I wouldn't read too much into the artworks. The one with the spirit mirror is from Book of the Dead and depicts the Exorcist archetype, for example. I would assume the other artworks are from some previous publications as well.
With any luck, well get sketch drawings of the new iconic with the playtest on Monday. At least that's been the case for all previous playtests.
They bucked that trend with Commander and Guardian, iirc - they said something about not being ready to reveal them or something to that effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because of this, I fully expect the class to stay away from pigeonholing you as a spooky goth.The released pic (is it the iconic?) is all about spooky goth.
The iconic is always a specific person with a specific backstory. You absolutely are under no obligation to make your Gunslinger a mama bear Dwarf from Alkenstar, that's just Nhalmika's deal, your Kineticist doesn't need to be a waif, that's just Yoon's deal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You absolutely are under no obligation to make your Gunslinger a mama bear Dwarf from Alkenstar
I wouldn't say *no* obligation. You *do* have an obligation if you want to call yourself a decent person. /s
You absolutely are under no obligation to make your Gunslinger a mama bear Dwarf from AlkenstarI wouldn't say *no* obligation. You *do* have an obligation if you want to call yourself a decent person. /s
Look, it'a a good choice, much like making your Necromancer a Spookygoth, but other choices are valid!
I would have to imagine that Paizo's general class design philosophy involves assuming that a bunch of different characters fit in this class mechanically, thematically, and aesthetically. So there will probably be at least one other thematic option for Necromancers, even if their job still involves Necromancin'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They bucked that trend with Commander and Guardian, iirc - they said something about not being ready to reveal them or something to that effect.I wouldn't read too much into the artworks. The one with the spirit mirror is from Book of the Dead and depicts the Exorcist archetype, for example. I would assume the other artworks are from some previous publications as well.
With any luck, well get sketch drawings of the new iconic with the playtest on Monday. At least that's been the case for all previous playtests.
They did? Good to know. I didn't even notice that we didn't get artworks with the Battlecry playtest... it's a bit weird considering they made a community riddle in multiple parts out of the playtest just before battlecry.
Anyway, I don't mind waiting for the artworks, personally. Solid rules are much more important to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, this is the interesting part to me. I totally agree with you that those are really cool, thematic, and "neutral" ways to design a Necromancer.
However, everything about recent Paizo products has me feel like they're at their best when the lean into the tropes and themes, and really nail the idea of being mechanically rewarded for ACTING like the class as well.
They seem to like matching player demographics to mechanical niches more overtly. The Mystic isnt just "the healer", they advertise it as being the class specifically for people who love being team mom and unofficial therapist. The Operative isn't just a simple martial class that's good with guns, it understands that players who go "IDK I just wanna be good with guns" secretly want to be cool John Wick badasses- and not coincidentally, has WAY more video game references than the other classes.
Playing a necromancer is inherently going to appeal to people who love spooky goths, it comes with the territory. If this was a 1e class, or even a 2e class, I would say keep it as neutral as possible. But in a Remaster world, I'm starting to wonder if they should just make you feel as spooky and goth as possible.
Leaning into tropes is fine, but even with alignments out of the way, they'll need "good" versions of the Necromancer.
Then again, healing spells became necromancy spells instead of conjuration when P2E started, so what do I know ^^; ?
Point is that Paizo has the chance to "decriminalize" the Necromancer as a de facto evil character and make the "art of life and death" available to everyone with a semblance of morality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Outside of that genre, I think necromancy refered to talking to dead people.
Necromancers were closer to mediums or shaman than power mad wizards.
To be clear, both necromancy and pyromancy in the real world were forms of divination. Mancy means prophecy. Pyromancy is telling the future with fire, necromancy is communing with the dead for similar purposes
(Also anyone else find it funny the divine list doesn't have that much DIVINation, literally the same root)
Then again, healing spells became necromancy spells instead of conjuration when P2E started, so what do I know ^^; ?
Healing becoming necromancy was a return to form. Healing was only removed from necromancy for 3rd edition D&D, and there are a few explanations for why this happened and I'm not sure which is true, if any. Healing should have always been necromancy though
Wonderful! After Animist and Exemplar, we now have Necromancer. The class department in this game is improving at lightning speed; let's just hope it becomes common.
