Some others have pointed out that some of the class, while having some interesting and definitely unique mechanical aspects, which tangentially touch on some view of some necromancer implementations, but others felt like some of it was only loosely tied back to the necromantic powers and source materials.
This made me step back and suddenly realize that while right now, it only has a few choices of themes for Thralls, the concept really seems to have less to do with Necromancy than it does have to do with Horde-management.
As I was thinking about it, and started to think of what other necromatic themes one could build up for the necromancer, it suddenly occured to me that if it were not named Necromancer but Hordemaster, Hordeweaver, Hordearch, Swarmcaller. You could have the given subclasses with specified types of thralls... but that it could be open to additional types of thralls with very similar mechanics but different structure. Specifically it occurred that thralls could easily represent swarms of insects or other vermin which the caller could pull together to surround their enemies. This actually could then very easily be used to fulfill other common fantasy tropes for characters.
I still need to go further through the class, but I thought it was an interesting concept that maybe could turn into a bonus for the class having less tying it entirely to only necromantic flavor, that perhaps its scope could be widened and then certain subclasses, with certain chosen thrall types could link the class to certain other subclass abilities/options which would tie them closer to a particular flavor.
For instance, an insect swarm Hordemaster might be Primal instead of Occult? Someone mentioned Undead Master archetype as a means for a Necromancer to get more necromantic flavor. Maybe picking a zombie, skeleton, or ghost thrall type, unlocks the feats in Undead Master archetype as non-archetype feats as long as the companion is of a similar theme as the Thralls they can create. A insect swarm master might have a similar archetype it could consider part of its class that might grant a swarm companion, or an option for a 'giant' insect companion.
One thing that might help present the Necromancer or Hordemaster portray a greater range of related stories might be an option to let them 'manifest' or call a companion if they have invested in one, 'out of' a Thrall they have manifested. Thus they could leverage placement of thralls as a means of getting their companion placed where they may want. Helping to tie separate but thematically related investments together.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or the Necromancer could just be the Necromancer.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't really care about the name of a class, I don't think we'll ever get another one that's closer to being a "Necromancer".
The thing everyone seems to associate with that name are lots of undead minions you can order around to do your bidding. But we all know something like that will probably never happen. Limiting the amount of moving parts during each player's turn seems very much rooted in PF2's design philosophy, systems and balance.
So basically, I think it's now or never.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a better argument that Monk shouldn't be named Monk.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a better argument that Monk shouldn't be named Monk.
Oh there's definitely a strong case for that. IMO "Brawler" was a better name for the concept that's actually being played, as it covers a much wider variety of character styles than the stereotypical Eastern martial artist that we're calling "Monk." Since a lot of people don't actually play that concept, they're not really "Monks" at all: they're martial artists.
Course, that case existing doesn't mean the case for Necromancer doesn't exist either. There isn't really much that's very "necromancy" feeling going on here, at the end of the day. It's a theme applied to make the class look like that because what it's actually doing in play doesn't fit the tropes: it's not raising armies of the dead. It's not especially strong at cursing, debilitating, manipulating life energy, or other kinds of "necromancy" magic.
It would be trivially easy to reskin Necromancer into a plant-based class instead by changing Thralls to "Animated Shrubs" and the other graveborn spells appropriately to match. It would make just as much sense, since conjuring shrubbery out of nothing isn't any different than conjuring thralls out of nothing, which is really what you're doing (they're in no way dependent on corpses/bones/anything). Hell, you could probably also do it as a "gizmo" based class by saying the thralls are instead constructs that you quickly toss out and deploy, which is why they can't change squares and don't stay online very long.
I think people have the sentiment because "Necromancer" as a term has a lot of shared meaning, including from video games/anime/etc, but also from past versions of Pathfinder/D&D. The playtest version we have don't really fit into any of those styles.
And hey, making something new is great. But we shouldn't be surprised when people have expectations for what the class can do based on what they've called it and then they get disappointed when it can't do that. I know I've run into that more than once when people learn that Summoner doesn't actually want to do very much summoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know I've run into that more than once when people learn that Summoner doesn't actually want to do very much summoning.
