| 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.
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
So…those are all Divine spells…that the Necromancer…doesn’t get? Ouch. Definitely don’t want raise dead or necrotize. No sirree. Phew! That was close! Almost had thematic spells there.
So…those are all Divine spells…that the Necromancer…doesn’t get? Ouch. Definitely don’t want raise dead or necrotize. No sirree. Phew! That was close! Almost had thematic spells there.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
To be a little fair, raise dead is the proper bring someone back to life spell and if your necromancer is purely death themed, it doesn't fit, but it is ofc still a spell that was on the necromancy list, and now today still has the vitality tag because it's part of the same general essence that creates undead, just it's destructive and entropic flipside is what makes something undead instead of re-alive
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, if you actually read my post, I was proposing two feats: one for vitality spells ("White [hat] Necromancer") and one for void spells ("Black [hat] Necromancer").
Not a single feat to add both vitality and void spells.
With each feat adding either heal or harm and five other selected spells, that gives access to around 2/3 of the vitality and void spells on the divine list but not on the occult list...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, if you actually read my post, I was proposing two feats: one for vitality spells ("White [hat] Necromancer") and one for void spells ("Black [hat] Necromancer").
Not a single feat to add both vitality and void spells.
With each feat adding either heal or harm and five other selected spells, that gives access to around 2/3 of the vitality and void spells on the divine list but not on the occult list...
And had you actually read other people's posts, instead of desperately trying to appear right at every turn, not even two feats would satisfy this split either, as there is a such a large number of spells, including many that defy the vitality/void split, that your proposed model would still not work. There's a large spell gap, is the point.
My favorite kind of necromancer is the one that actually tries to bring back the dead instead of stopping midway. What sort of master of death can't bring people back from the dead?
Too often, stereotypes, archetypes, and clichés are created, and people forget how these things came to be in the first place. As a result, the character becomes a flanderized caricature of itself. Imagine if a life oracle, instead of healing, used his power of life exclusively to blast people with positive damage or to cause plants to grow; it's nonsensical.
I actually like this type of necromancer more. One that tries to control the dead. When I hear pyromancer, I think about someone that controls fire, not just starting fires. Same thing for necromancer. I don't want it to just bring things back to life.
That said, I do think the class needs some feature to help dying allies and more ways to interact with the dead in general. bone speaker is a start, but not nearly enough.
It's entirely plausible that the tradition of Necromancy as represented by the class specifically developed over time in order to avoid divine attention from the likes of Pharasma or Urgathoa. It's not like you really want attention from Tar-Baphon or Geb either.
The sorts of "actually raising the dead" or "making mindless undead that last longer than you have use for them" or "creating intelligent undead" is specifically the sort of thing that will get you attention from powers that want to control or destroy you, so you figure out how to play with the energies of life and death in a way that doesn't create those kinds of problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely plausible that the tradition of Necromancy as represented by the class specifically developed over time in order to avoid divine attention from the likes of Pharasma or Urgathoa. It's not like you really want attention from Tar-Baphon or Geb either.
The sorts of "actually raising the dead" or "making mindless undead that last longer than you have use for them" or "creating intelligent undead" is specifically the sort of thing that will get you attention from powers that want to control or destroy you, so you figure out how to play with the energies of life and death in a way that doesn't create those kinds of problems.
All of which speaks to the issue with Pathfinder 2 being so embedded into the lore of Golarion. For those without these narrative “barriers”, they…don’t exist.
So while it might help Paizo craft an identity for their necromancer, and give some reasons for mechanical limitations/boundaries, it leaves those of us who play largely outside of Golarion…bereft of equally interesting mechanical options because “story”.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely plausible that the tradition of Necromancy as represented by the class specifically developed over time in order to avoid divine attention from the likes of Pharasma or Urgathoa. It's not like you really want attention from Tar-Baphon or Geb either.
