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...
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.
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