Holy cow... idk how I only just realized that the mechanics of the playtest Necromancer make much more sense as the chassis for a class called "Summoner" (whereas the existing Summoner is more of a "Binder"). Well, that bums me out now...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a mushroom guy who summons disposable fungus thralls and casts primal spells would be a fun class archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think its okay - and good - that an IP is carving out their own space and expectations for a fantasy trope. It keeps the genre alive and fresh, and helps people to shift expectations in what various games are wanting to deliver.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necromancer seems fine to me
People really like to take the popular media and insist that it's the only interpretation.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
~~~Absolutely not. I have not seen even one class feature that allows you to divine the future. What's with all the walking corpses? Where's the unleavened black bread? This is not necromancy, this is sparkling demonology. Necromancy is when you conjure the shades of the dead to speak prophecy to you and consult on secret matters.~~~
For clarity reasons, the above is a joke, referencing the historical roots of necromancy--divination via the dead--over the modern corpse puppetry and life-draining fantasy staple
Real talk, though, I feel like spawning in creations that only exist for long enough to be consumed by your abilities and die works especially well for necromancer, where your creations are just unliving corpses or already departed spirits. Your examples are mostly creatures that most people don't usually care about killing, but it's worth being aware that creating a living creature just to destroy it might not sit well with everyone--even if the creations are by their nature, doomed to die within a minute anyway.
Incidentally, I like the idea that, if a necromancer obtains themselves some manner of undead companion, that they somehow gain some kind of synergy between their action-intensive set-up phase and their thrall-commanding actions. Obviously, I wouldn't want the synergy to be so good that it's basically free extra damage, but it seems like the rotation might be too action-intensive already to devote much time to what seems like an obvious thematic pick of having a special dedicated minion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think its okay - and good - that an IP is carving out their own space and expectations for a fantasy trope. It keeps the genre alive and fresh, and helps people to shift expectations in what various games are wanting to deliver.
Flipside: Words have meaning. If I make a class called "Wizard" that is actually an illiterate burly greatsword wielding berserker with absolutely no magic skill whatsoever, am I "shifting expectations", or am I just misleading players about what to expect out of this class?
It doesn't lead to a good time when people expect a class to work one way based on what the class is called and says about itself, vs what it actually does. That's especially true when the game itself is inconsistent about that, since so many existing classes do lean into their common understanding pretty well even if they have unique mechanics to go about that.
And that's the problem here, really. Having a "Necromancer" that does something new is fine. Having a "Necromancer" that doesn't really resemble a Necromancer in any particular way since its effectively just summoning pokey obstacles out of nothing is going to lead to disappointment when people expect a feeling the class fails to deliver.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's the problem here, really. Having a "Necromancer" that does something new is fine. Having a "Necromancer" that doesn't really resemble a Necromancer in any particular way since its effectively just summoning pokey obstacles out of nothing is going to lead to disappointment when people expect a feeling the class fails to deliver.
I mean, the "pokey obstacles" *are* undead that you are raising so your comparison really isn't remotely equivalent. Wanting the thralls to be able to do more and reflect undead more makes sense but don't act like a class all about summoning disposable corpses is a complete mismatch for the name "Necromancer".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's the problem here, really. Having a "Necromancer" that does something new is fine. Having a "Necromancer" that doesn't really resemble a Necromancer in any particular way since its effectively just summoning pokey obstacles out of nothing is going to lead to disappointment when people expect a feeling the class fails to deliver.I mean, the "pokey obstacles" *are* undead that you are raising so your comparison really isn't remotely equivalent. Wanting the thralls to be able to do more and reflect undead more makes sense but don't act like a class all about summoning disposable corpses is a complete mismatch for the name "Necromancer".
What about these are "corpses", though? A corpse is literally by definition "a dead body". We're not using dead bodies or dealing with any dependence on access to such things.
We're simply summoning something into existence out of nothing and calling it a corpse. Can it really be "a dead body" if it was never alive in the first place? Does it being described as being in the shape of a corpse actually give any kind of feeling of necromancy if you're not doing anything with actual corpses at all and it makes no difference if there isn't a corpse within 50 miles?
I don't think so. The believability of this whole concept isn't great, and its clear I'm not the only one that is having problems with it. It feels more like a summoner than a necromancer. Where's the necromancy?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about these are "corpses", though? A corpse is literally by definition "a dead body". We're not using dead bodies or dealing with any dependence on access to such things.
