The Thaumatheurge should have been the Occultist, with the Occult spell list... alas...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is precisely the problem: deep down, you don't even see it as a religious practice. Nowadays, when people think of necromancy, the first thing that comes to mind is a mustache-twirling villain in a dark robe summoning rotting corpses. This stereotype reflects the damage done by the Christian demonization of the practice and how pop culture perpetuates it. It’s not a matter of accuracy; it’s about preventing the spread of an offensive stereotype. Imagine if someone created a class called "Islamist" and gave it powers like "explode tower" or "take hostage." You can't just do something like that and then say, "Oh, I wasn't being accurate."It's now offensive to not give it healing? really? That's what you're going with?
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?
but like, is it even worth it for the practicioners of "religious necromancy" to even try to claim the word necromancy, it is as you said a clinical outsiders word for what they are doing, and certanly not their own word for their practices, in my eyes religious necromancy better fits the animist class as a form of spirit medium than anything even remotely resimbling a pop culture necromancer
That is precisely the problem: deep down, you don't even see it as a religious practice.
Deep down I know of no religion that calls themselves Necromancers or that claim to practice necromancy. I know some that practice what I'd call divination but that's a distinct difference. If you have a specific example you're talking about, please enlighten me. You are talking about hypothetical harm to a hypothetical group if we both aren't on the same page.
If you look at the necromancy page on Wikipedia and check the "See also" section, you will find links to Haitian Vodou (African), Macumba (African) and Witchcraft(paganism as a whole). This association can damage these cultures, whether they accept the label or not.
Yes, related but NOT necromancy. It's mostly divination: sciomancy.
From your source: "Modern era
In the present day, necromancy is more generally used as a term to describe manipulation of death and the dead, or the pretense thereof, often facilitated through the use of ritual magic or some other kind of occult ceremony."
Continuing:
"Contemporary séances, channeling and Spiritualism verge on necromancy when supposedly invoked spirits are asked to reveal future events or secret information. Necromancy may also be presented as sciomancy, a branch of theurgic magic." IE, it's related to necromancy in respect to divination.
Listed in related:
Islam is almost entirely Divination.
Witchcraft is also mostly Divination.
Macumba deals with spirits and reincarnation... no necromancy here.
Haitian Vodou has something similar to the necromancer with the creation of Zonbi.
So Haitian Vodou is the only non-divination example, and the necromancer class had nothing in common with Vodou rituals and customs so... Color me unimpressed with the examples. I'm not seeing the disrespect or misrepresentation. It just seems like a mountain out of a molehill.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's okay to just want to see healing necromancers. There's no need to drag anything else beyond your own interest into this discussion.
Personally, I don't want to see them. I don't think it fits the theme of the class they're going for, and with spell schools dropped the whole "healing is necromancy" no longer applies to this game. Even with the description of necromancers as wielders of vitality, I read that as weaponized vital energy. So I'd rather they lean into Master of Life and Death and release some void and vital spells for the occult list that can only be used to harm, and that necromancers are uniquely able to cast at both the living and dead to equal effect.
I might also want to see Spirit Mongers get the choice of dealing spirit or vital damage as their thrall upgrade, and maybe add a 4th Grim Fascination that leans into shadow/netherworld aspects.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's okay to just want to see healing necromancers.
Agreed. I just didn't agree with 'If we don't give necromancers heal, we're disrespecting real people.'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are oversimplifying the issue.
That is the part I posted about: it's just the right amount of simplification. AND it's a simplification you made: "By giving healing abilities to clerics, druids, and witches but not to necromancers, we send the message that their belief system is invalid."
It's not just about healing; the concept of necromancy has changed from being associated with mediums communicating with the deceased to being viewed as the realm of evil corpse summoners.
If it's not about healing, why did YOU bring it up? Is it surprising the divination part is divorced from other parts of it: the divination is a far more universal aspect that transends a single 'user' type: Are oracles or shamans less deserving of divination? If not, it's a non-sequiter to bother about it. I'm all for the necromancer for getting cool speaking with the dead powers as long as they keep their undead abilities are in the forefront.
I'm simply asking for a little consideration for other cultures.
Because then it wouldn't be a necromancer, but a diviner? There are already plenty of other classes that can cover that. For sciomancy in particular, there are spells like Talking Corpse or feats like Automatic Writing or Consult the Spirits. What you seem to want out of the necromancer cab be made existing in classes and options.
I’m not asking you to reverse years of demonization, but rather to think about how this stereotypical representation may affect people. That’s not too much to ask.