That said, it would probably have been better if they had made each of the schools into their own classes from the beginning. This would allow them to focus on what makes each class great.
I'd probably expect Necromancer to be Uncommon due to its questionable fit in some tables, the way Gunslinger would be Uncommon.
But as for your second point. I really want to see the Mesmerist come back as a dedicated Prepared Occultist spellcaster.
Oh yeah necromancer for sure is going to be minimum uncommon possibly rare just due to the squick factor and just really not being appropriate for all campaigns/groups.
That said come on necromancers being out yer dead!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please let the Necromancer be a "spirit summoner", among other styles, and not your typical "evil-looking undead creator".Hopefully, if you look at the Wikipedia entry for necromancy, you will find that it likely evolved from shamanism. Unfortunately, as always, monotheists cannot accept that anyone but their god has power over the dead; therefore, they feel compelled to reinterpret every foreign mage or deity as either a saint or a demon. However, this could end up being too close to animism.
You shouldn't conflate the political interests of a political organization such as the Catholic Church with the religion itself, and most especially the followers of the religion. Plenty of monotheists have practiced necromancy. It's debated whether divination is an afront to God or not within Christianity for example, and it is definitely not banned in Judaism. I know less about Islam but I believe Quranists probably have no issues with divination, I would suspect it is Hadith that bans it, if it is banned at all, and Shia and Sunni disagree on what Hadith is legitimate. I can ask one of my Quranists friends about this
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of despise Necromancers, but that's a me problem. I'm happy for the people who wanted this.
I'm wondering if Runesmith will look anything like the Runescarred Archetype -- that one's based on Thassilonian magic, though, and as a very early archetype is rather underwhelming.
My big hope for another Impossible Lands book is a Remastered Fleshwarp ancestry.
Given in the stream they mentioned "dwarven runes" and "dragon runes" I suspect Thassilonian ones will be on the menu too. It sounds like the average Runesmith's philosophy is going to be "no one culture has a monopoly on runes," as opposed to the way we kind of consider "runes" as an exclusively Scandinavian cultural thing...
I feel like many people misremember emotions as being tied to a particular essence when they are described as among the hardest aspects of consciousness to designate to a single category. Even in the world of magic, emotions exist physically in your body as well as in your spirit, and of course come in both instinctive and cerebral terms.
|
I am cautiously optimistic for the necromancer, with one caveat.
They need either free ranks in religion or the ability to know stuff about undead using occultism. Which works better is probably determined by the necro's KAS, which I don't think I've seen mentioned.
Rune Smith is a cool, well-trodden character style we don't have supported yet, so this seems good.
Okay now, Paizo. After these it's finally time. Give us a consummate shapeshifter class.
Everyone loved that "druid" from the D&D movie. Make it happen.
They bucked that trend with Commander and Guardian, iirc - they said something about not being ready to reveal them or something to that effect.I wouldn't read too much into the artworks. The one with the spirit mirror is from Book of the Dead and depicts the Exorcist archetype, for example. I would assume the other artworks are from some previous publications as well.
With any luck, well get sketch drawings of the new iconic with the playtest on Monday. At least that's been the case for all previous playtests.
They did? Good to know. I didn't even notice that we didn't get artworks with the Battlecry playtest... it's a bit weird considering they made a community riddle in multiple parts out of the playtest just before battlecry.
Anyway, I don't mind waiting for the artworks, personally. Solid rules are much more important to me.
Iirc, the issue was that they did the battlecry playtest earlier than usual to make room for the Starfinder playtest and didn't adjust the art process to match.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am cautiously optimistic for the necromancer, with one caveat.
They need either free ranks in religion or the ability to know stuff about undead using occultism. Which works better is probably determined by the necro's KAS, which I don't think I've seen mentioned.
