| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this been said most likely somewhere else probably not here but why is the Necromancer Occult and not Divine, Necromancy seems like it be a very Divine thing. I been doing some theory crafting Necromancer and other similar themed classes as archetypes but most of what I find is Divine, I was hoping I coudl stay on the theme of the Occult Tradition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just straight up think it's inconsistent with what has been established this far for necromancy to be occult. I'll shut up about this if I get a good explanation, lore is mutable, but secrets of magic really sets the precedent that divine and primal should be the only necromancers
I just straight up think it's inconsistent with what has been established this far for necromancy to be occult. I'll shut up about this if I get a good explanation, lore is mutable, but secrets of magic really sets the precedent that divine and primal should be the only necromancers
I would argue that necromancy belongs in the space between divine and occult, since there are very few void spells on the primal list (those that are there are about directly killing things, no undeath spells). Void energy is a perversion of the Life essence which is more in line with the Soul essence - the one shared by occult and divine. That said, there are a handful of critical necromancy spells that are on the divine list and not on the occult list: harm, necromancer's generosity, sudden blight, necrotize, execute, and massacre. I think harm is the most egregious oversight.
Flavor-wise, I can somewhat understand the desire for necromancer to be occult, since necromancers in lore are often using mortal magics to spite the gods and natural order. Plus, occult has the spooky-overlord mental magics that divine lacks. I think it's a relative easy remedy to just adding the non-occult spells above to the Necromancer's list as occult spells.
Shall we say Necromancers aren't Necromancers but Soulmancers/Spiritmancer then?
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's anything especially *religious* about *Necromancy* so that's a big part of why I would hate for this to be a Divine class. Enough with the Divine classes, we have more of them than any other two magic traditions combined!
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it has nothing to do with divinities. Necromancers worship no god, draw no power from a god. While I could understand an argument of Arcane, I don't understand the argument for the Divine.
Occult spells tend to be very manipulation focused or spooky, which works better than Arcane which can be all over.
Ghosts aren't Undead though they are Spirits which....Actually they do don't they? Maybe the Necromancer needs Sub-classes which choose which spell list to use then?
Both of the ghost Eidolon's grant the OCCULT spell list though
Phantom Eidolons. Those are explicitly non-undead spirits, and your link is quite possibly the thing preventing them from turning. It is true that all creatures traited as ghost are also Spirits and Spirits are under occultism, but (I'm fairly certain) all ghosts are additionally Undead which are Divine. And that is the common link here. To be clear I'm on the side of Occult necromancer but not for any good reason, I just want more occult casters and this one fits well enough.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just straight up think it's inconsistent with what has been established this far for necromancy to be occult. I'll shut up about this if I get a good explanation, lore is mutable, but secrets of magic really sets the precedent that divine and primal should be the only necromancersI would argue that necromancy belongs in the space between divine and occult, since there are very few void spells on the primal list (those that are there are about directly killing things, no undeath spells). Void energy is a perversion of the Life essence which is more in line with the Soul essence - the one shared by occult and divine. That said, there are a handful of critical necromancy spells that are on the divine list and not on the occult list: harm, necromancer's generosity, sudden blight, necrotize, execute, and massacre. I think harm is the most egregious oversight.
Flavor-wise, I can somewhat understand the desire for necromancer to be occult, since necromancers in lore are often using mortal magics to spite the gods and natural order. Plus, occult has the spooky-overlord mental magics that divine lacks. I think it's a relative easy remedy to just adding the non-occult spells above to the Necromancer's list as occult spells.