We're simply summoning something into existence out of nothing and calling it a corpse. Can it really be "a dead body" if it was never alive in the first place? Does it being described as being in the shape of a corpse actually give any kind of feeling of necromancy if you're not doing anything with actual corpses at all and it makes no difference if there isn't a corpse within 50 miles?
I don't think so. The believability of this whole concept isn't great, and its clear I'm not the only one that is having problems with it. It feels more like a summoner than a necromancer. Where's the necromancy?
I fail to see what the crucial difference between Create Thrall and Summon Undead is that one is indisputably necromancy but the other isn't when they both do the exact same thing. Literally the only difference is that your thralls are weaker and cheaper than the undead raised by that spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd love it if they'd shift this class to being a Conjurer, with one subtype of the class being Neromancer, alongside Swarm Master and (not sure what you'd call the plant conjurer) and one that conjures small constructs.
A "necromancer" will get zero play in my group, it doesn't fit the heroic fantasy we prefer - making necromancy just one possible flavor to apply onto the mechanics, and allowing cool constructs or plants instead, makes this class look insanely awesome to us!
Not sure if the occult list would apply regardless, or if the flavor choice should also affect the spell list? A plant summoner could do primal instead; or could do occult and it's due to weird pollens and the like. (Poppies!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think its okay - and good - that an IP is carving out their own space and expectations for a fantasy trope. It keeps the genre alive and fresh, and helps people to shift expectations in what various games are wanting to deliver.Flipside: Words have meaning. If I make a class called "Wizard" that is actually an illiterate burly greatsword wielding berserker with absolutely no magic skill whatsoever, am I "shifting expectations", or am I just misleading players about what to expect out of this class?
It doesn't lead to a good time when people expect a class to work one way based on what the class is called and says about itself, vs what it actually does. That's especially true when the game itself is inconsistent about that, since so many existing classes do lean into their common understanding pretty well even if they have unique mechanics to go about that.
And that's the problem here, really. Having a "Necromancer" that does something new is fine. Having a "Necromancer" that doesn't really resemble a Necromancer in any particular way since its effectively just summoning pokey obstacles out of nothing is going to lead to disappointment when people expect a feeling the class fails to deliver.
Except it absolutely resembles a necromancer
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me it's exactly what a necromancer is. So it probably depends on the media we've consumed.
YMMV on that, to me it doesn't get anywhere near the class fantasy, hell it's about as far away as possible while still being a caster.
How would you define the class fantasy for a Necromancer?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
YMMV on that, to me it doesn't get anywhere near the class fantasy, hell it's about as far away as possible while still being a caster.How would you define the class fantasy for a Necromancer?Death aspected caster that raises either hordes of lesser undead, or more powerful single undead using reanimated corpses. Has spells to enhance and repair those undead, as well as a limited number of spells that harm the living, usually with rot, disease or in some cases blood manipulation. May or may not have some self only buffs, usually doing things like making armour out of bones, or taking on some aspects of Undeath.
The idea was even mentioned in the original playtest of a large group of zombies using swarm mechanics, but it was in passing during a stream, iirc by Jason Bulmahn
Sounds pretty close to what we currently have
And the swarm is a focus spell you can pick up
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that just sounds like what we are getting? So I'm not sure what else you would expect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flipside: Words have meaning.
And a necromancer surrounded by Undead Thralls is pretty on brand.
If I make a class called "Wizard"
Also probably a bad example, considering the "wise man" has absolutely zero wisdom synergy at all.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the thralls started out as skeletons you had to prepare in advance, and you could specialise into having multiples,.or into more powerful singular that would be cool, but nope, they just pop up from nowhere, sit on the field until you use another spell to expend them, like how is that necromancy at all?
I think plenty of people are quite happy they DON'T have to dig up skeletons ahead of time and would rather they pop out of nowhere. As we already have archetypes for undead companions, so even if this class had such class feats, they wouldn't have to test them again. I honestly think more people would dislike a class where you have to personally source each and every one of your undead than would like it. That sounds like a pain in the behind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that minion-user, like wave caster, melee martial, companion-user, or familiar-user, can apply to multiple classes and archetypes.
Minion-users could include conjurers, summoners, illusionists, elementalists, plant/fungus-growers, construct-makers, homonculi-tossers, abomination-crafters, dream-makers, and mutant-spawners, and these could all work quite differently at the class level, including some that work more like kineticists,alchemists, rangers, etc., including some without spells!
