The Pathfinder Remaster didn't bury necromancers; it just raised them from the dead.0:00 Intro3:09 Class features7:40 Subclasses, advancement12:41 Feats19:15...
Interesting. I wonder if you could elaborate on both of those points?
To me, them being temporary is actually really good for the fantasy. You’re not a cleric reviving people, you’re a necromancer reanimated dead bodies to perform a job. I could see a place for more permanency at very high levels (to be able to do something like this story from !rpggreentext@ttrpg.network, but for what’s actually useful over an adventuring campaign, a more utility-focused summon makes a lot of sense to me.
And occult works for me exceptionally well. Divine would be real resurrection, but raising undead is like the definition of the occult, to me.
eh, hard disagree. The evocative name aside, Occult is pretty much all spirit and mind effects, it’s more the ‘Bard’ school to me. I could definitely see the ghost hoarder subclass have a strong occult lean, but the whole class? nah.
Divine (and previously, the cleric list in 1e) has always been the poster child for Death magic. Void in 2e is most well represented by that tradition, even if Vitality is something it represents too.
So I’ll admit, I’ve never actually played Pathfinder 2e. I’ve been GMing it for over a year now, but I’ve never seen it from in front of the GM’s screen. So my knowledge of things that primarily affect players, like what spells are on which spell list, is not as strong. But I did look up the official descriptions, which are:
Divine The power of the divine is steeped in faith, the unseen, and belief in a power source from beyond the Material Plane. Clerics are the most iconic divine spellcasters, beseeching the gods to grant them their magic. Divine sorcerers can use the blood of their celestial or fiendish ancestors as a divine conduit, and champions call upon their gods to grant them martial prowess through divine guidance.
Occult The practitioners of occult traditions seek to understand the unexplainable, categorize the bizarre, and otherwise access the ephemeral in a systematic way. Bards are the most iconic occult spellcasters, collecting strange esoterica and using their performances to influence the mind or elevate the soul, and occult sorcerers strive to understand the mysterious power in their blood.
Which definitely reinforces my belief that a necromancer should be occult. They don’t beseech the gods anything, they learn to manipulate magic to do their bidding in strange ways.
I don’t put much stock in tradition with spell schools/traditions. I have never liked that raising undead is so often treated as the same type of magic as bringing your allies back to life.
yea, i may have made it a project of mine in the past to look at each of the spells on each list and rewrite them to set them all around the same power levels in their respective spell ranks. eg. Making Daze as useful in its niche as Electric Arc. As a result I’ve gotten pretty familiar with the spell lists in practice, and I really don’t think Occult matches with where the imagination goes when it hears that word.
Occult doesn’t even have Harm, the most fundamental Void (death energies) spell. It’s like making a Electromancer class an Elementalist, despite the fact that that spell list doesn’t have Lightning Bolt (or shocking grasp, or sudden bolt etc. etc.). It sounds right, but the game design falls short of the job.
Now that we’re in a post-remaster world, I would not be upset to learn that Paizo’s putting more void spells in occult though, I think it’s more appropriate now that the old spell subschools are gone.
Yeah, Harm’s one that I feel should probably be in both divine and occult traditions. You could even make a case for primal, if you think of it more like a natural disease, though that’s more of a stretch.
Conjuring up the dead has nothing to do with what I want from a necromancer. if you’re not pulling in literal ghosts from the boneyard, it just looks like a summoner with a thanatopic hyperfixation; indistinguishable from the undead eidolon summoner. It lacks the spirit and function of an opportunistic recycler.
I want a necromancer to be closer to a blue mage than a conjurer, pulling up a frankenstein of a minion from the component pieces of what they find on their adventure.
Pulling up super flimsy figments with limited ability to interact with things around them, then popping them to create strange and quasi-real effects though… that’s an incredibly appealing idea for an Illusionist. Pull a rabbit of caerbannog out of a hat, then toss it for your next trick. Trick an enemy with illusory soldiers tossing a spear their way.
I think the class has juice, but doesn’t necessarily fit the bill.
Also, I kinda hate that the thralls explicitly can never take actions. Limiting the to in-combat utility is pretty uninspired, but I wouldn’t mind as much if they weren’t strictly real.
Conjuring up the dead has nothing to do with what I want from a necromancer
Ok, that’s wild to me. To me that is, like, the core of the necromancer.
I want a necromancer to be closer to a blue mage than a conjurer
I’m afraid I’ve never played Magic, nor had any interest in doing so. So I don’t really know what the different colours represent.
pulling up a frankenstein of a minion from the component pieces of what they find on their adventure
Oh that’s interesting. It sounds to me more like a kind of magi-tech character that might fit something like an artificer. Because it seems like an interesting idea, but it’s not the core of a necromancer to me, and even though it does technically involve reanimating the dead, it’s an almost mutually-exclusive concept with what I think of as a necromancer.
I find this fascinating overall, because it sounds like there are two entirely distinct concepts of what it means to be a “necromancer”.
I kinda hate that the thralls explicitly can never take actions
Yeah ngl I agree with this 100%. Definitely want to be able to use those temporarily-raised undead to actually do things.