This has to do with secrets of magic explicitly identifying making undead with the life essence shared by divine and primal but the name primal, as well as the list being catered to the druid class, have gotten in the way of the list actually having a list of spells that fit the essences it has. Primal should be able to do necromancy on the basis created and if occult can and primal cannot, I need a good reason for this or it'll continue to feel off
We already have an intelligence divine caster that doesn't get their power from a god, though it is a patron of some kind that can be a god, the witch. We also already have two dedicated divine casters that do not get their power from gods, animist and Oracle. Then we also have divine sorcerer which just has power that is part of their physical and spiritual being and can cast divine magic with no external help at all
I see the necromancer as a wizard who studied magic to transgress boundaries into divine instead of arcane. I would even be happier with a spellbook than whatever this "dirge" concept is... Which feels, idk, too vague too insubstantial
I don't see an issue with Necromancer being an occult spellcaster, given that undead / void spells have always been present on the occult spell list. That being said, I think the class should also have the option for arcane or divine spellcasting instead, since the "necromancer" trope can take multiple different forms and it'd be nice for the dedicated necromancy class to allow for multiple different character concepts. (Spells like Void Warp, Summon Undead, Bind Undead, Rouse Skeletons, Vampiric Feast, Enervation, Invoke Spirits, and Create Undead are available to all three traditions anyway, so it'd be weird for the dedicated necromancy class to only be one of the three.)
To keep things interesting, each spellcasting tradition should probably be its own mini-subclass (similar to subconscious minds for psychics), rather than just a simple choice at 1st level with no impact on anything other than your spell list. Though I'm not really sure what benefits each subclass would have. Loose concepts:
• Maybe each tradition could use a different spellcasting attribute? My immediate thought would be INT for arcane, WIS for divine, and CHA for occult, but that might not be the most balanced thing since it'd make divine necromancers much better at Will than the other two. (And it'd also remove the option of INT-based occult casting, which isn't ideal.)
• Arcane necromancers could replace their dirge with a physical spellbook.
• Divine necromancers could get the option of unholy sanctification and access to a class feat to get cleric spells from a deity with the Undeath domain.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necromancy should not be arcane under any circumstances. It is the list that fits the least, it is tied to nothing that would allow you to deal with matters of void and vitality. Necromancy is power over life and death, vital essence, life essence. It's void and vitality. This is the domain of divine and primal. Occult having some small number of necromancy spells is often a flavor fail
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man I hope Paizo doesn't cave and makes another all-traditions caster.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, really the reason that Occult fits the Necromancer best is Occult is the magic that represents the magic of secret things, things which are not taught, or written down. Since Necromantic activities are generally frowned on by polite society and more or less "anybody who is not a necromancer or an aspiring necromancer" this is the sort of thing you're not writing "How-To" guides for or sharing pamphlets on the streetcorner or really "forming any sort of collective organization for mutual benefit" since Necromancy is an inherently solitary pursuit.
But specifically the reason Occult fits best for the Necromancer is that you are using your Mind in order to make Spirit temporarily inhabit the remains of creatures to manipulate them to do things. It's not Life essence since you're not creating anything that's designed to last (since you don't really want to leave a bunch of zombies behind anyway- they'll make a mess.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect the reasons are more meta than thematic — we have three divine casters already, and no dedicated prepared occult caster yet. Primal is really not well-equipped to do void magic, either, so the Necromancer got given the occult tradition, with the justification that occult is the spooky tradition.
However, if it were purely down to thematics, I agree that the Necromancer should be divine — the two essential components to necromancy are manipulation of life force and the soul, whether you’re raising bodiless spirits or mindless zombies. Divine magic is the tradition that combines both essences, and despite the name does not require worshiping a god or following any religion — Animists and Oracles certainly don’t to get their spells, and neither do divine Sorcerers, Summoners, or Witches. Primal also should have access to void spells, rather than the arcane or occult traditions, as void magic is the manipulation of vital essence.
In general, the thematics of Pathfinder’s magical traditions are really jumbled, and adhere really poorly to the essences each tradition is meant to cover. Paizo also don’t really follow these thematics consistently either: Secrets of Magic has an entire section dedicated to debunking the notion that occult is the “spooky” tradition, yet here we are. In an ideal world, these traditions ought to have much more clearly-defined identities, stricter limits, and less attachment to specific classes (I suspect we still only have one dedicated primal caster because the primal list is tailored to the Druid, and just the Druid). In that same vein, though, one could also take the spellcasting bit out of the Necromancer entirely and focus them around their minions and suitably morbid spell-like abilities, which might address certain players’ expectations of how much power the Necromancer have in their undead thralls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ghosts aren't Undead though they are Spirits which....Actually they do don't they? Maybe the Necromancer needs Sub-classes which choose which spell list to use then?