Necromancer doesn't need to contain all of these.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Necromancer here resembles my favorite Necromancer of all time (original Guild Wars) in just about every way, so I don't see a problem with the name.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I first got to read this playtest, my initial response was "They nailed Necromancer perfectly," so ymmv on this idea that this doesn't fulfill the necromancer class fantasy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's just call it Oozemaster while we're at it, cause it can easily be reflavored as an ooze caller instead of an undead conjurer.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a certain amount of sympathy for those who feel this class does not represent what they want out of a necromancer's thematic fantasy. No matter how much I think this mechanical expression of necromancy absolutely rules, there's a small voice in the back of my mind that asks "where do the bodies come from?"
Apologies for length, I wanted to tackle as many aspects of the question of Necromancer identity as I could and it turned into a bit of an essay
It seems most likely that thralls work on the same principles as other 2e summons--creating a magical facsimile of a creature out of pure magic. This happily helps to explain the temporary nature of the creatures, sidesteps some weirder issues, and justifies why this form of necromancy avoids things like the Unholy tag. However, that leaves an interesting question for the lore team, why does this only work for necromancy?
Like, to me this class has a strong Necromancer identity, built around the cycle of creation and destruction, the flow of life and death energies from one state to another, manifesting expendable puppets only to destroy them moments later to fuel other magics. The theme is on point, but if the thralls indeed are the lowest possible expression of summoning magic, why couldn't the same process be used to create and sacrifice magical constructs that look like devils instead of zombies?
This is an question for the (as yet unrevealed) lore text surrounding how the art of Necromancy developed and exists in the world. Perhaps the "Impossible" book will have much to say on the topic, perhaps it's all handwaved for your choice. (I've indulged in some groundless speculation* I left in a spoiler at the foot of this post for clarity.)
Even so.
When I hear people describe what they feel this class is lacking in order to be called a true Necromancer, I struggle to imagine how such a beast works in practice.
Even at my most "where do the corpses come from, I don't like the answer that they're just made out of magic" I can never imagine actually wanting to keep track of where the bodies came from, how many corpses I have available in my stock, how long I can sustain myself before I have to travel to another village to rob their graveyard. Imagine playing a wizard, but you keep track of your material components, and when you're empty, you have to go off for a week to hand-harvest more yourself. This might work in some games, but it would render the class unplayable in the standard adventuring milieu of 2e.
Obvious counterpoint: likely most of the folk who wish the Necromancer had to source their own corpses don't want to see expendable minions that you destroy without a second thought to fuel your magic. It's fair enough to say "I don't want faceless mooks, I want undead that I can have a working relationship with." I do wonder what media these folk are reading that they say mass-summoning faceless expendable thralls is somehow less thematic to a Necromancer than handcrafting individual minions, but nevertheless, this is a valid fantasy to embrace
Fortunately, this is something that already exists in the game, and that the playtest Necromancer can easily do: Undead companions and undead eidolons are still technically not remastered, but not by any means unplayable in their present state. You can even have several distinct minions to your name with the right feat, provided you accept the limit of fielding only one at a time. Wonderful!
But perhaps this is no good. Surely those who dislike the Necromancer have heard about these undead companions before and were left wanting. What is left, then, between wanting many weak thralls and few strong minions?
This is where it gets a bit difficult. I do wonder if some people's problem with the Necromancer as written isn't the lore justifications or the mechanics, but because they want many, strong minions they can order around the battlefield as their own private army. Having many thralls is no good, because they don't move and fight of their own accord, and one minion is too few to feel like the master of a troop.
Sadly, outside of spending many gold on castings of the Create Undead ritual, this is the one necromancer I believe we cannot ever expect to see expressed as a playable entity. I don't think it's a matter of class budget--it's a matter of gameplay practicality. If we cannot call a class, "Necromancer" until it has multiple action-having minions that can act together, then no thing called a Necromancer can be a player option.
The undead equivalent spell, was always a harder sell for me, since narratively the spell was assumed to find a physical corpse to put on the field somehow, regardless where one might be. In some ways, the loss of necromancy as a school solves this issue for me, since it means I can fold it into the summoning school headcanon. The spirits of the dead no doubt exist in a multitude. The only rub is the awkward question of why creating a human body with magic is so easy only if its in an unnatural state of undeath, and not when it's alive. For perhaps obvious reasons, we're not likely ever to see Summon Human, but the part of me that likes making up reasons for these things keeps getting shot down.