I think it IS though, as no one is looking at the necromancer and saying 'oh, THAT is a misreprisentation of MY religion!' as far as I know. If they are, then the modern view of necromancy disagrees with them. We aren't talking about an 70's voodoo movie: no assumptions are baked into it about a specific religion or area on earth. You're getting offended for someone else and I'm not sure that hypothetical person exists: if so, THIS class is the least of their worries after 20+ years of harry potter having necromancy in it [Dark Art of raising the dead to create Inferi and charmed skeletons]. I haven't heard the hordes of people complaining that those books were demonizing those hypothetical people.
The basis of the modern zombie may have been in the old voodoo movies 50 years ago, I don't think anyone gives them a second thought these days.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Whoops, I almost got RPG-Geek confused with R3st8.
Even so, I feel like intentionally conflating 'fantasy necromancer' with 'historical/religious practices of raising spirits' to say that the former is an insensitive appropriation of the latter, while ignoring the years of linguistic drift that separated those things in the first place might say a bit more about the person making the claim than the claim itself... particularly when one mentions having done their research after the original claim and particularly making such a claim only after an unrelated argument about class theme is shut down. I feel like this might cause many people quite reasonably to look with doubt upon the validity of the claim and the spirit in which it was made.
This is, after all, the Necromancer, not the Vodouist class. I don't think anyone can realistically claim that the Necromancer is an attempt to depict any specific real-world culture or religion, any more than claim that the Monk gives Franciscans a bad name. No doubt there are plenty of racist tropes bound up in some of the thematic space, but it's not like Paizo doesn't use sensitivity consultants, and I daresay 'evil cannibal witch doctor stereotype' is probably not going to be one of the first player options published for this class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I only care about the real world origin of the term necromancy for the class because my character I want to play I would like to commune with the dead. I want them to have the heal spell not because I think necromancers must heal, but because it comes with the domain of vital and void. Life and death. I just want options in the class that allow this kind of necromancer. He summons the aid of spirits, consults the dead, put restless spirits to sleep, utilizes the powers of life and death in combat, and if he does make undead it's temporarily using the corpses of slain enemies (or specially prepared remains perhaps) to give his spirit allies/friends a more tangible form
Players who want to go full evil, raise zombies and only wield death magic should be able to do so, but that's hardly enough for one class
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only care about the real world origin of the term necromancy for the class because my character I want to play I would like to commune with the dead.
You're in luck! Talking Corpse is an occult spell. Also, the real world definition is the "conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events."[merriam-webster and equivalent in Cambridge dictionary, Dictionary.com, Collins dictionary, yourdictionary.com]" If we're cleaving to that, it's an oracle more than a modern understanding of necromancer.
I want them to have the heal spell not because I think necromancers must heal, but because it comes with the domain of vital and void.
Fair, but I doubt it's in the cards. They can heal, just not Heal.
I just want options in the class that allow this kind of necromancer.
As long as it's on top of the normal necromancer abilities, sure I don't mind.
He summons the aid of spirits, consults the dead, put restless spirits to sleep, utilizes the powers of life and death in combat, and if he does make undead it's temporarily using the corpses of slain enemies (or specially prepared remains perhaps) to give his spirit allies/friends a more tangible form
Consult the Spirits: allows you "to contact lingering spirits, psychic echoes of the departed dead, and spirits from beyond reality, who tell you about things like strange auras, effects, or the presence of unnatural occult beings."
Basic occult spells will "utilizes the powers of life and death in combat", like Soothe and Void Warp.The Occult skill is often a skill to bypass a Haunt Hazard for "put restless spirits to sleep".
Inevitable Return from the playtest allows you to "Make undead temporarily using the corpses of slain enemies.
Most of what you want is in the class already or is available to anyone with a skill feat. Now it may not be in the way you want it, but they exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basic occult spells will "utilizes the powers of life and death in combat", like Soothe and Void Warp.
One issue here is that soothe is not a vital spell. It was enchantment before, and now still is about calming the mind, not healing someone with vital essence. It's really not the power of *life*
One issue here is that soothe is not a vital spell. It was enchantment before, and now still is about calming the mind, not healing someone with vital essence. It's really not the power of *life*
Well, when you listed what you wanted from the necromancer, you listed heal [lower case 'h']: it's why I listed soothe. It's only when you insist on it being a vitality heal that it doesn't work. Secondly, I'd argue that any healing effect is an effect of 'life': there is very little differentiating Healing from Vitality: "Effects with this trait heal living creatures with energy from the Forge of Creation" vs "A healing effect restores a creature’s body, typically by restoring Hit Points, but sometimes by removing diseases or other debilitating effects." I'm not sure how you heal something without altering it's vitality. For myself, it seems mainly semantics to sidestep Void Healing.
And there ARE Vitality spells on the Occult list, and some can heal.
