| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who is unlikely to ever play a Necromancer (it's not the vibe of character I enjoy), I've found this whole discussion really interesting.
From people's descriptions of what "Necromancer" means and what they would want out of a class with that name, I'm getting the strong sense that it's simply not a concept that can reasonably be covered by a single class, sort of like "Elementalist" can be fit by a Wizard, Sorcerer, Kineticist, Druid...
I guess my question/concern is that these pop-up pseudo-minion mechanics are extremely interesting and have a lot of potential for wide-ranging flavors. But, if they get tied to a really strong thematic flavor like undeath at the output, it makes it hard/unpleasant to really reflavor it. There could be a lot more space for mechanical support of different themes, but would they make another class like this with a different flavor after Necromancer exists with the unique chassis? It seems unlikely, at least in the medium timeframe.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just gonna say. I like everything about this class, except the occult list for thematic reasons(the occult list is actually really cool and if Paizo says it must be occult, I won't complain after release). I think this is a necromancer. I think it feels like a necromancer. I like that it is intelligence based. I like that the thralls are table friendly. I like that it's a battlefield control class. I like it splashes a little spellcasting but focuses on cool, powerful and thematic focus spells. I like the promise of a melee version of the class, and I hope there is a class archetype that turns it into a martial and removes spellcasting or makes it bounded. I like that thralls don't do much because the way I see it is making undead in 2 seconds is gonna be such a hasty version of whatever you could do normally that they would be like thralls as they are now. Weak, hardly move, easy to destroy. This class is it stays this direction and gets some tweaks here and there may be my favorite class on every level. I think it rules, and I am only upset I'll have to wait a year or more to see the final version! I'm even impressed with playtests of the class! It looks really strong!
And it would be trivial to ask a GM that I hold a spellbook instead and call myself a wizard. I doubt anyone would say no to that
That's probably how I'll be flavoring my inevitable necromancer, as someone who collects pinches of dirt, bone tokens, teeth, and other detritus from all over to add to their marvelous monster bag, or whatever they'll call their pouch of necromantic loci, and then creates thralls by infusing those tokens with spiritual essence to form thralls from magical frames filled with ectoplasm. Basically how stuff gets conjured and summoned in The Dresden Files.
Would you mind sharing a clip of a Dresden summon for those of us who never followed the show or literature?
The land where all magic stuff comes from, fey and various demons and things, is called the Nevernever. Ectoplasm is the stuff of the Nevernever, and looks and feels like normal matter when you're there for whatever reason, but transforms into slime once it's on the earthly plane, unless there is something feeding it power and allowing it to keep its shape. This can be because of a spell feeding it power, or can be because the ectoplasm is being used to shape the body of a materialized spirit. Ghosts, demons, and other entities like that need ectoplasm to stay manifested, and it drains them to keep their bodies going.That's probably how I'll be flavoring my inevitable necromancer, as someone who collects pinches of dirt, bone tokens, teeth, and other detritus from all over to add to their marvelous monster bag, or whatever they'll call their pouch of necromantic loci, and then creates thralls by infusing those tokens with spiritual essence to form thralls from magical frames filled with ectoplasm. Basically how stuff gets conjured and summoned in The Dresden Files.Would you mind sharing a clip of a Dresden summon for those of us who never followed the show or literature?
You know, I'd forgotten about it at the time, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Dresden Files isn't partly responsible for the headcanon I mention in the spoiler of my last post - that summoning spells create an inert magical 'body' into which you summon the spirit (or similar disembodied vestige) of a creature to use its abilities, which isn't harmed should that body be destroyed.
It's a lot more satisfying to me than the idea that summoning spells allow you to build-a-bear creatures that have powers you couldn't have given them yourself, and just happen to conform to specific existing creature shapes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall I think I like this form of summoning better, at least for use by good guys. Like pretty much everybody who calls up spirits and demons in Dresden Files is a baddie, either because they're consorting with evil powers or enslaving a creature to their will. I suppose it's also totally possible to flavor your summoning-focused caster as someone who makes pacts and contracts with representatives of each creature type they summon, that could be cool, but calling up simulacra, and sidestepping the issue of subborning a creature's will, helps a lot of character concepts.
Yeah, that's a valid hangup. Personally, I've always found it easy to step around this issue by positing that the disembodied entities that show up to fulfill your summon spells are willing agents who signed up for this. Rather like a pizza delivery driver, you're not suborning them to your will so much as putting in an order for up to a minute of their time.
This mostly works for fiends/celestials/monitors, where the idea of a divine infrastructure set up to fulfill summons is only too easy to imagine. Meanwhile, it's not too big a stretch to pose that the universe has disembodied animal/plant spirits that may choose to answer your call regardless of sapience--and even if fae couldn't belong to the same category, it stands to reason that a sprite of the First World might readily answer a summons to do consequence-free mischief on a whim. Constructs are often mindless and purpose-built in the first place, albeit makes the 'spirit' question a bit weird.
Aberrations are probably the hardest to handwave this way--not because we can't say that the Dark Tapestry isn't equally full of eldritch entities that would be happy to pop on over on a summon, but because the aberration tag seems to apply to both alien entities from the dark between stars and otherwise normal folks who happen to have some especially alien biology. It's one thing to summon a monster like a gogiteth or shoggoth (if the latter weren't rare and above the level range), but noppera-bo are otherwise basically just weird, same as your fleshwarp ally in the party. And I guess I forgot that you could summon giants, now, too.
Of course, I am one person and not a gaming company that needs to be conscious of any unintended implications it is endorsing. I can afford to insist that only willing creatures answer summons and then get out the spray bottle if I catch somebody trying to misuse my headcanon for slavery roleplay.
Accidentally x'd the thread. How do I undo that?
Thanks for starting this thread! This was also my feedback in ghe playtest report. I didn't feel anything "necromancy" about the thrall mechanics. Heck, change the wording and you could convince me this class is actually an earthbender from the Avatar series.