What non-Occult spells do you want Necromancers to have access to?

[batimpact]

In the Impossible Playtest Debrief, we got confirmation that Necromancers will be getting options for thematic necromancy spells that are not on the occult list. What are the non-occult spells do you think Necromancers should have?

[QuidEst]

Super-obviously, Harm.

Setting up a filter to exclude cantrips, focus spells and Occult/Primal (since I don't think anything on the Primal list is going to be a must-have and it's a quick way to narrow it down)...

1st: Flense, Malediction (I don't actually care about Necromancer's Generosity.)

5th: Breath of Life, Spiritual Guardian

6th: Raise Dead, Suffocate

That's about it, really.

[batimpact]

As an enjoyer of the occult list for the Necromancer, Harm was mostly the one I felt was missed. I know we already have Soothe but Heal, just for the sake of having both Harm and Heal, was second on my list.

I completely forgot Necromancer’s Generosity was a spell! That’s funny.

[moosher12]

Harm of course

I think Necromancer should have an avenue to become sanctified unholy, and should get access to Divine spells with the Sanctified trait.

[Easl]

These seem in-theme

R2 Sudden blight
R6 Necrotize
R7 Execute
R9 Massacre

[RJGrady]

I don't think replicating existing spells is necessarily the first goal. I anticipate gaining a few of those Divine and Arcane spells through class options and Feats. For the rest, I expect similar options to appear as Focus spell. In other words, very similar structurally to Clerics.

[The Raven Black]

moosher12 wrote:

Harm of course

I think Necromancer should have an avenue to become sanctified unholy, and should get access to Divine spells with the Sanctified trait.

TBH I do not wish to have Necromancers embroiled in the morality play of Holy vs Unholy any more than Fighters or Rogues or Wizards.

[Lia Wynn]

The Raven Black wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Harm of course

I think Necromancer should have an avenue to become sanctified unholy, and should get access to Divine spells with the Sanctified trait.

TBH I do not wish to have Necromancers embroiled in the morality play of Holy vs Unholy any more than Fighters or Rogues or Wizards.

I agree with you.

However, someone else might want that, or be playing in a campaign where Santification could be very helpful.

Having an option for it, for every class, doesn't hurt anyone and gives more story options for those games or concepts that need it.

[PlantThings]

I think major word count could be saved by using traits, like how the Fey Eidolon gives access to extra spells.

Would giving Necromancers access to all spells with the Vitality or Void traits be too much or too little? I think it would at least fit nicely and thematically as an additional entry to the Mastery of Life and Death feature they already have.

[moosher12]

As Lia Wynn said. I don't think it should be mandatory, but I want an option. I like the idea of being a necromancer that's such a loyal follower of Urgathoa or, say, Nin, that they bestow unholy power on you.

Another thing is, if you don't want to be dipping into the sanctified spells, just don't learn and prep those spells.

The fact of the matter is, gods of undeath give unholy sanctification, it simply makes sense that members of the class that deals the closest with undeath would tend to follow these gods more often, and should have an eligibility for the sanctification.

An example in play, is Starfinder's Mystic. The Mystic does not need to follow a god, but there is a level 1 feat that lets it follow a god and gain sanctification if it picked a divine connection.

[R3st8]

it used to mean a master of LIFE and death in earlier games so:

Harm, Heal, Breath of Life, Raise Dead, Regenerate, Revival,

still think that a necromancer that can't keep people from dying is a joke, if killing people made you a master of death every swordsman would be one.

[Kekkres]

PlantThings wrote:

I think major word count could be saved by using traits, like how the Fey Eidolon gives access to extra spells.

Would giving Necromancers access to all spells with the Vitality or Void traits be too much or too little? I think it would at least fit nicely and thematically as an additional entry to the Mastery of Life and Death feature they already have.

i suggest void and death, i dont think vitality fits into the mold they are building

that would add

1 Harm
2 Sudden Blight
3 none
4 none
5 Toxic Cloud,
6 Necrotize
7 eclipse burst, execute, hungry depths
8 Dessicate
9 Massicre
10 none

its not really that many

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Normally I'm all in favour of "some people will want it, so making it an option takes nothing from those who don't" but I'm not completely sold on sanctification, whether universally or just for necromancers.

It seems to me that becoming sanctified isn't something you do just because you follow a deity, it's something you do because you're a conduit for a deity's power, and likewise tap into holy or unholy divine forces at your deity's approval. If a Fighter or Wizard has a close enough tie to their deity to become sanctified, why aren't they dipping into Champion or Cleric?

Also, for most classes, what would gaining sanctification even mean? Without gaining a the Champion's ability to sanctify their strikes, the majority of classes could hardly even get a sanctified ability. At best, becoming sanctified would remove the rare holy/unholy option that has crossover on their spell lists.