Gentle Breeze heals 10 Hit Points [Heightened (+2)/ +10 Hit Points]
Sound Body counteracts conditions
Shock to the System canreturns someone from the dead and always heals 8d8 hp [heighten +1/ +2d8 hp
Scouring Pulse is an area Vitality attack
Purifying Icicle deals positive [now vitality] to undead.
EDIT: myself, If they add spells, I'd rather see some of the more 'undead'/negative energy Void to the necromancer like Necrotize, Necromancer's Generosity and Massacre.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For myself, it seems mainly semantics to sidestep Void Healing.
And that I think is where the problem lies. AestheticDialectic is making the simple point that "mastery of life and death" implies control over vitality and void magic, which isn't the forte of the Necromancer's occult tradition, and you're distorting the semantics of what they're saying by essentially telling them "we have heal at home". You yourself list several spells that would be the perfect fit for a Necromancer and aren't occult, whereas the healing spells you list aren't exactly a thematic match for a necromancer type when you're summoning gentle breezes or conjuring icicles (and unless something was changed recently, purifying icicle is not on the occult list either).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AestheticDialectic is making the simple point that "mastery of life and death" implies control over vitality and void magic, which isn't the forte of the Necromancer's occult tradition, and you're distorting the semantics of what they're saying by essentially telling them "we have heal at home".
He gave his opinion and then I gave mine. I'm as entitled to an opinion as he does and it includes not seeing it the same as him. IMO, it IS semantics: there isn't a distortion from my perspective. He also wants a divination focused class and I don't and again, it's about semantics, where he's clinging to what the name meant in the past and I'm to the current meaning. And yes, I AM telling him "we have heal at home", just not Heal. Now if the argument was that they don't have Harm so they could heal mindless undead, I'd be more sympathetic/understanding as that seems like something missing to me.
Secondly, my semantics comment is on the difference between the Healing and Vitality traits for spells: there is VERY little ground between them theme/lore-wise. Most people aren't going to know the difference between a vitality heal and a non-vitality heal on a living creature and you wouldn't be using it on an undead so... I'm not seeing the huge gap in feel/theme.
You yourself list several spells that would be the perfect fit for a Necromancer and aren't occult, whereas the healing spells you list aren't exactly a thematic match for a necromancer type when you're summoning gentle breezes or conjuring icicles (and unless something was changed recently, purifying icicle is not on the occult list either).
Apples and oranges: there is ALWAYS going to be spells that are on theme that aren't on a classes spell list when classes do not have a bespoke spell list.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He gave his opinion and then I gave mine. I'm as entitled to an opinion as he does and it includes not seeing it the same as him.
And, by that same token, I am also entitled to my own opinion, and my opinion is that you are finagling on semantics, arguing on the letter of what they're discussing while deliberately ignoring the spirit of their qualms with the Necromancer's spell tradition (or, in this case, the vitality and void). Clearly, they expect healing through mastery of life and death to use vitality and void magic, which is not a specialty of occult magic, so suggesting soothe, a mental spell that jives particularly poorly with mindless undead, comes off as making excuses, rather than answering their concerns pertinently.
Secondly, my semantics comment is on the difference between the Healing and Vitality traits for spells: there is VERY little ground between them theme/lore-wise. Most people aren't going to know the difference between a vitality heal and a non-vitality heal on a living creature and you wouldn't be using it on an undead so... I'm not seeing the huge gap in feel/theme.
You are not "most people", and the connection between vitality and healing is well-established in in-game lore, given how it is literally the energy used to create life. Similarly, void is associated with destruction and undeath, and both are the two halves of vital essence, which is associated with the divine and primal traditions, not occult. Arguing that we should just throw established thematics and grounding to the wind because you or some other players can't tell how vitality links to healing the living (hint: try casting heal on an undead party member and see if it heals them) is not terribly convincing, in my opinion.
Apples and oranges: there is ALWAYS going to be spells that are on theme that aren't on a classes spell list when classes do not have a bespoke spell list.
Correct, which is why you should perhaps not have brought them up as examples of thematic healing spells for a necromancer. If that is truly the best you can provide, then perhaps it may be time to admit that the occult list does not in fact provide the "mastery of life and death" that AestheticDialectic is asking for, certainly not as well as other spell lists.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also thinking being an intelligence class transgressing the boundaries into divine magic is well and truly the kind of heterodox approach that is befitting the necromancer in any conception
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apples and oranges: there is ALWAYS going to be spells that are on theme that aren't on a classes spell list when classes do not have a bespoke spell list.Correct, which is why you should perhaps not have brought them up as examples of thematic healing spells for a necromancer. If that is truly the best you can provide, then perhaps it may be time to admit that the occult list does not in fact provide the "mastery of life and death" that AestheticDialectic is asking for, certainly not as well as other spell lists.