Only if such a choice had no effect on anything else. Would be a terrible shame to lose access to existing subclass options for the sake of adding yet another divine character.
The thematic argument here seems especially weak, because the themes the Necromancer pulls from have little to do with divinity, and the Occult list has had necromantic influences for an extremely long time. This isn't some kind of ass-pull or fundamental contradiction of the established norms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that there's already a lot of support for arcane and divine necromancy also means a dedicated necromancy class that's occult steps on fewer toes.
Occult necromancy has always been possible, but has had the least support. I've had a lot of fun with a necromancy based psychic in the past, so I welcome Paizo shoring up support for occult necromancy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necromancy should not be arcane under any circumstances. It is the list that fits the least, it is tied to nothing that would allow you to deal with matters of void and vitality. Necromancy is power over life and death, vital essence, life essence. It's void and vitality. This is the domain of divine and primal. Occult having some small number of necromancy spells is often a flavor fail
My one gripe with this is that in popular culture and even in Pathfinder there's a lot of accomplished necromancers who use arcane magicks, if such a distinction is even a thing. Like, say, Geb, notorious necromancer and wizard. It's ludicrous how hard it is for PCs to tap into that fantasy sometimes...
Shall we say Necromancers aren't Necromancers but Soulmancers/Spiritmancer then?
I prefer flesh magician.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thematic argument here seems especially weak, because the themes the Necromancer pulls from have little to do with divinity, and the Occult list has had necromantic influences for an extremely long time. This isn't some kind of ass-pull or fundamental contradiction of the established norms.
Ah yes, who could forget that famous occult spell, necromancer's generosity... oh, wait.
I never understood why necromancer's generosity wasn't in occult also.
I never understood why necromancer's generosity wasn't in occult also.
My question is why arcane gets it, personally
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since Necromancy is no longer a school post-remaster, then it does make sense to change Necromancy to be related to Occult magic rather than Arcane.
Since what you are doing with Necromancy is not "you are making a thing live again" but "you are putting something into a thing that is dead in order to make it do something."
Basically whichever Magic Traditions use Spirit should be able to do it, with Divine being able to do it via "vibes" and Occult being able to do it with "understanding."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since Necromancy is no longer a school post-remaster, then it does make sense to change Necromancy to be related to Occult magic rather than Arcane.
Since what you are doing with Necromancy is not "you are making a thing live again" but "you are putting something into a thing that is dead in order to make it do something."
Basically whichever Magic Traditions use Spirit should be able to do it, with Divine being able to do it via "vibes" and Occult being able to do it with "understanding."
We well could justify it with the spirit essence, but secrets of magic explains necromancy as vital essence. Hypothetical necromancy using spirit essence would probably never have the unholy trait, and the undead would logically neither have void resistance or immunity, nor void healing
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Secrets of Magic is probably the single most legacy book that would need the most work in order to remaster it, so I don't know how canonical it is. After all, there's no longer such a thing as "Schools of Magic" in the Evocation, Conjuration, etc. sense.
Secrets of Magic is probably the single most legacy book that would need the most work in order to remaster it, so I don't know how canonical it is. After all, there's no longer such a thing as "Schools of Magic" in the Evocation, Conjuration, etc. sense.
Sure, but nothing about the essences changes as far as we know. It's one of the things about the book we have no reason to believe is legacy content
We well could justify it with the spirit essence, but secrets of magic explains necromancy as vital essence. Hypothetical necromancy using spirit essence would probably never have the unholy trait, and the undead would logically neither have void resistance or immunity, nor void healingSince Necromancy is no longer a school post-remaster, then it does make sense to change Necromancy to be related to Occult magic rather than Arcane.
Since what you are doing with Necromancy is not "you are making a thing live again" but "you are putting something into a thing that is dead in order to make it do something."
Basically whichever Magic Traditions use Spirit should be able to do it, with Divine being able to do it via "vibes" and Occult being able to do it with "understanding."