THAT SAID, I would absolutely not complain if we got an archetype that was designed for any class to stake a claim in the great holy/unholy conflict. Something with a little narrative premise (you're not just a random Rogue with holy powers, you actively chose to dedicate yourself to a holy cause, etc) and perhaps more importantly a host of sanctified abilities that you could actually use for triggering holy/unholy weaknesses if your class doesn't supply any of their own.

[moosher12]

For the necromancer at least, if it was Sanctified, it'd be able to benefit from applying its sanctifications to Sanctified spells. Additionally, it can potentially sanctify the strikes of their summoned thralls and minions.

The main thing is, while it makes sense for a wizard or a fighter to be too wide to tend toward sanctification, necromancers are sort of a unique case where the grand majority of what they will typically summon when they use a Summon Undead spell will have the unholy trait. Your non-unholy non-unique options are slim to the point you won't be able to use Summon Undead to summon such a creature until level 7 with a Floodslain Orc. (As for Evil creatures without the Unholy trait? All Remastered Undead creatures were Evil creatures with the Unholy trait when they gained the trait, which means trends would indicate the grant majority of them gain the Unholy trait as well, with the exception of some spirits and other niche standout).

Now granted, they have a special ability to Summon Thralls which conveniently lack a sanctification trait. But part of the appeal of being a Necromancer is using the full Necromancer spells. Because if you're summoning skeletons and zombies? If you summon a Skeleton Guard or a Zombie Shambler, you don't get a choice whether it is Unholy or not. It is simply Unholy.

The only real way to be a non Unholy-themed necromancer is to be a Spirit Monger as a thematic alternative to the Animist. Because if you're anything but, you're going to be very much Unholy by vibe at minimum. Certainly doubt any holy gods will be taking you.

[PlantThings]

Kekkres wrote:

i suggest void and death, i dont think vitality fits into the mold they are building

that would add

1 Harm
2 Sudden Blight
3 none
4 none
5 Toxic Cloud,
6 Necrotize
7 eclipse burst, execute, hungry depths
8 Dessicate
9 Massicre
10 none

its not really that many

Other than the Mastery of Life and Death feature, which treats Vitality and Void as equal counterparts, the initial description of the Necromancer also has this highlight: "These occult spellcasters seek the ever-changing borders of life and death, manipulating the energies—vitality and void—to suit their will." The only doubtful part imo is that the abilities we were shown in the playtest are as devoid of Vitality effects and damage as the Occult spell list. I think it all depends on how far they will commit to this Vitality and Void duality that has been somewhat set up.

The Void trait list is surprisingly small, isn't it? The Death trait only adds Toxic Cloud to the list too, and Power Word Kill if we're including legacy. All very Necromancer appropriate though imo.

[Teridax]

Lia Wynn wrote:

Having an option for it, for every class, doesn't hurt anyone and gives more story options for those games or concepts that need it.

By this same logic, we should give animal companion and familiar feats to every class, simply because both would give more story options and would be presumably harmless. Incidentally, I also do think giving everyone sanctification takes away from the Cleric and Champion's main shticks, so I'd rather keep it down to a select few divine classes, which for better or worse the Necromancer is not.

As for the question itself, I'm very much on board with PlantThings's suggestion to just add every spell with the vitality or void trait to the Necromancer's spell list: it would be thematically appropriate given that they're the energies of life and death, it would be simple to write down, and it would cover the most ground in a manner that would also be future-proof, since spells written after the Necromancer with either trait would also get included automatically. As they also mention, their playtest feature does treat vitality and void as equal parts of the magic the Necromancer can control, so I'd be fine with this adding vitality spells like heal, especially as vitality spells tend to be effective against undead (and you'd expect a Necromancer to be good against those).

[Lia Wynn]

Teridax wrote:

Lia Wynn wrote:

Having an option for it, for every class, doesn't hurt anyone and gives more story options for those games or concepts that need it.

By this same logic, we should give animal companion and familiar feats to every class, simply because both would give more story options and would be presumably harmless. Incidentally, I also do think giving everyone sanctification takes away from the Cleric and Champion's main shticks, so I'd rather keep it down to a select few divine classes, which for better or worse the Necromancer is not.

We do!

Any character can take Beast Master to get an animal companion.

Any character can take Familiar Master to get a familiar.

Those options exist. I do see your point about limiting Santification, and I agree with it, but I can also see a valid reason to give more people options to get it.

[The Raven Black]

Lia Wynn wrote:

Teridax wrote:

Lia Wynn wrote:

Having an option for it, for every class, doesn't hurt anyone and gives more story options for those games or concepts that need it.

By this same logic, we should give animal companion and familiar feats to every class, simply because both would give more story options and would be presumably harmless. Incidentally, I also do think giving everyone sanctification takes away from the Cleric and Champion's main shticks, so I'd rather keep it down to a select few divine classes, which for better or worse the Necromancer is not.

We do!

Any character can take Beast Master to get an animal companion.

Any character can take Familiar Master to get a familiar.