Necromancy to me is first and foremost the manipulation of the forces of life and death; Manipulating living and dead things, not creating them from thin air. An ideal necromancer to me should be able to find the bones of a giant in the field and make use of it to lift a fallen rock blocking the way, but not call in a skeletal giant in the middle of a populated city. The latter encroaches too much on the summoner’s thing.
Re: Blue Mage, I actually meant more the final fantasy blue mages, who piece together their spell list by defeating monsters and learning their moves rather than by a singular theme.
Interesting. I wonder if you could elaborate on both of those points?
To me, them being temporary is actually really good for the fantasy. You’re not a cleric reviving people, you’re a necromancer reanimated dead bodies to perform a job. I could see a place for more permanency at very high levels (to be able to do something like this story from !rpggreentext@ttrpg.network, but for what’s actually useful over an adventuring campaign, a more utility-focused summon makes a lot of sense to me.
And occult works for me exceptionally well. Divine would be real resurrection, but raising undead is like the definition of the occult, to me.
re: spell schools
eh, hard disagree. The evocative name aside, Occult is pretty much all spirit and mind effects, it’s more the ‘Bard’ school to me. I could definitely see the ghost hoarder subclass have a strong occult lean, but the whole class? nah.
Divine (and previously, the cleric list in 1e) has always been the poster child for Death magic. Void in 2e is most well represented by that tradition, even if Vitality is something it represents too.
So I’ll admit, I’ve never actually played Pathfinder 2e. I’ve been GMing it for over a year now, but I’ve never seen it from in front of the GM’s screen. So my knowledge of things that primarily affect players, like what spells are on which spell list, is not as strong. But I did look up the official descriptions, which are:
Which definitely reinforces my belief that a necromancer should be occult. They don’t beseech the gods anything, they learn to manipulate magic to do their bidding in strange ways.
I don’t put much stock in tradition with spell schools/traditions. I have never liked that raising undead is so often treated as the same type of magic as bringing your allies back to life.
yea, i may have made it a project of mine in the past to look at each of the spells on each list and rewrite them to set them all around the same power levels in their respective spell ranks. eg. Making Daze as useful in its niche as Electric Arc. As a result I’ve gotten pretty familiar with the spell lists in practice, and I really don’t think Occult matches with where the imagination goes when it hears that word.
Occult doesn’t even have Harm, the most fundamental Void (death energies) spell. It’s like making a Electromancer class an Elementalist, despite the fact that that spell list doesn’t have Lightning Bolt (or shocking grasp, or sudden bolt etc. etc.). It sounds right, but the game design falls short of the job.
Now that we’re in a post-remaster world, I would not be upset to learn that Paizo’s putting more void spells in occult though, I think it’s more appropriate now that the old spell subschools are gone.
Yeah, Harm’s one that I feel should probably be in both divine and occult traditions. You could even make a case for primal, if you think of it more like a natural disease, though that’s more of a stretch.
Conjuring up the dead has nothing to do with what I want from a necromancer. if you’re not pulling in literal ghosts from the boneyard, it just looks like a summoner with a thanatopic hyperfixation; indistinguishable from the undead eidolon summoner. It lacks the spirit and function of an opportunistic recycler.
I want a necromancer to be closer to a blue mage than a conjurer, pulling up a frankenstein of a minion from the component pieces of what they find on their adventure.
Pulling up super flimsy figments with limited ability to interact with things around them, then popping them to create strange and quasi-real effects though… that’s an incredibly appealing idea for an Illusionist. Pull a rabbit of caerbannog out of a hat, then toss it for your next trick. Trick an enemy with illusory soldiers tossing a spear their way.
I think the class has juice, but doesn’t necessarily fit the bill.
Also, I kinda hate that the thralls explicitly can never take actions. Limiting the to in-combat utility is pretty uninspired, but I wouldn’t mind as much if they weren’t strictly real.
Ok, that’s wild to me. To me that is, like, the core of the necromancer.
I’m afraid I’ve never played Magic, nor had any interest in doing so. So I don’t really know what the different colours represent.
Oh that’s interesting. It sounds to me more like a kind of magi-tech character that might fit something like an artificer. Because it seems like an interesting idea, but it’s not the core of a necromancer to me, and even though it does technically involve reanimating the dead, it’s an almost mutually-exclusive concept with what I think of as a necromancer.
I find this fascinating overall, because it sounds like there are two entirely distinct concepts of what it means to be a “necromancer”.
Yeah ngl I agree with this 100%. Definitely want to be able to use those temporarily-raised undead to actually do things.
Yeah, I guess so, hehe.
Necromancy to me is first and foremost the manipulation of the forces of life and death; Manipulating living and dead things, not creating them from thin air. An ideal necromancer to me should be able to find the bones of a giant in the field and make use of it to lift a fallen rock blocking the way, but not call in a skeletal giant in the middle of a populated city. The latter encroaches too much on the summoner’s thing.
Re: Blue Mage, I actually meant more the final fantasy blue mages, who piece together their spell list by defeating monsters and learning their moves rather than by a singular theme.
Oh, right! Yes I think I’ve heard of those before. But yeah, haven’t played an FF either lol