I've begun to feel that is kind of the point. Because the cleric already possesses the class abilities and divine spell list access to provide the kind of character narrative you're looking for. A class archetype that excises your deity would be better (and ideally gives you Thralls), but right out of the box if you go all in on the heal/harm feats your character is very much that wielder of life and death that you're talking about. Picking up the necromancer multi class archetype once available will get you the rest of the way.
Which means this class should probably take an at least slightly different approach. Limiting access to healing, while providing access to all the attack options for void and vitality as well as the ability to freely swap the energy of the two at will and at need demonstrates a different kind of mastery.
But I don't insist on it. I just don't think more healing, or the divine list, is the way to go for this class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've begun to feel that is kind of the point. Because the cleric already possesses the class abilities and divine spell list access to provide the kind of character narrative you're looking for. A class archetype that excises your deity would be better (and ideally gives you Thralls), but right out of the box if you go all in on the heal/harm feats your character is very much that wielder of life and death that you're talking about. Picking up the necromancer multi class archetype once available will get you the rest of the way.
Which means this class should probably take an at least slightly different approach. Limiting access to healing, while providing access to all the attack options for void and vitality as well as the ability to freely swap the energy of the two at will and at need demonstrates a different kind of mastery.
But I don't insist on it. I just don't think more healing, or the divine list, is the way to go for this class.
I'm in agreement here. I'm personally of the opinion that it's fine for the Necromancer to be a non-divine caster, not for thematic reasons, but simply for the practical reason that we have three dedicated divine casters already, including the Animist that just released recently, and adding one more to the pile when every other tradition has only two dedicated casters at best would be unwise. I do think a Necromancer with a divine spell list would offer gameplay that would radically differ from the Cleric's, seeing how most of the Necromancer's power comes from their unique class features and focus spells rather than their spell slots, but am okay with compromising on flavor to deliver the game's first dedicated prepared occult spellcaster, as opposed to yet another divine caster.
With all of that said, though, being in favor of making the Necromancer occult on practical grounds does not contradict believing that the divine list would be a closer thematic fit for the class. All else held equal, and if there weren't so many divine casters already, I do think it would have made more sense to make the Necromancer divine, and doing so would've given the class access to all of the necromancy spells the occult list lacks. I think it is valid to criticize the thematic dissonance between a class that is clearly meant to harness vital essence in some form, yet uses a tradition that isn't based on vital essence at all, and I would go as far as to say that this thematic disconnect is pretty obvious when you look at the grounding and contents of each spell tradition. That's why I interjected in the above discussion, because while it is perhaps valid to point out that the occult list does let you commune with the dead and provide healing in some form, pretending that it's somehow more apt than the divine list at necromancy against all the evidence at hand comes off to me as so intellectually dishonest as to become gaslighting. We don't need to make pretenses and argue that black is white for there to be valid reasons to make the Necromancer occult, and I think there is common ground to be had here where we can accept both the validity of the Necromancer as a non-divine caster in Pathfinder 2e, and the thematic dissonance that arises from this.
More self heal, void damage, and methods of healing possibly added undead companions stuff in the necromancer feats would cover a lot of ground here
Maybe some way to siphon life from your enemies? Dealing Void damage to enemies and then healing yourself/your allies for the same amount. Kind of like the blood sucking roots that a Wood Kineticist can get.
Maybe some way to siphon life from your enemies? Dealing Void damage to enemies and then healing yourself/your allies for the same amount. Kind of like the blood sucking roots that a Wood Kineticist can get.
That would need to be balanced against vampiric feast and vampiric maiden... which are already on the occult spell list.
Regulated feat abilities similar to spell slot spells wouldn't be a new thing in this edition
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can also keep it occult but extend the list or have a low level feat/feature extend the list by adding vitality, void and spirit spells from other lists
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all of that said, though, being in favor of making the Necromancer occult on practical grounds does not contradict believing that the divine list would be a closer thematic fit for the class. All else held equal, and if there weren't so many divine casters already, I do think it would have made more sense to make the Necromancer divine, and doing so would've given the class access to all of the necromancy spells the occult list lacks. I think it is valid to criticize the thematic dissonance between a class that is clearly meant to harness vital essence in some form, yet uses a tradition that isn't based on vital essence at all, and I would go as far as to say that this thematic disconnect is pretty obvious when you look at the grounding and contents of each spell tradition.
