Would a Class Based Spell-List By Any Other Name Smell as Sweet?

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Necromancer having so many unique focus spells and Occult Casting just feels like working our way back around to class-specific spell lists.

I do wonder if the book this class is released in is going to get a big heaping spoon of extra spooky undead related spells to make the Necromancer work, but at what cost to the Psychic and Bard?

[PossibleCabbage]

No more class-specific spell lists please. The number of focus spells is probably too high too, since you don't really want more than ~3-4 of them.

But the Necromancer should probably get a feat or something that adds certain "Necromancy themed spells" to their Dirge. Like how Clerics of Fire Gods get to cast Fireball even though it's an Arcane spell.

[Witch of Miracles]

Focus spells use a different resource from slotted casts, so I wouldn't necessarily call it a class-specific spell list in that sense. It's no more of a class-specific list than, say, qi spells.

At the end of the day, classes rely on bespoke class feats for a lot of their identity in PF2E. And a 2 slot caster is going to need some good spells on a per encounter, and not just a per diem, allotment. This is how the class should turn out unless you drastically change the chassis.

[WWHsmackdown]

I like the current setup. Ease of use of spell lists greatly outweighs lore friction problems imo. Occult list is suitably spooky for necromancers purposes, while the class mechanics further supplement the undead minions theme. All checks out to me

[cavernshark]

I completely agree with Occult being the best fit for this class spell list and don't want to see a Divine or Arcane option. Divine is traditionally the undead specific stuff, but Necromancers are also on the Arcane side. When you look at the wheel of everything, Occult is the one list which has the most overlap with the 'arcane' vibes of Necromancy and the 'divine' vibes of Necromancy. It's not perfect but it's the best fit for sure. I do think that some feats to extend the Necromancer's access would make sense.

I understand why they aren't in the play test but I hope to see feats to support the casting side of the class as well, like the following in the final version:

Sorcerer's Divine Evolution to grant a top level slot for Harm only.

Summoner's Master Summoner to grant extra top level slots for Summon Undead only.

Shadow Caster's Shadow Spells to grant access to thematic spells from the Arcane and Divine list like Necromancer's Generosity, Harm... and I guess any others that aren't already on Occult which I'm now suddenly struggling to find.

[Teridax]

So here's a controversial take: we already have class-specific lists, they're called class feats. Spells are on a different level still, as we have over a literal thousand of them and it'd be a nightmare to parcel them out on a per-class basis right now, but Paizo have done and continue to do class-specific lists of effects, some of which can be found across several classes with the relevant theme too. In a hypothetical 3e where all of these effects were feat-based, I think that would make it very easy to create class-specific lists of "spell" feats tailored to each class, much like the Kineticist's impulses, and I'd go as far as to say that it would also be pretty easy to develop slot-based spellcasting classes or archetypes when starting from a feat-based chassis than the reverse.

With regards to the Necromancer as implemented right now, though: I love how many focus spells they have, and I look forward to seeing even more in the finished product too. The class definitely looks built to make heavy use of Focus Point-based casting, much like the Psychic, and that's a niche that lets them express their power in unique ways. I personally feel they'd get to stand out even more with purely feat-based abilities, but as implemented right now, their two-slot casting leaves plenty of room in their power budget for lots of strong and unique powers.

[The Raven Black]

Maybe this abundance of Focus Spells is an attempt, after lessons learned from the Kineticist, at giving classes their specific abilities that they will use for every combat and that will always be the same, while still keeping within the usual framework of the game.

It might become a staple for future classes.

[Perpdepog]

The Raven Black wrote:

Maybe this abundance of Focus Spells is an attempt, after lessons learned from the Kineticist, at giving classes their specific abilities that they will use for every combat and that will always be the same, while still keeping within the usual framework of the game.

It might become a staple for future classes.

My personal theory is that they're throwing out tons of focus spells mostly to see what sticks. What sorts of play patterns do folks end up falling into with the necromancer? Which abilities do we like, which do we ignore, and which have problems?

