| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Necromancer can exist in this format sdhouldn't all the schoolsa be turned into classes then to some degree? I think this would help bring back the old identity of the magic schools lost by the OGL while also giving a chance for Wizard to be THE Arcane caster over the other schools being too focused on a single element of magicv.
What do you guys think?
I will need to find the exact quote, but there was discussion around this exact topic and the Wizard indeed: effectively, in a system where the Wizard wasn't designed around the OGL eight schools, and the OGL eight schools weren't designed around the Wizard, then you could in fact more easily have a dedicated necromancer, a dedicated mentalist/mesmerist, and so on. The Mesmerist and Shifter are both classes that players want brought back to 2e, so I definitely agree there's room for more of that kind of expansion beyond the Necromancer, as well as room for the Wizard to shine in their own right, rather than just by being the inheritor of a very large and powerful spell list.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Abjuration: It's not exactly something that shows up in many stories or stands on its own. You could do something with it.
Conjuration: Covered, as "summoner" is what shows up in stories and we have that.
Divination: Diviners would usually be an "oracle" that someone goes to see, or a "psychic". The narrative fortune-tellers of stories are fundamentally at odds with role-playing games and prophecy is broken. I wouldn't expect it to get more of a dedicated class than we have.
Enchantment: We did have Mesmerist before, and it could make a comeback, but I'm not really expecting it. At the same time, it's a rough thing to focus heavily on in PF2, what with the incapacitation trait.
Evocation: Sorcerer has blasting features, and Kineticist fills the elementalist role wey. I don't see us getting something more focused on blasting spells than Sorc.
Illusion: Not really sure what an illusion-focused class brings beyond the already solid and still well-defined spell category. I'd expect it to be rolled in with Enchantment like Mesmerist did if we get something dedicated?
Necromancy: Being covered here, clearly! Definitely the biggest missing one, since "necromancers" are a thing that show up in stories and lore.
Transmutation: Shapeshifting caster is very much Druid business. Alchemist is already a thing, so I dunno what you'd even call a class for non-shapeshifting Transmutation. I'd expect another shapeshifting class, but not a caster.
We have a few that aren't covered, but nothing in the lore is hurting because Abjurers or Transmuters are missing, the way "there's nothing called a 'Necromancer'" hurts. I would be surprised to see Paizo take a checklist approach, but it's not like there's no class inspiration to be had there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abjuration: It's not exactly something that shows up in many stories or stands on its own. You could do something with it.
Abjuration could play into a magebreaker idea. Someone who studies and practices anti-magic options. Break curses and enchantments, render magic items inert, actively reign in direct spellcasting.
something like a champion magus hybrid would probably play nicely with the school.
My 2 cp:
Abjurer- a caster dedicated to defensive magic and anti-magic sounds interesting, but it might be tricky to pull off in a balanced way.
Conjurer- the summoner can cover the "extra-planar minion" shtick; the Unbound Step psychic is probably a better fit for "planar travel/teleportation specialist" than the School of the Boundary wizard.
Diviner- a Lore oracle or Infinite Eye psychic can probably work well.
Enchanter- a bard, Fey sorcerer, or Silent Whisper psychic probably have this covered if you don't like the School of Mentalism.
Evoker- various sorcerers and Oscillating Wave psychics make quite effective blasters; the School of Battle Magic can also work (just not as well).
Illusionist- a Fey sorcerer can probably work, but likely not as well as a Tangible Dream psychic.
Transmutation- the School of Protean Form can work for a non-primal shifter; a Distant Grasp psychic can work for a telekinesis-focused caster.
By this same logic could Summoner not fit for Necromancer then?
By this same logic could Summoner not fit for Necromancer then?
One specific flavor of "necromancer," yes. With the Undead eidolon expansion from Book of the Dead.
However, just as PF1 allowed many different "necromancer" options (e.g., an alchemist with the preservationist and reanimator archetypes that took the Planar Preservationist and Skeletal Summoner feats) the necromancer class is providing the thrall mechanic that is different than an undead companion (which pretty much any character can get with the Undead Master archetype) or using the create undead ritual on a bunch of corpses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By this same logic could Summoner not fit for Necromancer then?
The people yearn for the hordes.
But more seriously, it's because "Conjurers" don't usually show up in stories, "Summoners" do. As a category of magic, conjuration was "summoning and".
Paizo isn't going to make a summoning-and-teleporting-and-making-objects class; they have a summoning class with one big customizable summons and the option to spec into summoning minions. That fills a big fantasy that a lot of people want to play.
Necromancer is addressing the other extreme: lots of disposable undead that enemies have to tear their way through to even get to the Necromancer.
All that to say, if you don't think Summoner is addressing Conjuration, then I really don't think Paizo is going to make school classes by your definition. The schools of magic are gone, and one of them happened to be occupying the same space that a class fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think so. The problem with the OGL Wizard is "the eight schools" made the Wizard much bigger than any other class in terms of what it was about. It was often said that because of the Wizard needing to be able to do all of the 8 different things, the arcane spell list was greedy.