The occult tradition is not barred from using magic tied to the Life essence. All of the traditions dip into essences other than their primary two: arcane has broad access to everything except the vital half of Life; divine frequently creates or manipulates fire, water, food, etc. from the Matter essence; primal manipulates thoughts and emotions with spells like fear and charm. There are many meta/mechanical reasons for Necromancer to fall under occult, and the only real reason I can think that they should be arcane or divine instead is bc of the 8 undeath-related spells that are on those lists that aren't on the occult list; but again, that's an incredibly easy remedy with a small aside in the Necromancer that adds those spells to the occult list for them specifically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The occult tradition is not barred from using magic tied to the Life essence. All of the traditions dip into essences other than their primary two: arcane has broad access to everything except the vital half of Life; divine frequently creates or manipulates fire, water, food, etc. from the Matter essence; primal manipulates thoughts and emotions with spells like fear and charm. There are many meta/mechanical reasons for Necromancer to fall under occult, and the only real reason I can think that they should be arcane or divine instead is bc of the 8 undeath-related spells that are on those lists that aren't on the occult list; but again, that's an incredibly easy remedy with a small aside in the Necromancer that adds those spells to the occult list for them specifically.
People say this, but the argument is always using the spell lists as a justification, when my, and other's, position is that the spell lists are a mess
People say this, but the argument is always using the spell lists as a justification, when my, and other's, position is that the spell lists are a mess
Whether or not people think the spell lists are a mess is essentially irrelevant at this point. Unless they're going to completely overhaul the spell lists, they are what they are (sparing minor errata).
Moreover, it is exceptionally un-magical to say something akin to, "This is the primal list. It can only have Matter and Life spells, nothing outside those strict boundaries." That system would suck imho. Cutting magic up in sharp lines doesn't work; tbf, even trying to cut up scientific things in the real world with sharp lines like that almost never works.
The current spell lists are a compromise between every class getting their own curated list (which is a massive hassle for developers and players alike) and a broader system derived more from a foundational background.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like there's a lot being got wrong about the four traditions in general: for instance, a lot of people are equating divine magic with magic drawn from a deity or a religion, when that's only what literally just one divine caster does. If you're an Animist, an Oracle, a Sorcerer, a Summoner, or a Witch, your divine magic will not necessarily come from a deity. Conversely, describing occult as the kind of magic that's not taught writes off necromancy immediately, given that it is the most heavily-taught form of magic in Geb. In general, pigeonholing occult as non-normative magic fundamentally doesn't work, because what counts as normative magic that gets taught in institutions is extremely relative even within the world of Golarion (again, see Geb versus the rest of the world, or even how the Magaambya teaches arcane magic and incorporates it with the primal tradition).
I also think what muddles the discussion is that there's a lot of legacy here that affects context: in 1e, originally there were just two types of magic, arcane and divine, and only later did those two get split up further and the four essence setup get invented. Because there wasn't a lot of work done on what different types of magic could and couldn't do, we've ended up with a lot of spellcasters doing things that their tradition now wouldn't really allow, and most of those are wizards. Geb and Tar-Baphon, the two most infamous necromancers in the game, are both Wizards, and in general, whenever there was a powerful spellcaster villain in 1e, you could be pretty sure they were a Wizard of some sort. Since then, Paizo have moved away from Wizards being the "do everything except heal" class, but that's created a bit of lingering awkwardness because the more the arcane tradition gets its own distinct identity, the less easily a player can recreate the do-everything Wizards of old, including fully-fledged necromancers.