Those options exist. I do see your point about limiting Santification, and I agree with it, but I can also see a valid reason to give more people options to get it.

Any character can likewise take Cleric or Champion dedication and get sanctification.

Or is it the anathemas part that upsets you ?

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

In the same way that not every character concept that wants a critter to fight alongside is necessarily half-druid or half-ranger, I can buy the argument that not every sanctified character concept necessarily suits the vibe of beomg part-priest or knight. Although, at least with cleric/champion dedication you could get the sanctification without any other delay, but also the stat requirements certainly will not work for everyone.

This is exactly why I think a sanctification archetype would be the best way to solve this, as an independent silo of themed abilities that narratively and mechanically justifies this power as a thing that anyone could tap into, but not as a thing that just anyone can do on their own

[batimpact]

A sanctification archetype would be such a great fit now that I think about it. It would make sanctifying a wip concept I currently have for an oracle a lot smoother. Now I wish we get one in the recent divine book, though I get having clerics and Champions enjoy the exclusive access for now.

[Teridax]

Lia Wynn wrote:

We do!

Any character can take Beast Master to get an animal companion.

Any character can take Familiar Master to get a familiar.

Those options exist. I do see your point about limiting Santification, and I agree with it, but I can also see a valid reason to give more people options to get it.

As many others have pointed out, those are archetypes, not class-specific feats. I’m all for a non-multiclass divine archetype that lets you gain sanctification, but that is different from asking to give the Necromancer sanctification in their own feats. I would in fact argue that familiar and animal companion feats would be more appropriate simply because you could make both undead, and thus directly thematically relevant in a way sanctification is not.

[R3st8]

Teridax wrote:

Lia Wynn wrote:

We do!

Any character can take Beast Master to get an animal companion.

Any character can take Familiar Master to get a familiar.

Those options exist. I do see your point about limiting Santification, and I agree with it, but I can also see a valid reason to give more people options to get it.

As many others have pointed out, those are archetypes, not class-specific feats. I’m all for a non-multiclass divine archetype that lets you gain sanctification, but that is different from asking to give the Necromancer sanctification in their own feats. I would in fact argue that familiar and animal companion feats would be more appropriate simply because you could make both undead, and thus directly thematically relevant in a way sanctification is not.

To you its a option to the people who don't want it its a restriction, its like wanting beef in all food when there are vegetarians in a restaurant.

[Squiggit]

I'm normally a more options is better thing, but I agree this is a concept space better held by an archetype.

For the necromancer specifically, there seems to be an intentional design choice to steer it away from some of the traditional conceptions about Necromancy. Giving it innate access to Unholy sends the wrong message.

I think it'd also just be kind of odd and athematic for an explicitly occult class to suddenly have deity-based feat choices.

[Ryangwy]

It would probably have a requirement that you worship a deity that allows unholy, and might do something like also grant the Undeath Domain or adds unholy spells to your list. The Exemplar already has that, so it's not out of the question.

[Teridax]

R3st8 wrote:

To you its a option to the people who don't want it its a restriction, its like wanting beef in all food when there are vegetarians in a restaurant.

Kinda, though I don't think Lia Wynn asking for sanctification feats on the Necromancer necessarily impacts the rest of us in the same way as if we were all forced to sanctify our Necromancers. Rather, I think it's as Squiggit says that it's not a great thematic fit for the Necromancer class as was presented to us, and would likely muddy the class's flavor if it were added to their feats.

I'll also say that one of the more compelling reasons to not have sanctification on the Necromancer is that it would affect literally just one spell, and that would be spiritual armament. There are no other spells in the occult list with the sanctified trait, and pretty much every other sanctified spell is expressly divine in nature, e.g. blessed boundary, divine decree, divine lance, and so on. The only sanctified spell that I can currently see being massaged across to the occult list is spiritual guardian, and I personally don't think that's terribly worth it. By contrast, there are 32 spells with the vitality or void trait that aren't on the divine list and would make perfect sense on the Necromancer, such as necromancer's generosity, necrotize, or revival, so a class feature to the effect of "you add common spells of any tradition with the vitality or void traits to your spell list, as well as spells with the vitality or void traits that you have access to of any tradition" would be a quick and simple way of giving the Necromancer many more of the spells you'd expect from such a class.

[Lia Wynn]

I am not saying that I want them. I agree that it seems very strange for them to have them, and if I were to play a necromancer, I would not want to be Sanctified.

What I am saying is that I have no issues with the *option* to be there for people who have a concept they could work with.

[AestheticDialectic]

My take during the playtest was and still is that necromancer's should get a class ability that gives them access to all non-sanctified spells with the void, vital and/or spirit traits. This does include heal, but the only reason I don't think necro should get heal is because I don't want the party to expect me to waste my two top slots with heal. That's pretty much it though. Heal and similar spells can be very thematic for a fair number of kinds of necromancer