The sorts of "actually raising the dead" or "making mindless undead that last longer than you have use for them" or "creating intelligent undead" is specifically the sort of thing that will get you attention from powers that want to control or destroy you, so you figure out how to play with the energies of life and death in a way that doesn't create those kinds of problems.
All of which speaks to the issue with Pathfinder 2 being so embedded into the lore of Golarion. For those without these narrative “barriers”, they…don’t exist.
So while it might help Paizo craft an identity for their necromancer, and give some reasons for mechanical limitations/boundaries, it leaves those of us who play largely outside of Golarion…bereft of equally interesting mechanical options because “story”.
You can just make up your own story to work with the class, then.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can just make up your own story to work with the class, then.
Yeah, if you have a different setting with a different death deity and undeath deity (who are likely in opposition, but might not be) you can come up with your own understanding of how this works. I personally have such a setting.
It is always easier to tweak existing Golarion lore to make it work with your own homebrew than it is to create something out of whole cloth to justify how something works. So I appreciate PF2 justifying things in its own lore instead of just having flavorless mechanics.
You can just make up your own story to work with the class, then.
Sure. Reskinning is as old as the hobby. My point is that where mechanical strictures are seemingly arrived at by narrative that isn’t universal, the strictures end up being mechanically meaningless, and often problematic. I don’t need any flavor “with” my game mechanics, and most of the time it is not only superfluous but also at odds with my campaign world.
It is always easier to tweak existing Golarion lore to make it work with your own homebrew than it is to create something out of whole cloth to justify how something works. So I appreciate PF2 justifying things in its own lore instead of just having flavorless mechanics.
I have to disagree - it is no effort to create one’s own campaign world and ideas. It is yours after all.
I have to disagree - it is no effort to create one’s own campaign world and ideas. It is yours after all.
Counter-point: I used to do that and while it didn't not work, my world sucked. It was as boring as it gets. Some GMs have genuinely boundless creativity and sprout entire worlds out of their heads in an afternoon. I am not one of them. I have some creativity that works great for making interesting scenarios in a world that facilitates them but I don't have the skills to get to set that up without heavy inspiration. At least not yet. Thankfully, here in Pathfinder everything is already congruent even if I run a game not set in Golarion! It was made to be congruent, after all. Even with Starfinder if I really need that.
I don’t need any flavor “with” my game mechanics, and most of the time it is not only superfluous but also at odds with my campaign world.
This confounds me even more because very often, Pathfinder plays on very common fantasy (or other fictional) tropes that would be silly to shave down even further. I think profoundly few people would raise objections to how elves, kobolds, or halflings are portrayed in the system. Same with a sorcerer, barbarian, or even gunslinger. There is admittedly a pretty good chunk of content that's even more setting-specific, but that's overwhelmingly from the Lost Omens line (such as the Chosen of Lamasthu goblin ancestry feat) or adventures. Anything else is primarily either too specific to avoid giving an explanation for (like Kineticist), or are whole cloth a Paizo invention at which point I don't see what lore conflicts there are to even talk about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the original point that was objected to could be rephrased as:
"It's entirely plausible that the tradition of Necromancy as represented by the class specifically developed over time in order to avoid attention from villagers with torches and pitchforks, or nastier powers entirely. It's the sort of manipulation of the energies of death and life that's not likely to attract attention you want from anybody who protects those boundaries, whereas "creating permanent undead" and the like is much more likely to attract attention from well above your weight-class, so it shouldn't really be something inherent to the class.
Like the ritual to create permanent undead and the undead master archetype are still available to you.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the original point that was objected to could be rephrased as:
"It's entirely plausible that the tradition of Necromancy as represented by the class specifically developed over time in order to avoid attention from villagers with torches and pitchforks, or nastier powers entirely. It's the sort of manipulation of the energies of death and life that's not likely to attract attention you want from anybody who protects those boundaries, whereas "creating permanent undead" and the like is much more likely to attract attention from well above your weight-class, so it shouldn't really be something inherent to the class.