[Kekkres]

one thing i would like to see is something along the lines of "A necromancer can add spells with the Void or Death Tags to their dirge even if those spells are not normally on the Occult spell list" it

[Tridus]

Kekkres wrote:

one thing i would like to see is something along the lines of "A necromancer can add spells with the Void or Death Tags to their dirge even if those spells are not normally on the Occult spell list" it

Maybe not *all* of them (since thats quite a few spells), but a Divine Access like feature where you get to grab some of those would definitely play up that part of the class identity.

[Dragonchess Player]

So, 15 unique grave (focus) spells is "too many" for a necromancer?

Compared to 19 unique composition (focus) spells for a bard and 13 unique hex (focus) spells for a witch (plus the 7 patron hex cantrips) in PF2(R) Player's Core... I think you're overreacting.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the thing about "too many focus spells" is specific that the necromancer ones are all just "loose feats that grant one focus spell" whereas the Bard effectively gates a lot of them through subclasses and the Witch just has the "basic lesson" etc. feats that contain a selection of focus spells.

The point is not "there are too many focus spells" but "there aren't enough regular feats to take if you don't want another focus spell at this level." Since you don't really need more than 3-4 (non-cantrip) focus spells.

Like your level 8 slot is between a melee feat and a focus spell, your level 14 slot is between two focus spells, etc.

[AestheticDialectic]

Kekkres wrote:

one thing i would like to see is something along the lines of "A necromancer can add spells with the Void or Death Tags to their dirge even if those spells are not normally on the Occult spell list" it

I would be fine with spells that have Void, Vitality and Spirit traits, but maybe barring the sanctified trait. All are counted as occult spells the necromancer can potentially learn on level up or via the learn-a-spell activity

[Kekkres]

Tridus wrote:

Kekkres wrote:

one thing i would like to see is something along the lines of "A necromancer can add spells with the Void or Death Tags to their dirge even if those spells are not normally on the Occult spell list" it

Maybe not *all* of them (since thats quite a few spells), but a Divine Access like feature where you get to grab some of those would definitely play up that part of the class identity.

currently that would add

1 Harm
2 Sudden Blight
3 none
4 none
5 Toxic Cloud,
6 Necrotize
7 eclipse burst, execute, hungry depths
8 Dessicate
9 Massicre

its not really that many
edit forgot harm

[AestheticDialectic]

Kekkres wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Kekkres wrote:

one thing i would like to see is something along the lines of "A necromancer can add spells with the Void or Death Tags to their dirge even if those spells are not normally on the Occult spell list" it

Maybe not *all* of them (since thats quite a few spells), but a Divine Access like feature where you get to grab some of those would definitely play up that part of the class identity.

currently that would add

1 Harm
2 Sudden Blight
3 none
4 none
5 Toxic Cloud,
6 Necrotize
7 eclipse burst, execute, hungry depths
8 Dessicate
9 Massicre

its not really that many
edit forgot harm

Necromancers should get heal and other similar such spells

[Kekkres]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Kekkres wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Kekkres wrote:

one thing i would like to see is something along the lines of "A necromancer can add spells with the Void or Death Tags to their dirge even if those spells are not normally on the Occult spell list" it

Maybe not *all* of them (since thats quite a few spells), but a Divine Access like feature where you get to grab some of those would definitely play up that part of the class identity.

currently that would add

1 Harm
2 Sudden Blight
3 none
4 none
5 Toxic Cloud,
6 Necrotize
7 eclipse burst, execute, hungry depths
8 Dessicate
9 Massicre

its not really that many
edit forgot harm

Necromancers should get heal and other similar such spells

why? Why should death makes gain access to healing? That doesn't line up with the vibe of the class or pop culture necromancy at all

[NorrKnekten]

Kekkres wrote:

why? Why should death makes gain access to healing? That doesn't line up with the vibe of the class or pop culture necromancy at all

Because the point is Mastery of *Life* and Death, Heal was in the necromancy school after all.