I think what also affects discussion is that the idea of a necromancer class is quite specific -- we think of them as a magic-user, but assigning them any spell list, including the divine spell list, isn't really going to map on super-well. You'd probably have to write off a divine necromancer's ability to cast vitality spells, but then the occult tradition is an even worse fit, with lots of bard-y stuff like creating a bridge made of pure music. It works on the Psychic, because Psychics are very much about doing funky stuff with their minds, but on a Necromancer it requires some very specific justification, and probably a very specific character flavor. In my opinion, there's room to explore a magic-user who has the trappings of a caster, but who doesn't necessarily cast spells as an innate part of their kit. This would be especially useful if it meant allowing for more abilities that synergized directly with the Necromancer's thralls, and let the class do things with their thralls that even a 2-slot caster chassis wouldn't let them do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally want them to keep spells and not be a kineticist, but I want them to have the divine list for the reasons stated in this thread. I think necromancers should be able to cast the heal spell, for example. It was necromancy before those schools were removed, and I would consider it necromancy now. I like the 2 slots only. I do however think a archetype or something similar to warpriest or battle harbinger to remove the casting entirely is just simply a good idea. If a necromancer class only made thralls I would not personally feel like it is a necromancer. To me necromancer means power over the forces of life and death, of the vital essence, and making undead is simply one expression of this
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'd probably have to write off a divine necromancer's ability to cast vitality spells, but then the occult tradition is an even worse fit, with lots of bard-y stuff like creating a bridge made of pure music. It works on the Psychic, because Psychics are very much about doing funky stuff with their minds
Well if we're really going to go there, I'd argue that Psychics should have been Arcane. There's not a lot from the Occult list I'd miss, and the Arcane list has the energy manipulation and body transformation that I feel is missing from the concepts the class can cover.
But anyways, I'd have thought Primal would be interesting thematically (because death magic is irretrievably linked to nature magic in my mind), but agree that it is missing far too many spells for that to be practical. As far as themes goes, Occult does seem like the best option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'd probably have to write off a divine necromancer's ability to cast vitality spells, but then the occult tradition is an even worse fit, with lots of bard-y stuff like creating a bridge made of pure music. It works on the Psychic, because Psychics are very much about doing funky stuff with their mindsWell if we're really going to go there, I'd argue that Psychics should have been Arcane. There's not a lot from the Occult list I'd miss, and the Arcane list has the energy manipulation and body transformation that I feel is missing from the concepts the class can cover.
But anyways, I'd have thought Primal would be interesting thematically (because death magic is irretrievably linked to nature magic in my mind), but agree that it is missing far too many spells for that to be practical. As far as themes goes, Occult does seem like the best option.
I believe it was teridax who made a thread on reconfiguring the spell lists, and I firmly agreed with almost all of it, including shifting psychic to arcane. Within that paradigm which works on the basis of the essences each tradition is supposed to have necromancer still fits divine most. I really hope in 3e the four spell lists are way way more restrictive with class abilities that grant access to more spells where applicable
Psychic being occult does make sense though in the sense that occult is connected to the collective unconscious (I've said many times occult is Jungian), and that's pretty important for psychics. The ideal solution is that all the telepathy-type psychics are occult and all the telekinesis-type psychics are arcane
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The four spell list paradigm generally worked better when the game had fewer casting classes and the lists had less severe overlap, so the lists were actually more like bespoke class lists.
Now, the breadth of the lists is kind of constraining class design space.
It feels like the class is occult solely because they don't want it to have Heal, Harm, or arcane-quality blasting spells.
How about we make Necromancer able to take spells from other lists but treat them as Occult Spells so you can grab stuff like ?Harm from the Divine List, that one Necromancer sa spell spoken earlier in this thread. Grab Vitality lash for some reason, I think it could work or maybe add a Necromancer spell exception where it lists unique spells added to the Occult List if you're a Necromancer?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well if we're really going to go there, I'd argue that Psychics should have been Arcane. There's not a lot from the Occult list I'd miss, and the Arcane list has the energy manipulation and body transformation that I feel is missing from the concepts the class can cover.
But anyways, I'd have thought Primal would be interesting thematically (because death magic is irretrievably linked to nature magic in my mind), but agree that it is missing far too many spells for that to be practical. As far as themes goes, Occult does seem like the best option.