Like the ritual to create permanent undead and the undead master archetype are still available to you.
Let's follow this thought experiment a little further.
1) Beyond being a class that can create expected outputs for a TTRPG, what utility do the Necromancer's class features offer to the would-be Necromancer that can't be gained by studying as a Wizard?
2) Assuming there is any utility to the class for the average non-adventuring Necromancer, what is the end goal of the class's in-universe development? We don't see any improvements to the stability or utility of the summoned thralls as the class gains levels.
The idea of flying under the radar as a Necromancer would make some sense if there were actual utility to the class or if the Thralls created began to better emulate the permanent undead they were designed to replace, but flatly we don't see that. The class uses them to solve ever more difficult combat puzzles and that's it.
The lack of utility that the Necromancer class fantasy usually gains from their undead lackeys makes this class a poor fit for any Necromancer that would use their undead out of combat.
Let's follow this thought experiment a little further.
1) Beyond being a class that can create expected outputs for a TTRPG, what utility do the Necromancer's class features offer to the would-be Necromancer that can't be gained by studying as a Wizard?
2) Assuming there is any utility to the class for the average non-adventuring Necromancer, what is the end goal of the class's in-universe development? We don't see any improvements to the stability or utility of the summoned thralls as the class gains levels.
The idea of flying under the radar as a Necromancer would make some sense if there were actual utility to the class or if the Thralls created began to better emulate the permanent undead they were designed to replace, but flatly we don't see that. The class uses them to solve ever more difficult combat puzzles and that's it.
The lack of utility that the Necromancer class fantasy usually gains from their undead lackeys makes this class a poor fit for any Necromancer that would use their undead out of combat.
Looking at this from a game design perspective, it seems to me that this class aims to allow players to be minion masters while also addressing the complaints against necromancers from previous editions.
Three problems were already solved by turning Animated Dead into a summoning spell, which addresses the upkeep and tracking issues, as well as the concerns about using corpses and being around a army of rotting bodies.
The only remaining issues are long turns and souls. By making the undead into spirits or something similar, and by removing alignment, they somewhat "solve" the soul issue. However, the problem arises with how they attempted to address the long turn issue.
Essentially, by making it so the undead can't move or attack—effectively turning them into static objects that can be used to cast certain spells—they ensured that no time will be spent on them. Since these undead will be constantly sacrificed, optimal players will likely have few of...
Did you miss the part where I stated: "Beyond being a class that can create expected outputs for a TTRPG..." I acknowledged that the Necromancer has valid outputs as a game piece. What hasn't been explained is the in-universe utility of the Necromancer and its thralls. Where does the Necromancer class fit into a version of the game where we look at things as realistic developments of a field of study rather than as a collection of game rules?
Did you miss the part where I stated: "Beyond being a class that can create expected outputs for a TTRPG..." I acknowledged that the Necromancer has valid outputs as a game piece. What hasn't been explained is the in-universe utility of the Necromancer and its thralls. Where does the Necromancer class fit into a version of the game where we look at things as realistic developments of a field of study rather than as a collection of game rules?I'm not sure if my tone came across incorrectly, but I intended it as a casual "oh, and there's also that" kind of reply. I suppose the utility would be not being constantly pursued by psychopomps and not being hated by the deity that judges the dead. However, as you can see in my thread about who would want to be a necromancer, I belong to the camp that believes if you don't want to anger those entities, it makes far more sense not to become a necromancer in the first place. Therefore, I can't really answer that question.
Having read that thread I think we agree more than we disagree. Though I'm not sure we should embrace the idea of a Necromancer who seems almost ashamed of what they're doing. It would be a stronger class theme if we have a Necromancer that was a capital-N, say it with their whole chest, Necromancer rather than one that could easily be flavoured as an Oozemancer, Fungomancer, Trap Setter, or whatever else might place unmoving easily broken tokens to activate other class abilities.