[AestheticDialectic]

NorrKnekten wrote:

Kekkres wrote:

why? Why should death makes gain access to healing? That doesn't line up with the vibe of the class or pop culture necromancy at all

Because the point is Mastery of *Life* and Death, Heal was in the necromancy school after all.

Pretty much this. I want my necromancer to be a master of vitality, void and spirit

[The Raven Black]

Why would a Necromancer ever prepare Soothe if they have access to Heal (or Harm to heal their undead thralls) ?

I really feel this would be stepping on the Divine casters' territory way too much.

MC Divine caster should be enough to fill the need for those who want it IMO.

[NorrKnekten]

The Raven Black wrote:

Why would a Necromancer ever prepare Soothe if they have access to Heal (or Harm to heal their undead thralls) ?

I really feel this would be stepping on the Divine casters' territory way too much.

I agree, I don't think heal/harm belongs in the occult spell-list. But with how Mastery of Life and Death is written there just isnt a way for a necromancer to deal vitality damage outside of multi-classing.

It is described as a class that manipulate Vitality and Void in equal measure but within the playtest its purely Void converted into Vitality.
Could be a result of future proofing on Paizo's part or they are looking into injecting more vitality spells into the occult spell-list. They might even have feats for vitality abilities/Focus spells that didnt make it into playtest.

[AestheticDialectic]

The Raven Black wrote:

Why would a Necromancer ever prepare Soothe if they have access to Heal (or Harm to heal their undead thralls) ?

I really feel this would be stepping on the Divine casters' territory way too much.

MC Divine caster should be enough to fill the need for those who want it IMO.

They wouldn't and shouldn't. Heal is necromancy, soothe isn't. My take has been that the necromancer should be divine. No toes are being stepped on, necromancy is power over life and death and divine does it the best

[R3st8]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

No more class-specific spell lists please. The number of focus spells is probably too high too, since you don't really want more than ~3-4 of them.

But the Necromancer should probably get a feat or something that adds certain "Necromancy themed spells" to their Dirge. Like how Clerics of Fire Gods get to cast Fireball even though it's an Arcane spell.

Keeping a limited number of spell lists makes things easy and economical, but ease is not always the best choice. Sometimes, you have to choose quality over convenience in order to make a class shine to its fullest potential. This principle works both ways; for example, a necromancer's spell list could be utilized by other classes and archetypes, so it's not a complete loss in terms of economy.

[GameDesignerDM]

R3st8 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

No more class-specific spell lists please. The number of focus spells is probably too high too, since you don't really want more than ~3-4 of them.

But the Necromancer should probably get a feat or something that adds certain "Necromancy themed spells" to their Dirge. Like how Clerics of Fire Gods get to cast Fireball even though it's an Arcane spell.

Keeping a limited number of spell lists makes things easy and economical, but ease is not always the best choice. Sometimes, you have to choose quality over convenience in order to make a class shine to its fullest potential. This principle works both ways; for example, a necromancer's spell list could be utilized by other classes and archetypes, so it's not a complete loss in terms of economy.

For the health of the game and the designer's sanity, the spell lists we have now are the proper solution and class-specific lists should not make a return.

[R3st8]

GameDesignerDM wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

No more class-specific spell lists please. The number of focus spells is probably too high too, since you don't really want more than ~3-4 of them.

But the Necromancer should probably get a feat or something that adds certain "Necromancy themed spells" to their Dirge. Like how Clerics of Fire Gods get to cast Fireball even though it's an Arcane spell.

Keeping a limited number of spell lists makes things easy and economical, but ease is not always the best choice. Sometimes, you have to choose quality over convenience in order to make a class shine to its fullest potential. This principle works both ways; for example, a necromancer's spell list could be utilized by other classes and archetypes, so it's not a complete loss in terms of economy.

For the health of the game and the designer's sanity, the spell lists we have now are the proper solution and class-specific lists should not make a return.

But clearly there are exceptions to that like the elemental list.

[Gortle]

R3st8 wrote:

GameDesignerDM wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

No more class-specific spell lists please. The number of focus spells is probably too high too, since you don't really want more than ~3-4 of them.