Free Scaling in Lore (Undead) seems perfect, and we have precedent for this from Commander.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hear what people are saying about wanting other minion-type characters, but if a central conceit of the necromancer class is devouring essence from the minions and blowing them up, ie. treating these hordes as extrememely disposable, then I for one would be a little grossed out if animals and any kind of sentient creatures were added into the mix.
Summoning spells already heavily take the ick factor out of old versions of the spells by making the creature simulacrum of real creatures, but that is a simulacrum you create with your own magical power that barely exists in the material plane for any length of time. Using your own energy to create a bunch of thrall minions that you then blow up/drain feels a little too energy inefficient to make any sense. I see the necromancer as harvesting the body/spirits of existing dead creatures as narratively viable without being nearly as terrible as being the animal mass murderer or angel blower-upper.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are at a state where we are going to see more and more things for old classes. War of immortal and Divine Mysteries introduced several new class archetypes and class options that were ultimately received fairly well. There are concerns and criticisms, but the idea of actually using class archetypes was received fairly well I'd say. And if Battlecry and Impossible!(Just calling it that for now) Are sort of a matching pais one being a big martial book and the other being a big magic book, then I think those are prime examples to introduce more feats, subclasses, and class archetypes based on upping the magic or martial capabilities of various classes, or changing them in other ways. And
I am cautiously optimistic for the necromancer, with one caveat.
They need either free ranks in religion or the ability to know stuff about undead using occultism. Which works better is probably determined by the necro's KAS, which I don't think I've seen mentioned.
Yeah, I think the Necromancer needs to be able to know everything there is to know about the undead without needing any proficiency in Religion. Since making it a class that needs to succeed on Religion checks to do things runs the risk of Pigeonholing the Necromancer as "members of Urgathoa's clergy" or the like. You should be able to be a pure Academic who doesn't know the first thing about Religion and be a good Necromancer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It'd make for a big book, but I wonder if the eventual release will be for Secrets of Magic what Divine Mysteries is for Gods and Magic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are at a state where we are going to see more and more things for old classes. War of immortal and Divine Mysteries introduced several new class archetypes and class options that were ultimately received fairly well.
Yeah, I think with the additions of the Guardian, Commander, Necromancer, and Runesmith the only real space for new classes I see are a couple of Primal ones (a primal caster with a different flavor from the Druid, probably spontaneous, and some sort of primal martial/shapeshifter.)
|
Okay, here are my thoughts, personally on this announcement:
The Necromancer:
I had been saying on the class options thread that I'd like to see a Not Totally Evil option for performing necromancy, and this might sort of be it.
Honestly, when I heard about the thralls, I started thinking of the necromancers from Diablo.
Next, The Runesmith:
"I prepared Explosion Runes this morning". That is all.
...But seriously, given the importance of runes in the setting and lore, it's nice to see a full class revolving around them that isn't just another caster class.
Obviously, we'll have to wait until Monday (or hear from folks attending PAX Unplugged).
...Like this guy: KingOogaTonTon
|
|
Free Scaling in Lore (Undead) seems perfect, and we have precedent for this from Commander.I am cautiously optimistic for the necromancer, with one caveat.
They need either free ranks in religion or the ability to know stuff about undead using occultism. Which works better is probably determined by the necro's KAS, which I don't think I've seen mentioned.
Love it. No notes.
Well, one note. KAS? INT would make sense. Or could be CHA and lift CHA for one specific Lore from Thaumaturge. Nobody minds that feature; it's the Diverse Lore feat some people take exception with
|
Free Scaling in Lore (Undead) seems perfect, and we have precedent for this from Commander.I am cautiously optimistic for the necromancer, with one caveat.
They need either free ranks in religion or the ability to know stuff about undead using occultism. Which works better is probably determined by the necro's KAS, which I don't think I've seen mentioned.Love it. No notes.
Well, one note. KAS? INT would make sense. Or could be CHA and lift CHA for one specific Lore from Thaumaturge. Nobody minds that feature; it's the Diverse Lore feat some people take exception with
Assuming runesmith is wis (or even dex, representing finesse with runecarving), then int makes the most sense.
