you think its gonna happen to him? and how would you justify that him predicting this outcome should not become undead

what exactly makes this horrible cycle fair or humane?

because if in the end he would end up in abbadon becoming a daemon or eaten by one then i must ask how is that any better than being undead or just continuing as a neutral wizard and how does it contribute in any way to the universe?

He either goes to the appropriate afterlife based on his alignment (which it doesn't sound like is evil), or if he actively rejects the system, his soul just wanders around the Boneyard without contributing or harming anything. (He's not gonna be killed by the psychopomps or what have you without getting pretty far past his expiration date.)

Pharasma sending souls to the wrong place because she doesn't like them would also cause serious issues.


Gortle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
A Wizard with school specialization- Necromancy.

It is just not enough as it currently stands.

It could be enough if they added some more spells, rituals and items. But then its open to every arcanist. It really needs some extra features

I don't see any issue with a necromancer sorcerer.

But what other options do you think are missing?

Besides a "you are an undead, and do not age or need to breathe" feat.


QuidEst wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:

very well describe to me what would happen to the soul/petitioner of a wizard who cares about immortality and nothing else

did everything to try and avoid death (except for undeath) in this case but failed and died possibly killed by psychopombs like an army of morrignas, the mantis god or similar

he absolutely abominates the idea of becoming a outsider and resents the gods specially pharasma because she effectively killed him

what do you think its gonna happen to him? and how would you justify that him predicting this outcome should not become undead

what exactly makes this horrible cycle fair or humane?

because if in the end he would end up in abbadon becoming a daemon or eaten by one then i must ask how is that any better than being undead or just continuing as a neutral wizard and how does it contribute in any way to the universe?

He either goes to the appropriate afterlife based on his alignment (which it doesn't sound like is evil), or if he actively rejects the system, his soul just wanders around the Boneyard without contributing or harming anything. (He's not gonna be killed by the psychopomps or what have you without getting pretty far past his expiration date.)

Pharasma sending souls to the wrong place because she doesn't like them would also cause serious issues.

but just by being in the boneyard your souls is being used for something, planes absorb petitioners with time so you are in effect extending the life of the boneyard/spire hence her life its a sugarcoated sacrifice to keep her place from fading hence why i called it a phylactery because its maintained on souls


ArchSage20 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:

very well describe to me what would happen to the soul/petitioner of a wizard who cares about immortality and nothing else

did everything to try and avoid death (except for undeath) in this case but failed and died possibly killed by psychopombs like an army of morrignas, the mantis god or similar

he absolutely abominates the idea of becoming a outsider and resents the gods specially pharasma because she effectively killed him

what do you think its gonna happen to him? and how would you justify that him predicting this outcome should not become undead

what exactly makes this horrible cycle fair or humane?

because if in the end he would end up in abbadon becoming a daemon or eaten by one then i must ask how is that any better than being undead or just continuing as a neutral wizard and how does it contribute in any way to the universe?

He either goes to the appropriate afterlife based on his alignment (which it doesn't sound like is evil), or if he actively rejects the system, his soul just wanders around the Boneyard without contributing or harming anything. (He's not gonna be killed by the psychopomps or what have you without getting pretty far past his expiration date.)

Pharasma sending souls to the wrong place because she doesn't like them would also cause serious issues.

but just by being in the boneyard your souls is being used for something, planes absorb petitioners with time so you are in effect extending the life of the boneyard/spire hence her life its a sugarcoated sacrifice to keep her place from fading hence why i called it a phylactery because its maintained on souls

I believe that the petitioners that reject the cycle are an exception to that, but I'm not sure. In any case, Pharasma isn't dependent on the spire to keep living- at least, no more than the other gods and all life are dependent on the spire. It's not keeping her alive.


QuidEst wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:

very well describe to me what would happen to the soul/petitioner of a wizard who cares about immortality and nothing else

did everything to try and avoid death (except for undeath) in this case but failed and died possibly killed by psychopombs like an army of morrignas, the mantis god or similar

he absolutely abominates the idea of becoming a outsider and resents the gods specially pharasma because she effectively killed him

what do you think its gonna happen to him? and how would you justify that him predicting this outcome should not become undead

what exactly makes this horrible cycle fair or humane?

because if in the end he would end up in abbadon becoming a daemon or eaten by one then i must ask how is that any better than being undead or just continuing as a neutral wizard and how does it contribute in any way to the universe?

He either goes to the appropriate afterlife based on his alignment (which it doesn't sound like is evil), or if he actively rejects the system, his soul just wanders around the Boneyard without contributing or harming anything. (He's not gonna be killed by the psychopomps or what have you without getting pretty far past his expiration date.)