Alternatively, I suppose we could always imagine that the necromancer does indeed harvest their own corpses, but mechanically we assume that this happens off-screen, so we never actually have to look into the material component pouch and count how many bat guano are inside. They simply store the essence of these so-harvested corpses in some intangible form, perhaps tied to their dirge, and they can call them up at will, animated with such a small shred of void that they collapse on a hit, but can be re-fielded many times before they truly are destroyed.
The possibilities for explaining how magic works are endless provided we can create an explanation that fills in the gaps in the system without contradicting itself too overtly.
(and incidentally, the necromancer can create thralls from the corpses of its enemies... like that is indeed a thing it do.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed reading the sentiments on this thread. Thematically, summoning things out of nothing is not my first thought when imagining necromancers, but making mechanics easier in practice is understandable.
The class is unique and fun, and I agree there's huge potential to make this plants, constructs, astral forces, or whatever you dream up. I think it's a huge space for a third party publisher to expand upon.
Overall, I'm not disappointed in the theme of class name. I'm more interested in how you can wield the new mechanics. In that regard, it's looking great so far, Paizo.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it's not like the bits of Reanimator that do work for people, my personal faves are Macabre Virtuoso and Bonds of Death, can't be made into class feats for the necromancer.
I just want to highlight this.
I can definitely see Paizo potentially incorporating the Reanimator (and Undead Master) archetype feats into the final version of the necromancer (as well as retaining the archetypes in remastered form, like all of the archetypes in Player's Core 2 from the PF2 Advanced Player's Guide). Similar to how the thamaturge incorporated the Scroll Master and Talisman Dabbler archetype feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Call it thrallmaster, and have subclasses that summon elementals, psychic constructs etc.Let's just call it Oozemaster while we're at it, cause it can easily be reflavored as an ooze caller instead of an undead conjurer.
I was being sarcastic.
It should stay necromancer.
Use class archetypes for the rest if you need mechanical differentiation, and simply adjust the flavor otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then it needs to do actual necromancy, not psychic constructs with the undead tag for reasons.
(tho a lot of classic myth necromancy is in the Medium class so..)
I agree that it would be neat if the thralls could do more to make them feel more like real undead minions (such as a limited ability for the necromancer to reposition them, make basic strikes after being conjured, or take strictly non-combat actions outside of combat like carrying items or digging holes), but I also understand that we can't take it too far without having to sacrifice abilities elsewhere. I imagine finding that balance is going to be a big part of what the playtest is about.
I do not think we need existing bodies to use the necromancer's core abilities or anything like that. That would be a serious headache for anyone even peripherally involved with a necromancer. Besides people and monsters have been dying the world over since the beginning of life. Just raise one of those bodies, or the grave dirt they once inhabited, or the echoes of their spiritual essence, or whatever. There's literally no location where something hasn't died in the past. To me, that is much more thematic anyways; a cleric or wizard calling themself a necromancer can make a permanent undead minion, sure, but so can the true necromancer; while a true necromancer is also SO powerful and well versed over the necromantic arts that they can reach farther back in time and pull back the dead from long after there is no corpse remaining--however temporarily--while also being able to make more permanent undead in much the same way as said cleric or wizard.
If you're looking for a whole army of permanent undead that can do nearly everything for you and make significant impacts against the campaign, well then, that is not the realm of basic class abilities (nor should it be). That's a conversation you need to have with your GM and fellow players, perhaps via the use of rituals and no small amount of table buy in. Or else try a different game that doesn't concern itself as much with narrative or mechanical balance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then it needs to do actual necromancy, not psychic constructs with the undead tag for reasons.
That's the crux of the issue though: I think it IS doing necromancy. What is it doing significantly different from Summon Undead? Or doesn't that spell qualify for you either? Your VERY specific type of necromancy is far from a universal one. What you're looking for is a ritual caster using Create Undead. Your vision fits the current Ritualist Archetype. With that you can dig up and make undead to your hearts content and on ANY character you want.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
It honestly just sounds like no version of this class that would actually make it in the design ecosystem that is PF2E - outside of third-party - would ever satisfy what you're looking for.
That's a bummer, of course, but not every class needs to appeal to everyone, and that's okay.