Honestly, runesmith could be CHA given that CHA is the characteristic you need if you want to invest the most magic item, and a runesmith is somewhat a "magic-item-smith". However, being a "special martial" with focus on CHA might be walking on the thaumaturge's toes a bit too much.
And yeah, unless they want the class to be a massive departure from the common idea of a necromancer, them having int for their core score would make the most sense. I could sorta kinda see WIS too, just to give occult caster a WIS class, and because WIS could sort of fit for "nicer" view of necromancer, but I think that INT is more likely, and CHA pretty unlikely.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kinda scared with the necromancer being a full caster.
Yeah, the animist has recently confirmed that casters can have fun toys too, but the animist is explicitly still a spellcaster in its core. The necromancer, however, is being sold as a minion master, so unless each minion is absurdly weak, I don't know how they could fit the caster chassis on such a class.
Assuming they don't do a psychic 2.0 in that it's technically a full caster in chassis but with way less spell slots than most casters, I'm assuming the most likely (and sadly disappointing) outcome for this class is that the undead you control would work like a regular animal companion with the troop trait, though the actual size of the troop wouldn't be of exactly 16 squares but rather start small and go bigger during the fight. Possibly even allowing you to split the troop in two later on.
This wouldn't be a bad class per se, though it wouldn't be that much different than a druid with an animal companion besides the flavor. It would also disappoint most people because its very likely want to have an undead troop in which each of the undead has its own statistics even if they are weak individually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, no, all we know is that it has a thing called a Dirge and things called Thralls which they can explode for damage, eat to regain a focus point, or jump onto an enemy - only a few things they can do that we know of.
Thralls also don't last long on purpose, so they aren't like animal companions or familiars.
That's really it - so I think jumping to conclusions about certain things is premature at this point. How much of a 'minion master' they are is still TBD.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that the Thralls have repeatedly been described as temporary I'm sure that can play into their power budget. And so I don't see an animal companion comparison to be likely. Besides we already have a handful of options to play undead minion animal companion style.
|
|
Honestly, runesmith could be CHA given that CHA is the characteristic you need if you want to invest the most magic item, and a runesmith is somewhat a "magic-item-smith". However, being a "special martial" with focus on CHA might be walking on the thaumaturge's toes a bit too much.
And yeah, unless they want the class to be a massive departure from the common idea of a necromancer, them having int for their core score would make the most sense. I could sorta kinda see WIS too, just to give occult caster a WIS class, and because WIS could sort of fit for "nicer" view of necromancer, but I think that INT is more likely, and CHA pretty unlikely.
I think it depends on who's power is coming from the runes. If it's the rune, it'll be wis. If it's the carver imparting power into the rune, its cha.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully I'm wrong! In fact, I think I been wrong every single time when someone comes up with a post about future content. I think it was this same week that I replied to someone saying that I didn't think necromancer had enough "oomph" to be its own class with all the content we already have to play different kinds of necromancers. Needless to say I was wrong with that one. I was also wrong with the exemplar and guardian too.
I'm not the biggest necromancer fan anyways. Killing undead is more of my thing.
I think it depends on who's power is coming from the runes. If it's the rune, it'll be wis. If it's the caver imparting power into the rune, its cha.Honestly, runesmith could be CHA given that CHA is the characteristic you need if you want to invest the most magic item, and a runesmith is somewhat a "magic-item-smith". However, being a "special martial" with focus on CHA might be walking on the thaumaturge's toes a bit too much.
And yeah, unless they want the class to be a massive departure from the common idea of a necromancer, them having int for their core score would make the most sense. I could sorta kinda see WIS too, just to give occult caster a WIS class, and because WIS could sort of fit for "nicer" view of necromancer, but I think that INT is more likely, and CHA pretty unlikely.
Can agree with the ramifications here, but I wouldn't mind having it be Int-based if it's meant to follow fundamental rules of magic similar to wizards and the arcane. Wis-based wouldn't be bad though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hear what people are saying about wanting other minion-type characters, but if a central conceit of the necromancer class is devouring essence from the minions and blowing them up, ie. treating these hordes as extrememely disposable, then I for one would be a little grossed out if animals and any kind of sentient creatures were added into the mix.