But the Necromancer should probably get a feat or something that adds certain "Necromancy themed spells" to their Dirge. Like how Clerics of Fire Gods get to cast Fireball even though it's an Arcane spell.

Keeping a limited number of spell lists makes things easy and economical, but ease is not always the best choice. Sometimes, you have to choose quality over convenience in order to make a class shine to its fullest potential. This principle works both ways; for example, a necromancer's spell list could be utilized by other classes and archetypes, so it's not a complete loss in terms of economy.

For the health of the game and the designer's sanity, the spell lists we have now are the proper solution and class-specific lists should not make a return.

But clearly there are exceptions to that like the elemental list.

I consider that a misstep. All it has is role playing value. It is a serious downgrade to any primal caster, with which you could have just roleplayed the elementalist anyway.

[R3st8]

Gortle wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

GameDesignerDM wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

No more class-specific spell lists please. The number of focus spells is probably too high too, since you don't really want more than ~3-4 of them.

But the Necromancer should probably get a feat or something that adds certain "Necromancy themed spells" to their Dirge. Like how Clerics of Fire Gods get to cast Fireball even though it's an Arcane spell.

Keeping a limited number of spell lists makes things easy and economical, but ease is not always the best choice. Sometimes, you have to choose quality over convenience in order to make a class shine to its fullest potential. This principle works both ways; for example, a necromancer's spell list could be utilized by other classes and archetypes, so it's not a complete loss in terms of economy.

For the health of the game and the designer's sanity, the spell lists we have now are the proper solution and class-specific lists should not make a return.

But clearly there are exceptions to that like the elemental list.

I consider that a misstep. All it has is role playing value. It is a serious downgrade to any primal caster, with which you could have just roleplayed the elementalist anyway.

I don't know, man; I kind of like the elemental wizard. Being able to cast Element Embodied is nice, and polymorph spells like the Animist Avatar are some of my favorites.

[Gortle]

R3st8 wrote:

I don't know, man; I kind of like the elemental wizard. Being able to cast Element Embodied is nice, and polymorph spells like the Animist Avatar are some of my favorites.

I'm glad you like the wizard chasis. There are always a few people who do. I can't bring myself to, nor the two thirds drop in availability of spells including all your highly appropriate lightning spells.

[graystone]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Why would a Necromancer ever prepare Soothe if they have access to Heal (or Harm to heal their undead thralls) ?

I really feel this would be stepping on the Divine casters' territory way too much.

MC Divine caster should be enough to fill the need for those who want it IMO.

They wouldn't and shouldn't. Heal is necromancy, soothe isn't. My take has been that the necromancer should be divine. No toes are being stepped on, necromancy is power over life and death and divine does it the best

It might have Soothe since it can heal Undead and living creatures.

[Invictus Fatum]

graystone wrote:

AestheticDialectic wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Why would a Necromancer ever prepare Soothe if they have access to Heal (or Harm to heal their undead thralls) ?

I really feel this would be stepping on the Divine casters' territory way too much.

MC Divine caster should be enough to fill the need for those who want it IMO.

They wouldn't and shouldn't. Heal is necromancy, soothe isn't. My take has been that the necromancer should be divine. No toes are being stepped on, necromancy is power over life and death and divine does it the best

It might have Soothe since it can heal Undead and living creatures.

Unfortunately there are a lot of undead it won't work on though. Many are immune to Mental abilities and Soothe has the Mental trait. Thos includes Thralls (so no healing the special thralls with Soothe).

[AestheticDialectic]

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Unfortunately there are a lot of undead it won't work on though. Many are immune to Mental abilities and Soothe has the Mental trait. Thos includes Thralls (so no healing the special thralls with Soothe).

Soothe having the mental trait is one of those things that makes the occult list feel like a poor fit thematically

[Invictus Fatum]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Unfortunately there are a lot of undead it won't work on though. Many are immune to Mental abilities and Soothe has the Mental trait. Thos includes Thralls (so no healing the special thralls with Soothe).