I think the sooner we bury the "8 kinds of magic all of which are equal" the better. Like Divination or Enchantment doesn't really need to be part of the story, because "knowing the future" doesn't work great in a game about players making choices and "mind control" makes people uncomfortable a lot. "I defend people with magic" doesn't really need to be a normal thing either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking personally, the illusionist/mesmerist trope is also one of the core "specialist mage" archetypes that comes to my mind when I'm asked. Illusionists, necromancers, elementalists, and some form of summoner or conjurer.
From a "classic" game standpoint, a dedicated illusionist goes all the way back to AD&D 1st Ed; when it was the only specialized caster.
However, as I mentioned, a Tangible Dream psychic pretty much has that trope locked up (other than not being a prepared caster). I suppose Paizo could publish a wizard school focused on illusions, but they are trying to get away from the OGL and the "eight schools" paradigm.
Elementalists, we already have as a class archetype. Granted, it's kind of underwhelming.
I am still dreaming of the day we get a Mesmerist as a prepared occult caster.
This, however, is something that I could see in PF2 at some point. Probably as a "wave caster," similar to the magus but without Spellstrike and with "mesmerist tricks" (focus spells?) and a "painful stare" adding precision damage. Maybe the "painful stare" could be like the swashbuckler's panache/Precise Strike/Finisher mechanic; although it might overlap a bit with a Braggart, Fencer, or Wit swashbuckler with a multiclassed caster dedication, it would probably be worth it to add a prepared Cha-based caster (off the top of my head, I can't think of one in PF2).
|
This, however, is something that I could see in PF2 at some point. Probably as a "wave caster," similar to the magus but without Spellstrike and with "mesmerist tricks" (focus spells?) and a "painful stare" adding precision damage. Maybe the "painful stare" could be like the swashbuckler's panache/Precise Strike/Finisher mechanic; although it might overlap a bit with a Braggart, Fencer, or Wit swashbuckler with a multiclassed caster dedication, it would probably be worth it to add a prepared Cha-based caster (off the top of my head, I can't think of one in PF2).
In a weird way, the closest thing I've seen in 2e to Mesmerist tricks are the Runes in the playtest Runesmith. You can "implant" them in an ally in advance, and then "trigger" them later.
The Stares look a lot like 2e Hexes + familiar rider effects.
Wave caster would definitely be interesting. But like I said above, 1e Mesmerist wasn't a prepared caster, so I would expect a 2e version to be a spontaneous caster. But I do think you could make an Occult Witch that gets pretty close to the same thing.
I really like the remastered narrative take on the Ars Gramatica school of magic as a combination of divination and abjuration. After all, what better way to protect yourself from a potential threat is there than seeing it coming before it happens.
What is tricky for me, is that I feel like the Rune Smith class is stepping all over this same design space (the magical power of language) and getting a ton of high damage blasting on top of it. The rune smith feels equally pulled into being able to do everything magical (only without any limited resources) as the wizard and feels like a much bigger problem than something more like the necromancer class, that is focused on doing the one thing. If all of the newly remastered wizard schools just end up being better implemented as individual classes, then I really do wonder if the wizard has a place in PF2 at all any more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If all of the newly remastered wizard schools just end up being better implemented as individual classes, then I really do wonder if the wizard has a place in PF2 at all any more.
I mean you can look at the Necromancer playtest and the Wizard right now and see they have virtually nothing in common whatsoever other than that they both cast spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If all of the newly remastered wizard schools just end up being better implemented as individual classes, then I really do wonder if the wizard has a place in PF2 at all any more.I mean you can look at the Necromancer playtest and the Wizard right now and see they have virtually nothing in common whatsoever other than that they both cast spells.
Really, the only relevant parallel between the Wizard and the Necromancer we need to maintain is "it is plausible that Geb and Nex were each others' rivals"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, the only relevant parallel between the Wizard and the Necromancer we need to maintain is "it is plausible that Geb and Nex were each others' rivals"If all of the newly remastered wizard schools just end up being better implemented as individual classes, then I really do wonder if the wizard has a place in PF2 at all any more.I mean you can look at the Necromancer playtest and the Wizard right now and see they have virtually nothing in common whatsoever other than that they both cast spells.
Even if Geb is now a necromancer (class) instead of wizard (Necromancy school specialist) and Nex is a wizard (School of the Boundary), there is still a possible rivalry. IIRC, the rivalry between the two was based at least as much on competing national interests as any conflict between magical discipline/practice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just needs to be ambiguous/debatable whether it's Nex or Geb who is truly "better at magic". If you take things out of the Necromancer's "good at magic" spell budget for other stuff, we run the risk of giving Geb the disadvantage here.