To be clear, I'm not arguing on a practical basis. I guess I didn't really directly say this in my last post, but I think occult was a deliberate choice to give the class a different set of thematic grounding than the divine list would have offered. In particular, picking a list that eschews heal and harm entirely, which are the most flexible and direct void/vital spells in the game, tells a different story about how this class handles those energies versus how the cleric does.
One that the developers may have chosen to tell with this class on purpose.
To be clear, I'm not arguing on a practical basis. I guess I didn't really directly say this in my last post, but I think occult was a deliberate choice to give the class a different set of thematic grounding than the divine list would have offered. In particular, picking a list that eschews heal and harm entirely, which are the most flexible and direct void/vital spells in the game, tells a different story about how this class handles those energies versus how the cleric does.
One that the developers may have chosen to tell with this class on purpose.
I'd be quite keen to hear the developers' direct opinion on this, but if the decision was made on thematic rather than practical grounds, then I do think it was a mistake. From an essence-based perspective, occult doesn't cover vital essence, which I'd say is pretty essential for mastery of life and death, but it also covers mental essence, which in my opinion has no real relevance to the creation of undead, especially mindless thralls. From a broader perspective, occult being the designated spooky tradition is something prior sourcebooks have railed against, particularly Secrets of Magic, and when APs and expansions have covered necromancy through spells, the main traditions to receive those spells have been the arcane and divine traditions, not so much occult. I'm personally quite glad to not see the Necromancer be an arcane caster, given how Pathfinder's had issues in the past of making nearly every important caster a Wizard (including Geb and Tar-Baphon, the two most infamous necromancers in Golarion), but I do think the occult tradition is the second worst fit after that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The former apprentice turned to necromancy, delving into ____ magic."
Filling in "divine" doesn't fit. Filling in "occult" does.
In Pathfinder necromancers aren't masters of life and death, nor have they been. They're masters of death, full stop. Bringing someone back as undead is a hack to get around not being a master of life, using the energy of death and decay as a power source. The previous "Necromancer" didn't get Heal or Harm. The new one definitely needs a way to patch up mindless undead too, but I feel like occult otherwise works fine and does a much better thematic job than it being another divine caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder necromancers aren't masters of life and death, nor have they been. They're masters of death, full stop.
Death is as common as life, if not more so. Despite this, death and decay are considered subjects of the macabre, and those willing to dive headfirst into the fascinations they invoke are necromancers. These occult spellcasters seek the ever-changing borders of life and death, manipulating the energies—vitality and void—to suit their will. The undead both serve and cower before them. While a necromancer’s creations are merely a mockery of life, the undead are keen to serve their creator.
The above is the intro blurb for the Necromancer as described in the playtest, with emphasis on the relevant bit added in bold.
You manipulate the flow of life and death on the battlefield. You both create and destroy your undead servants to amplify your occult magics. You also tip the scale by draining the life of your foes to heal your allies.
The above is the "During Combat Encounters" blurb for the Necromancer as described in the playtest.
Your study into the nature of life and death have resulted in the ability to cast occult spells.
This is the first sentence of the necromancer spellcasting class feature.
You have studied the delicate balance of life and death to such a point that you can dance between them with ease.
This is the first sentence of another of the necromancer's class features, titled "mastery of life and death".
So I don't know about you, but I think Paizo is very, very subtly telling us that they want the Necromancer to be a master of life and death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's fair.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the more I think about the more I think the compromise is a class feature, or a feat(less desirable), that adds non-sanctified void, vitality and spirits spells from the other three lists to the occult list (so you *may* learn them). Not only do I think this doesn't increase the power budget much at all (two slots per level is a huge restriction), but I think it also bridges the gap in flavor. Occult I think was partly chosen because typically divine requires faith to access, but occult, like arcane, is accessed with knowledge and learning (mind essence). This feature could be given the name "divine transgression". "You've learned to transgress the boundaries preventing ordinary learned spellcasters from accessing the full power of the vital essence. This heterodox, perhaps even heretical, approach to magic has allowed you to count any spells with the void, vitality and spirit traits as occult spells as long as they don't also have the sanctified trait." Or something to this effect. I think this is how we square the circle. It's a bit more than a ribbon feature, but for a good number of necromancer themes I think it will be a ribbon feature
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the more I think about the more I think the compromise is a class feature, or a feat(less desirable), that adds non-sanctified void, vitality and spirits spells from the other three lists to the occult list (so you *may* learn them). Not only do I think this doesn't increase the power budget much at all (two slots per level is a huge restriction), but I think it also bridges the gap in flavor. Occult I think was partly chosen because typically divine requires faith to access, but occult, like arcane, is accessed with knowledge and learning (mind essence). This feature could be given the name "divine transgression". "You've learned to transgress the boundaries preventing ordinary learned spellcasters from accessing the full power of the vital essence. This heterodox, perhaps even heretical, approach to magic has allowed you to count any spells with the void, vitality and spirit traits as occult spells as long as they don't also have the sanctified trait." Or something to this effect. I think this is how we square the circle. It's a bit more than a ribbon feature, but for a good number of necromancer themes I think it will be a ribbon feature
Love the feat name
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, that’d be the worst of all worlds. You’d water down anything interesting about picking the occult list AND reinforce my least favorite aspect of the divine tradition. If healing is that important, then they should just use the divine list and be done with it. Then at least something interesting and transformative, namely that this would be a divine clash with no particular reference or need for any outside entity empowering you, is going on.