I believe it was teridax who made a thread on reconfiguring the spell lists, and I firmly agreed with almost all of it, including shifting psychic to arcane. Within that paradigm which works on the basis of the essences each tradition is supposed to have necromancer still fits divine most. I really hope in 3e the four spell lists are way way more restrictive with class abilities that grant access to more spells where applicable
Psychic being occult does make sense though in the sense that occult is connected to the collective unconscious (I've said many times occult is Jungian), and that's pretty important for psychics. The ideal solution is that all the telepathy-type psychics are occult and all the telekinesis-type psychics are arcane
You're both right! A while ago, I wrote one thread about redefining traditions around their essences, and another about redrawing spell lists around these definitions. Because Psychics hinge around mental essence, I felt (and still feel) they ought to be able to opt into both arcane and occult magic, and I similarly felt any potential Necromancer, who'd hinge around vital essence, could have been an ideal candidate for a dual divine/primal class, assuming primal were given all of the void magic currently withheld from their spell list.
In general, primal really should have all of the nasty life-manipulating spells added to its list, because having control over vital essence ought to mean being able to use void as well as vitality (which IMO are just two sides of the same coin), and being able to use magic in harmony with nature should also mean being able to go against the grain and subvert natural cycles. If Druids are really not meant to access any of this, you could easily just add an anathema about using void magic, but tbh I don't think that's necessary: death and decay are just as much an essential part of life as living, and there's bound to be some darker Druidic orders out there who are more forceful with the way they harness the power of life and death. Beyond that, there should also be more dedicated primal casters besides Druids, and the fact that we still have only one dedicated primal caster to me suggests that the primal tradition and the Druid class are way too closely tied to one another, much like how the arcane tradition was basically designed purely around the Wizard.
All of this is to say that Occult really doesn't and shouldn't have the monopoly on all things gritty and spooky. Primal magic ought to be just as gory, if not outright gorier than occult magic due to its potential for body horror, and in a world where primal casters could be more than just Druids, there'd probably be room for necromantic primal casters too, same as divine necromancers. Neither need to consort with deities to raise the dead, they just need to be able to use void magic to create rather than destroy, which their control over vital essence should let them do. With all of this said, though, I'm not holding my breath for a total redo of spell traditions and lists, certainly not just for the Necromancer's sake, so I can understand going for a different tradition irrespective of thematics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of this is to say that Occult really doesn't and shouldn't have the monopoly on all things gritty and spooky. Primal magic ought to be just as gory, if not outright gorier than occult magic due to its potential for body horror, and in a world where primal casters could be more than just Druids, there'd probably be room for necromantic primal casters too, same as divine necromancers. Neither need to consort with deities to raise the dead, they just need to be able to use void magic to create rather than destroy, which their control over vital essence should let them do. With all of this said, though, I'm not holding my breath for a total redo of spell traditions and lists, certainly not just for the Necromancer's sake, so I can understand going for a different tradition irrespective of thematics
Plus, death magicians that use nature to empower themselves is a pretty big trope that's not tapped in PF2! The most recent example from a major company being the MCU version of Death, presented as "the original Green Witch". This title seems like it would have been a great place to add that, and indeed we still might. Shadow Druids that draw on the Netherworld instead of the First World seem like something Geb would have figured out, given their economy is so based on food exports and, you know, the whole ruled over by undead thing.
As you said, I'm not holding my breath either, but it seems like kind of a missed opportunity here, much though having a prepared occult caster is in and of itself intriguing (and given how completely necromantic and void themed spells feature on the occult list, which is the biggest factor to me for why occult does make sense).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sincerely believe if we are to have an occult prepared caster it should be some kind of class spun off from the illusion and enchantment legacy wizard schools and could even be called a mesmerist, or something. I also think it would be fine to make wizard a kind of super-class category and break up concepts fit for a whole class idea off into classes as is done here with the Necromancer. They can all still have spellbooks, all still call themselves wizards, get the appropriate tradition of magic for the kind of magic they're studying, and even share some feats to maintain some wizard flavor. And then a spells and spells only, no bells and whistles, wizard class can just be like "spell master wizard" for that universalist kinda wizard
Necromancer is a divine wizard specializing in the magic of life and death
Mesmerist is a occult wizard specializing in magic of the mind
Transmuter could be a primal wizard
Etc