Soothe having the mental trait is one of those things that makes the occult list feel like a poor fit thematically

While I agree that Soothe isn't a great fit, I actually like the Occult list for Necromancer.

I have no doubt that the book in which Necromancer is released will have plenty of new and on-theme Occult spells to add to the spooky and necromancy utility and undead feel.

[R3st8]

A lot of people may disagree with me, but I believe a necromancer should have abilities like healing and raising the dead. What kind of necromancer can't revive people? People have become too accustomed to the Diablo necromancer and have forgotten that the whole point of being a necromancer is to resurrect the dead.

[graystone]

R3st8 wrote:

A lot of people may disagree with me, but I believe a necromancer should have abilities like healing and raising the dead. What kind of necromancer can't revive people? People have become too accustomed to the Diablo necromancer and have forgotten that the whole point of being a necromancer is to resurrect the dead.

I think the fantasy is making undead and not raising the dead. I can't think of any fantasy where a necromancer is reviving people. Or healing non-undead. the healer/cleric fantasy is to heal and raise/revive people. If a necromancer tries to raise someone, I'd expect them to come back like pet cemetery.

[AestheticDialectic]

R3st8 wrote:

A lot of people may disagree with me, but I believe a necromancer should have abilities like healing and raising the dead. What kind of necromancer can't revive people? People have become too accustomed to the Diablo necromancer and have forgotten that the whole point of being a necromancer is to resurrect the dead.

Yeah, the ability to express the full range of necromancy should be in the class. People can simply choose to not prepare heal if they find this all to be too outside of their purely edgy conception. I want my necromancer holding void and vitality in each hand and connected to the spirits

[RPG-Geek]

graystone wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

A lot of people may disagree with me, but I believe a necromancer should have abilities like healing and raising the dead. What kind of necromancer can't revive people? People have become too accustomed to the Diablo necromancer and have forgotten that the whole point of being a necromancer is to resurrect the dead.

I think the fantasy is making undead and not raising the dead. I can't think of any fantasy where a necromancer is reviving people. Or healing non-undead. the healer/cleric fantasy is to heal and raise/revive people. If a necromancer tries to raise someone, I'd expect them to come back like pet cemetery.

Dr. Frankenstein is 100% a necromancer who created life, not un-life. If the OG doesn't fit the class the class is missing something.

[Dragonchess Player]

Just to be clear: Rituals in PF2 are where many "necromancer" effects, like create undead, reincarnate, rest eternal, call spirit, and resurrect, exist instead of in the spell lists.

Dr. Frankenstein, in PF2 terms, had a critical failure ("Something goes horribly wrong—an evil spirit possesses the body, the body transforms into a special kind of undead, or some worse fate befalls the target.") when performing a (non-standard, Stasian tech-based) resurrect ritual...

[R3st8]

graystone wrote:

R3st8 wrote:

A lot of people may disagree with me, but I believe a necromancer should have abilities like healing and raising the dead. What kind of necromancer can't revive people? People have become too accustomed to the Diablo necromancer and have forgotten that the whole point of being a necromancer is to resurrect the dead.

I think the fantasy is making undead and not raising the dead. I can't think of any fantasy where a necromancer is reviving people. Or healing non-undead. the healer/cleric fantasy is to heal and raise/revive people. If a necromancer tries to raise someone, I'd expect them to come back like pet cemetery.

This is what I am most worried about: the idea of necromancers—necro (death) and mancers (divination)—who were originally mediums that spoke to the dead being pigeonholed into being portrayed as summoners of mindless zombies and skeletons. Historically, this depiction has nothing to do with the origins of the myth and is essentially a recent American interpretation.

People sought out necromancers to communicate with their deceased relatives, whether out of sorrow or a desire for counsel. In the Bible, the Witch of Endor brings back a man—a shade—who retains enough of his mind to scold someone. Even the Necronomicon itself originally tells a story about attempting to bring the dead back to life. Necromancy's goal has always been resurrection, while undeath is portrayed as a failed attempt rather than an objective.