Also, had this class been based on primal or arcane, then yeah, sure, that’d make sense. But not occult. That’s too close to divine for that to make enough meaningful difference, aside from the increased access to healing.
I’m probably sounding harsher than I intend, and I apologize for that. If that helps you play the character you want, then it is impotent fur you to say so. But for me, it’s probably the most boring option they could possibly take.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meanwhile, over in Runesmith territory, such delineations seem to be fading by the moment…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beyond personal preference? Nothing objective. I've pretty much already outlined my thoughts, but okay.
If I want to play a character that demonstrates great mastery over vital and void energy, and does so by using heal and harm spells, I would play a cleric. That's more or less what the class is designed to do; during the original cleric playtest the font mechanic was more central to the cleric's design than even your chosen deity. The feats don't mostly turn on the font now, of course, but you being a direct tap into either Creation Forge or the Void is still pretty important.
So to provide a different kind of character narrative, I want this class to demonstrate the ability to use void and vitality to damage their enemies, but I am less interested in seeing them use it to heal their allies. That, to me, is too big of a mechanic overlap with the cleric, despite replacing the font with Thralls as their battery.
For me, if I want to play a healing necromancer like you've described, I would probably just play a cleric or bones oracle and hope that there's some kind of archetype that gives access to the Thrall mechanic. Or I'd use one of the existing necromancer archetypes like Reanimator. I can imagine the "Mastery of Life and Death" class becoming a cleric feat, though probably pretty high level compared to the level 1 for necromancers (another reason to leave out heal/harm, those spells would make that ability too strong at 1 and force it higher up in the class).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is precisely the problem: deep down, you don't even see it as a religious practice.Deep down I know of no religion that calls themselves Necromancers or that claim to practice necromancy. I know some that practice what I'd call divination but that's a distinct difference. If you have a specific example you're talking about, please enlighten me. You are talking about hypothetical harm to a hypothetical group if we both aren't on the same page.I just did some research, and it's far worse than I thought. There is a video titled "The Dark History of Zombies" by Christopher M. Moreman. It seems that the current portrayals of the undead are far more racist than I initially believed.
If you think about it, the very notion of a group of evil beings that can be immediately differentiated by their appearance is inherently racist. To answer your question, Wiccans and Druids don't call themselves witches either, but that doesn't make their portrayal as human-sacrificing devil worshipers any less offensive, does it? If you look at the necromancy page on Wikipedia and check the "See also" section, you will find links to Haitian Vodou (African), Macumba (African) and Witchcraft(paganism as a whole). This association can damage these cultures, whether they accept the label or not.
For what it’s worth, Vodou is far far closer to the Animist in practice and there’s very little in the way of proper necromancy - or even improper necromancy in the practice. Most of Vodou is working Lwa, which are more spirits - or apparitions. They commune with Lwa, which can be an ancestral spirit but with the exception of the zombi, a Vodou houngan would fit as an animist medium far far better than the thrall raising necromancer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beyond personal preference? Nothing objective. I've pretty much already outlined my thoughts, but okay.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, that’d be the worst of all worlds. You’d water down anything interesting about picking the occult list AND reinforce my least favorite aspect of the divine tradition. If healing is that important, then they should just use the divine list and be done with it. Then at least something interesting and transformative, namely that this would be a divine clash with no particular reference or need for any outside entity empowering you, is going on.
Also, had this class been based on primal or arcane, then yeah, sure, that’d make sense. But not occult. That’s too close to divine for that to make enough meaningful difference, aside from the increased access to healing.
I’m probably sounding harsher than I intend, and I apologize for that. If that helps you play the character you want, then it is impotent fur you to say so. But for me, it’s probably the most boring option they could possibly take.