Pharasma sending souls to the wrong place because she doesn't like them would also cause serious issues.

but just by being in the boneyard your souls is being used for something, planes absorb petitioners with time so you are in effect extending the life of the boneyard/spire hence her life its a sugarcoated sacrifice to keep her place from fading hence why i called it a phylactery because its maintained on souls
I believe that the petitioners that reject the cycle are an exception to that, but I'm not sure. In any case, Pharasma isn't dependent on the spire to keep living- at least, no more than the other gods and all life are dependent on the spire. It's not keeping her alive.

again i meant the spire in the sense of the plane and since outsiders revive on the plane after death and the whole point of the supposed cycle is to avoid the planes being essentially eaten by the maelstrom you are still fulfilling that purpose

could a developer actually confirm that for me im gonna need more than word of mouth on this one?

if you reject the cycle of souls what happens to you? because there is a flaw there if potentiality keeps circulating but a small part of it becomes rejectors then in essence its no different from having undead as its being shaved away in the same way, that or immortal wizards and daemons destroying souls, the description of some monsters like the [Morrigna, Marut and sahkil type description] would have me believe otherwise but i guess the devs are the ones who decide


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is pretty far afield, so I'm gonna leave it here. If you want to run some ethical necromancy, go for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know it werid that Pharsma freaks out about undead yet allows Daemons to get away with not only destorying souls and consuming them but wanting to end all life.

On another note lichdom is not the endgoal but more of a deadend necromancers take if their old or desperate to extend their life. Better binding your soul to your body instead retaining your flesh and form or body hopping. Also necromancy about life and death creating undead is just one means, true goal is creating life not just manipulating it form.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I think a real pet class can work, its just that the pet feature has to be given a greater portion of the power budget than the abilities the character itself can use, trying to do an even split is usually the downfall of the 'beast masters' we've seen in the past, since its somewhat hard to do.

But I'm thinking of the Summoner, lets see how the new summoning spells and the feats in the APG help shore up the necromancer conceptual space before we assume it really needs its own class. Really, I think class feats that enhance summons can probably do the job for the wizard.

I remember that Paizo confirmed in Paizocon that they are going to add in the APG a spell called "Animate Dead", which works as the summon spells. If we will get an undead swarm-creature, it could work realy well.


NielsenE wrote:
The Horde of undead army approach isn't multiplayer friendly due to turn length/action economy. I doubt any version in PF2 would allow it. The closest you might get is a 'swarm' or 'troop' singleton minion. But I think people wanting necromancers wouldn't like that apporach.

D&D 5e's Animate Dead spell works well enough. You cast the spell on nearby corpses to get one or more zobmies or skeletons, depending on the spell slot's level, and they last until your next rest. If you want to keep them longer than that, you have to sacrifice spell slots each day. In practice, this means you have a swarm of zombies and skeleton archers that individually have low HP and damage, but as a group, are on-par with other summons.


Mellored wrote:
Gortle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
A Wizard with school specialization- Necromancy.

It is just not enough as it currently stands.

It could be enough if they added some more spells, rituals and items. But then its open to every arcanist. It really needs some extra features

I don't see any issue with a necromancer sorcerer.

But what other options do you think are missing?

Besides a "you are an undead, and do not age or need to breathe" feat.

A lot of necromancers play like evocationists.

I'd like to see the ability to create and raise and control a lot of undead. Obviously to be balanced they are going to have to be low level. But the limit of 4 in Create Undead is just too low.

Maybe the spell Bind Undead could be a cantrip avaliable to specialist necromancers only from level 10.

Consider the level 8 spell Horrid Wilting. It will do 55ish necromantic damage to everything within 500 feet.
Surely given the power level of this spell it wouldn't be too much to be able have a spell that creates 50 level 2 undead from a pile of bodies and give them a mission for a few days. Would it be anymore powerful?

High level necromancers should be able to create hordes. They wouldn't be too much of a problem for suitably leveled PCs, but they would add to the story. Bards can potentially get themselves allies with a few good skill rolls - well necromancers take a different approach.

Is there a ritual to suck life force out of a target and extend your life a year.

I just want a few extra abilities so that a D&D necromancer can play like the necromancers in books.

Perhaps it is not directly relevant to traditional D&D style play. I still want it in my campaign.


I would love to see something done with ghosts for example. I like the undead horde stuff but the class should be about so much more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Different class paths.
Undead controller
Evoker-style necro nukes
Some ghosty stealth/possession stuff.
Fear-based battlefield control

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / if 2e were to make a necromancer class what would you expect it to be like? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.