American movies portray the undead as rotting, mindless evil monsters. In contrast, other cultures, such as Japanese culture, depict them more as spiritual entities than physical beings, sometimes even as discolored versions of their original selves. Quoting from Wikipedia: "Many medieval writers believed that actual resurrection required the assistance of God. They saw the practice of necromancy as conjuring demons who took the appearance of spirits." This implies two things: that necromancy was viewed as a spiritual rather than a physical practice, and that it was perceived as a form of resurrection.

Now, I'm not advocating for necromancers to abandon the idea of undead armies; I'm simply saying that we shouldn't disregard the roots of the myth. I dislike it when people say that necromancers can't bring people back, as that is the whole goal of the practice.

[Perpdepog]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Just to be clear: Rituals in PF2 are where many "necromancer" effects, like create undead, reincarnate, rest eternal, call spirit, and resurrect, exist instead of in the spell lists.

Dr. Frankenstein, in PF2 terms, had a critical failure ("Something goes horribly wrong—an evil spirit possesses the body, the body transforms into a special kind of undead, or some worse fate befalls the target.") when performing a (non-standard, Stasian tech-based) resurrect ritual...

I'd say Frankenstein more crit failed at their checks at being a new dad, myself.

Also, I'm not sure Frankenstein would be a necromancer. The Beast of Lepidstadt, the closest analog we have to Frankenstein's Monster, was created by Count Alpon Caromarc, who is an alchemist, not any sort of caster.
I'm also pretty certain that, given a lot of the grounding Pathfinder's setting has in the occult practices and pseudo-science tropes of Victorian England, along with various fantasy and sci fi pulps, married to more typical D&D-esque fantasy, that the distinction between "true" magic and magical-seeming occult science is an important one for the setting.

[AnimatedPaper]

R3st8 wrote:

I don't know, man; I kind of like the elemental wizard. Being able to cast Element Embodied is nice, and polymorph spells like the Animist Avatar are some of my favorites.

Then to Gortle's point, a class archetype that allowed wizards (and magi and arcane witches/sorcerers/summoners) to cast primal instead of arcane spells would have enabled you to do exactly that without the need for a custom list.

Honestly the elementalist list seems like an attempt to have primal casting without druid casting, if that makes sense. All 4 traditions are very tied to the trappings of their base class, but primal has it the worst in terms of the number of spells that seem druid rather than primal. For instance all the speak with animal/animal ally spells and the like. Fits perfectly with a druid! I am less convinced that vital or material essence should enable that, when mind might be more appropriate. It works, don't get me wrong, but the explanation seems as forced as animate dead on the arcane list.

[graystone]

RPG-Geek wrote:

Dr. Frankenstein is 100% a necromancer who created life, not un-life. If the OG doesn't fit the class the class is missing something.

He's 100% someone that made a fleshy golem [like Charnel Creation], not an undead.

RPG-Geek wrote:

Also, I'm not sure Frankenstein would be a necromancer. The Beast of Lepidstadt, the closest analog we have to Frankenstein's Monster, was created by Count Alpon Caromarc, who is an alchemist, not any sort of caster.

It seems more an Inventor to me, with a splash of alchemist/caster multiclass. Harnessing lightning to create 'life' sure doesn't seems like a necromancer at least.

R3st8 wrote:

Now, I'm not advocating for necromancers to abandon the idea of undead armies; I'm simply saying that we shouldn't disregard the roots of the myth. I dislike it when people say that necromancers can't bring people back, as that is the whole goal of the practice.

I think you are making the umbrella WAY, WAY too big for a single class. What you call pigeonholed, I'd call a selection of reasonable and popular themes. Raising dead, healing, making golems, divinations... I think you have to have realistic expectations about what ONE class can do.

[R3st8]

The point of Frankenstein is that the scientist is the real monster for creating life without any care and then forsaking it when it is convenient. It is not a story about a demon possessing a body; the "monster" was not inherently evil but rather his behavior was a product of Frankenstein's actions.