There is a list of spells I found on the divine list, and not on the occult list, that would be included on this list that occult doesn't get including Massacre and Necromancer's Generosity. In fact most were void tagged and not vitality or spirit tagged. So it does a lot more. I also wouldn't be opposed to them being arcane and then getting this feat/feature, as frankly anything occult has for a necromancer it appears arcane has it too...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I'm sick of pick-a-list casters, and I rather have occult only than have pick-a-list again. We have witches, sorcerers, summoners and the animist also gets close. Rune Smith uses every tradition for their abilities. I don't find pick-a-list interesting or compelling... But I should make this argument on that thread
There is a list of spells I found on the divine list, and not on the occult list, that would be included on this list that occult doesn't get including Massacre and Necromancer's Generosity. In fact most were void tagged and not vitality or spirit tagged. So it does a lot more. I also wouldn't be opposed to them being arcane and then getting this feat/feature, as frankly anything occult has for a necromancer it appears arcane has it too...
Massacre I overlooked, and you make a pretty good argument there. Curious that it’s on arcane and primal, but not occult. That brings up something to consider; this class should be very good at death effects. If the occult list lacks those, and that’s one thing I did not check, then that’s a problem.
Necromancer Generosity I did see, but I counted it as a healing spell. It looked like many of the ones not occult were more on the healing side, or I could see living without. But again, you’ve got a point about massacre.
Arcane lacks the undead spirit spells that occult shares with divine. I assume those were what tipped the scale towards occult; certainly they were what caused me to be okay with occult.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Massacre I overlooked, and you make a pretty good argument there. Curious that it’s on arcane and primal, but not occult. That brings up something to consider; this class should be very good at death effects. If the occult list lacks those, and that’s one thing I did not check, then that’s a problem.
Necromancer Generosity I did see, but I counted it as a healing spell. It looked like many of the ones not occult were more on the healing side, or I could see living without. But again, you’ve got a point about massacre.
Arcane lacks the undead spirit spells that occult shares with divine. I assume those were what tipped the scale towards occult; certainly they were what caused me to be okay with occult.
I think this is why this thread is asking for a unique spell list, like the elemental ones. Ofc that has issues, but the game has a tag system and we can reference those for spells appropriate for various necromancer themes to bolster a baseline spell list. The fact this class has to learn spells like a wizard, and has very few slots that are prepared I think will help force people to pick a theme, pick a lane, and stick with it even if we expand the occult list to include these spells for this class in particular. Otherwise we could have subclasses have a spell or two of each level it adds like cleric domains
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think in a pie-in-the-sky scenario and a hypothetical 3e, the issue of thematic spell clash in spell lists could be solved by giving caster classes access to class-based, spell-like feats, like the Kineticist but shared across classes. I might need to outline this separately, but if you have the structure of at-will feats that gain power with levels, it's easier to take that structure and make spell slots out of them if you want than the reverse. In this ideal world, essences would inform the kinds of feats magic-using classes would get, and in the Necromancer's case they'd have plentiful access to spell-like feats tied to vital essence, perhaps with bias towards void magic, and with a smattering of other effects like curses and the decomposition of organic matter.
Outside of that ideal world, though, I'd quite like at least a feat for the Necromancer to access necromancer-flavored spells outside the occult list. Although I'm fine with the Necromancer being occult in the game's current state, I still find it very weird that they wouldn't be able to access spells like necromancer's generosity, and that's going to keep coming back to bite them on release if not addressed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't want to go back to a bunch of class-specific spell lists (that end up with 80-90+% overlap; at which point, why were they differentiated).
If there is a specific small selection of divine spells (harm or heal, necromancer's generosity, etc.), then a class feat that adds those 3-5 specific spells (similar to the way a cleric gets a handful of spells added to their available list based on deity) is IMO the best way to handle this within the paradigms of PF2. You can have a "White Necromancer" that adds heal and a few vitality spells from the divine list and a "Black Necromancer" that adds harm and a few void spells from the divine list.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't want to go back to a bunch of class-specific spell lists (that end up with 80-90+% overlap; at which point, why were they differentiated).
If there is a specific small selection of divine spells (harm or heal, necromancer's generosity, etc.), then a class feat that adds those 3-5 specific spells (similar to the way a cleric gets a handful of spells added to their available list based on deity) is IMO the best way to handle this within the paradigms of PF2. You can have a "White Necromancer" that adds heal and a few vitality spells from the divine list and a "Black Necromancer" that adds harm and a few void spells from the divine list.
only looking at the divine list and not on occult:
Vitality Lash, Admonishing Ray, Heal, Infuse Vitality, Boneshaker, Bone Spray, Share Life, Sudden Blight, Life Connection, Positive Attunement, Life's Fresh Bloom, Soothing Spring, Vital Beacon, Healing Well, Spiritual Guardian, Gray Shadow, Necrotize, Raise Dead, Suffocate, Eclipse Burst, Execute, Divine Armageddon (by technicality), Moment of Renewal, Massacre, RevivalIt's not 3-5 lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't want to go back to a bunch of class-specific spell lists (that end up with 80-90+% overlap; at which point, why were they differentiated).