Summoning spells already heavily take the ick factor out of old versions of the spells by making the creature simulacrum of real creatures, but that is a simulacrum you create with your own magical power that barely exists in the material plane for any length of time. Using your own energy to create a bunch of thrall minions that you then blow up/drain feels a little too energy inefficient to make any sense. I see the necromancer as harvesting the body/spirits of existing dead creatures as narratively viable without being nearly as terrible as being the animal mass murderer or angel blower-upper. [/QUOTE
"You have my bow."
"And my axe!"
"And my angel blower-upper ability!"
*record scratch*
"Okay, so we're agreed ten's too many, right?"
*much nodding and agreement*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it is just me, but I really don’t think “I make tons of thralls that I treat with abandon” needs to be playable as a white mage. The class isn’t going to be a healer/life giver class. There is no alignment anymore anyway so it hardly matters but the game leans very heavily away from sanctified undead, even on an individual basis, much less “I make hordes of undead thralls!…for goodness.”
Between undead sorcerer, the boundary school of magic for wizards, clerics, bones oracles, animists, and various archetypes, I think the “uses general necromantic magic effects for better purposes” is already pretty wide spread in the game. I think this class might end up covering Tar Barphon as “uses undead thralls to accomplish my purposes. But I am not sure it will even cover Geb’s study of the undead as presented in the book of the dead
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, a class doesn't need to be able to fulfill any specific flavor, but it should be able to fulfill more than one different flavor.
Free Scaling in Lore (Undead) seems perfect, and we have precedent for this from Commander.I am cautiously optimistic for the necromancer, with one caveat.
They need either free ranks in religion or the ability to know stuff about undead using occultism. Which works better is probably determined by the necro's KAS, which I don't think I've seen mentioned.Love it. No notes.
Well, one note. KAS? INT would make sense. Or could be CHA and lift CHA for one specific Lore from Thaumaturge. Nobody minds that feature; it's the Diverse Lore feat some people take exception with
Many of us passionately hate it even without Diverse Lore.
Seeing people mention "how much feature space is available to thralls", my personal prediction is that thrall power/utility/option space is largely determined by how many feats you dump into it. A small base option or two (blow them up, plus "have them tackle somebody" for physical thralls and "do something spirity" for incorporeal thralls), and then plenty of feats that add more things you can do with them and/or improve their effectiveness in some way.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Animists are full casters and have a very strong identity. Same with Psychic. And Witch.I think there's plenty of room for Necromancer to have a strong identity while being a full caster.
Animist is the first class that comes to my mind with "god I wish this wasn't a full caster" for this exact reason actually. The animist stuff basically just being a tiny selection of spells known that you can slightly swap around per day is just so underwhelming compared to what it could have been. The fantasy the classes flavour/pitch proposes is completely unfulfilled for me because of how the class can barely dedicate any of it's budget it's concept.
I don't want "spell list wearing a hat" and that's mainly what those are to me. Turns out when you design your spells system to be balanced around classes like Wizard & Sorcerer that barely have class features, you end up with spells having to be basically all of your class for full casters.
I could see (and would like) the Necro getting effects that seem like hordes, but no more than one minion at least past single round/single effect lifespans...err, undeathspans. As noted above, too many choices & rolls clogs up table play, something PF2 & PFS2 both address/avoid. I think (and hope) its spells are secondary partly since I can't see them casting their themed spells better than other casters (esp. those with similar vibes) and partly because I like how Kineticists & Remastered Oracle Curse feats operate. They're lower power, but have such cool effects to tailor to one's tastes & use every combat so you remain on theme throughout the day. Focus Spells could emulate that too of course, but I'm meh on the Psychic's take on that route.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will never understand why Paizo got rid of the 2/3rds and half casters for PF2 when these were the classes that often felt the best in PF1. This and removing bespoke spell lists may have made things easier at first, but now it feels extremely limiting to what can be done with the system.
Spell rank is a HUGE factor in PF2, significantly more so than spell level was in PF1. Having a class that's outright limited to 6th level spells would feel terrible.