[Perpdepog]

graystone wrote:

It seems more an Inventor to me, with a splash of alchemist/caster multiclass. Harnessing lightning to create 'life' sure doesn't seems like a necromancer at least.

Firstly, I think you're confusing me with RPG-Geek. You accidentally put his name next to my quote, and I think we're also in agreement viz what a necromancer is and isn't.

Secondly, I'm talking about from a mechanics point of view; the article has Caromarc as a 13th level alchemist. In PF1E terms I'd probably say he's a Promethean Alchemist, or at minimum has the Promethean Disciple discovery.
If he were in PF2E I'd probably build him as either an alchemist or inventor with a slightly reflavored Clockwork Reanimator archetype, if he were a player.

I hope we get some proper Frankensteinean creature creation options in Rival Academies. The description has us being able to learn "Lepidstadt's bleeding-edge theories on reanimating flesh with electricity," so I'm really, really hopeful on that front.

[graystone]

Perpdepog wrote:

Firstly, I think you're confusing me with RPG-Geek. You accidentally put his name next to my quote, and I think we're also in agreement viz what a necromancer is and isn't.

Sorry! I somehow snagged the wrong name my bad!

Perpdepog wrote:

I hope we get some proper Frankensteinean creature creation options in Rival Academies. The description has us being able to learn "Lepidstadt's bleeding-edge theories on reanimating flesh with electricity," so I'm really, really hopeful on that front.

Agreed! I also wouldn't mind some of the old PF1 alchemist options for body transformation coming to PF2.

[RPG-Geek]

graystone wrote:

He's 100% someone that made a fleshy golem [like Charnel Creation], not an undead.

Have you read the novel? The "monster" had free-will, the capacity for love, and was cursed only in having a creator that wasn't capable of the same. Life was properly created in that lab.

Quote:

I think you are making the umbrella WAY, WAY too big for a single class. What you call pigeonholed, I'd call a selection of reasonable and popular themes. Raising dead, healing, making golems, divinations... I think you have to have realistic expectations about what ONE class can do.

You could do all of these with a PF1 Cleric who went down the path of necromancy and took the right crafting feats to make a golem.

[graystone]

RPG-Geek wrote:

Have you read the novel? The "monster" had free-will, the capacity for love, and was cursed only in having a creator that wasn't capable of the same. Life was properly created in that lab.

I don't get the point... You can make a construct out of bodies and constructs can be free willed and have emotions. Homunculus, for instance, historically referred to the creation of a miniature, fully formed human and Pathfinder presents it as a tiny construct that "gain(s) a spark of the creator's intellect, as well as the same moral values and some of the creator's basic personality traits."

Quote:

You could do all of these with a PF1 Cleric who went down the path of necromancy and took the right crafting feats to make a golem.

For correctness, I'd change that to say "You could do all of these with a PF1 Cleric who went down the path of necromancy and took the right crafting feats to make a golem." Craft Construct, PF1 Bestiary pg. 314: Prerequisites: Caster level 5th, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Wondrous Item. There is 0% necromancy needed.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

RPG-Geek wrote:

graystone wrote:

He's 100% someone that made a fleshy golem [like Charnel Creation], not an undead.

Have you read the novel? The "monster" had free-will, the capacity for love, and was cursed only in having a creator that wasn't capable of the same. Life was properly created in that lab.

Throwing my hat in the ring here to say even if graystone hasn't read the novel, she's right that a Charnel Creation is far more appropriate for a Frankenstein's monster than any existing undead. The Beast of Lepidstadt previously mentioned is an example of a Charnel Creation with free will and the lore explicitly makes mention of the possibility. In any case, regardless whether we think the word 'necromancer' could be an appropriate appellation for Victor, he is most certainly not a necromancer in the modern ttrpg sense.

It's not just Diablo, either. Many a mythical figure has vied to bring the dead back to life, but few of them I would say had anything in particular in common with the fantasy necromancer. More I see necromancer as the one who treats in dark powers to wield the powers of death, to learn the secrets of the dead, and possibly to extend their life into unnatural immortality. And of course, a few necromancers whose raison d'etre was putting the dead back to rest.