If there is a specific small selection of divine spells (harm or heal, necromancer's generosity, etc.), then a class feat that adds those 3-5 specific spells (similar to the way a cleric gets a handful of spells added to their available list based on deity) is IMO the best way to handle this within the paradigms of PF2. You can have a "White Necromancer" that adds heal and a few vitality spells from the divine list and a "Black Necromancer" that adds harm and a few void spells from the divine list.
only looking at the divine list and not on occult:
Vitality Lash, Admonishing Ray, Heal, Infuse Vitality, Boneshaker, Bone Spray, Share Life, Sudden Blight, Life Connection, Positive Attunement, Life's Fresh Bloom, Soothing Spring, Vital Beacon, Healing Well, Spiritual Guardian, Gray Shadow, Necrotize, Raise Dead, Suffocate, Eclipse Burst, Execute, Divine Armageddon (by technicality), Moment of Renewal, Massacre, RevivalIt's not 3-5 lol
Separate them by vitality or void spells (leaving out the spells with the Sanctified trait, like spiritual guardian, or those that don't use vitality or void energy), and you'll get closer.
Also, padding the list with spells from pre-Remastered APs (admonishing ray, bone spray, boneshaker, etc.) that aren't based on vitality or void energy is moving the goalposts from my response. Just because they were "Necromancy" school spells under the OGL doesn't mean they "need" to be added to the necromancer class post-Remaster...
Separate them by vitality or void spells (leaving out the spells with the Sanctified trait, like spiritual guardian, or those that don't use vitality or void energy), and you'll get closer.
Also, padding the list with spells from pre-Remastered APs (admonishing ray, bone spray, boneshaker, etc.) that aren't based on vitality or void energy is moving the goalposts from my response. Just because they were "Necromancy" school spells under the OGL doesn't mean they "need" to be added to the necromancer class post-Remaster...
this was the original list of spells I proposed in another thread that started this discussion as examples. Spiritual Guardians also is too perfect of a fit for the class along with those other spells. Bone Shaker, Bone Spray and Admonishing Ray fit the class like a glove
Separate them by vitality or void spells (leaving out the spells with the Sanctified trait, like spiritual guardian, or those that don't use vitality or void energy), and you'll get closer.
Just looking at common divine spells that are not on the occult list, have the void and/or vitality traits, don't have the sanctified trait, have been released post-remaster, and aren't AP-specific, that still leaves 17 spells, which is quite a lot. This is not including pre-remaster, non-AP-specific spells like necromancer's generosity or necrotize, which are still usable post-remaster by dint of not receiving replacements, or other thematically-appropriate spells, which would expand the list by even more. Even if we exclude AP-specific spells, that's quite a big gap that one feat is unlikely to be able to fill in one go. The alternative could be for the upcoming expansion to add those spells to the occult list, but that in my opinion wouldn't be ideal either, as it'd just make the occult list even more overloaded and similar to the divine list.
Personally, I don't want to go back to a bunch of class-specific spell lists (that end up with 80-90+% overlap; at which point, why were they differentiated).
I think the reason why there was so much overlap is because caster classes as defined in 1e were far too broad, and continue to be too broad in 2e. The Wizard is effectively part-necromancer, part-mesmerist, and part-other stuff, and the Druid, despite commandeering the entire primal list to themselves, is a gishy shapeshifter, a beast-commanding summoner, and an elemental blaster/healer all in one. The occult list itself is overloaded with effects that are either really specific to one class, like sonata span, or that were just added because they were vaguely spooky in flavor. Because every caster has to be lots of things at once, many of those casters can't be allowed to be great at any one thing in particular, and because the bulk of a caster's power and complexity comes from spells, it's often difficult to design feats for them that are satisfying: most unique mechanics for a caster class can already be achieved by a spell, and so a lot of caster feats instead just hinge upon slot-based spellcasting.
So, to go back to this cloud cuckoo land of ideal design and a new system, class-specific feat lists could be an opportunity for there to be less overlap, and for each class to have a better-defined identity. This is already the case for martial classes, whose feat lists have only little overlap, and even now, there are more class feats than there are spells. Class-specific spell lists may have been a nightmare in 1e, but the fact of the matter is that class-specific lists are here to stay, and undoubtedly help those classes flesh out their identity a lot more than generic lists. We are seeing this in action with the Necromancer, whose focus spells make use of their class-specific mechanics to drive their theme in a way no generic spell list could achieve.