I don't even care if Necromancers gain life magic to go with their death magic in the end product. It's just that the trope of the necromancer who deals in dark powers and manipulates the souls and bodies of the dead is pretty well-established, regardless whether they have power over life. Outside of the tabletop milieu, the division between bringing the dead to life or unlife depending which energy you put in their body isn't really much of a thing, so it's kind of meaningless to draw that distinction in literature that doesn't know it.

[AestheticDialectic]

Frankenstein doesn't need to be a part of this discussion. The novel was the first ***science fiction*** story. Frankenstein was not a necromancer, or an inventor, or an alchemist. He was a doctor

And his creation was not undead, or possessed by a spirit, or anything. The creation was just kind of a guy. He liked the novel Paradise Lost quite a bit

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Frankenstein doesn't need to be a part of this discussion. The novel was the first ***science fiction*** story. Frankenstein was not a necromancer, or an inventor, or an alchemist. He was a doctor

And his creation was not undead, or possessed by a spirit, or anything. The creation was just kind of a guy. He liked the novel Paradise Lost quite a bit

I agree in principle, but just for the comedic value, I feel obligated to point out that he's a university dropout. He very much was not a doctor. He neglected studies to pursue his crack pet theories

[R3st8]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

the division between bringing the dead to life or unlife depending which energy you put in their body isn't really much of a thing, so it's kind of meaningless to draw that distinction in literature that doesn't know it.

Yes, it matters because necromancy isn't just a video game trope; it's an ancient practice that many cultures have believed in—and some still do. Just because these beliefs are held by a minority doesn’t mean we can trample over their culture. Necromancers have faced demonization by the church since medieval times. By giving healing abilities to clerics, druids, and witches but not to necromancers, we send the message that their belief system is invalid. This perpetuates the stereotype from the Inquisition era that they are fundamentally evil.

This perspective is offensive to the ancient cultures that have included—and continue to include—necromancy as part of their traditions. It deserves respect rather than being reduced to just another generic evil trope for laughs. This attitude reinforces the colonial mindset of "our culture is superior," a viewpoint historically held by Catholics that contributed to the destruction of many of these cultures in the first place.

It's similar to how witches have often been portrayed in media as demon cultists or how Gary Gygax treated foreign deities like Shiva as mere RPG monsters. We need to be more mindful and respectful of these traditions instead of demonizing them.

[graystone]

R3st8 wrote:

Yes, it matters because necromancy isn't just a video game trope; it's an ancient practice that many cultures have believed in—and some still do. Just because these beliefs are held by a minority doesn’t mean we can trample over their culture. Necromancers have faced demonization by the church since medieval times. By giving healing abilities to clerics, druids, and witches but not to necromancers, we send the message that their belief system is invalid. This perpetuates the stereotype from the Inquisition era that they are fundamentally evil.

Healing doesn't equate with being good and it's not being included doesn't invalidate ANYTHING about belief. Do we have the same kind of hand wringing about witches and the negative stereotypes about them with things like cackle and cauldron even though there are real life witches? Witchs and necromancers have a certian feel in the zeitgeist and the one you're suggesting isn't in the forefront of it. I haven't seen anyone complaining about how witches are portray in the game.

R3st8 wrote:

This perspective is offensive to the ancient cultures that have included—and continue to include—necromancy as part of their traditions. It deserves respect rather than being reduced to just another generic evil trope for laughs. This attitude reinforces the colonial mindset of "our culture is superior," a viewpoint historically held by Catholics that contributed to the destruction of many of these cultures in the first place.

It's now offensive to not give it healing? really? That's what you're going with?

R3st8 wrote:

It's similar to how witches have often been portrayed in media as demon cultists or how Gary Gygax treated foreign deities like Shiva as mere RPG monsters. We need to be more mindful and respectful of these traditions instead of demonizing them.

It's the difference between a fantasy game and real life. When did Pathfinder ever claim to be an acccurate portrayal of any specific real life group or profession?