Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BlackFlyme]

Necromancers either aren't intimidating, or are likely to get eaten by their own creations, depending on the circumstances.

Base skeletons are alright, but base zombies are weak, since they are perma-staggered. Once you can slap on some variants, they get a bit better. Fast zombies are would be a good example. Or bloody skeletons, which refuse to stay down until they are finished off with positive energy or are doused in holy water. Though my water naga is just a base skeleton, and still has quite a bit of fight left in it, but I don't disagree that it lost a lot when it was animated compared to when it was living.

Though intelligent undead are much better than other types, they have the threat of potentially becoming free of their servitude, and turning against their former masters, making them a risky ally at best. Unless you somehow make an agreement with them, though they may still turn against you because "all undead are teh eeeevvvuuuuulllz!" in Pathfinder, aside from un-errata'd juju oracles.

[Neonivek]

True but a Necromancer who can pull off undead like that usually isn't one "playing by the rules"

Pretty much any intimidating Necromancer usually is using DM powers or has some sort of artifact or device.

aside from un-errata'd juju oracles

Assuming it is there to be errata'd. If there is one MAJOR fault with Pathfinder it is that it often gives you a lot of content but without a sense of where it should be used.

A lot of content is "meant" for NPCs or made for one specific adventure path... or one specific adventure path enemy (Vampire template being the major one).

Or heck are just flat out unfinished or unsupported by the game's current content.

Totemic Druids being the prime example of this whole thing. They get HUGE penalties for a benefit that disappears.

[Bohandas]

True but a Necromancer who can pull off undead like that usually isn't one "playing by the rules"

Pretty much any intimidating Necromancer usually is using DM powers or has some sort of artifact or device.

The Master of Shrouds prestige class looks like it might be helpful in making a dangerous necromancer, but I can't say for certain because I haven't been in a game where someone has played one. The True Necromancer class could also be dangerous, if not for its necromantic powers than for the fact that it's basically a Mystic Theurge with additional powers just tacked on on top; same caveat though.

[BlackFlyme]

Juju did get an official errata. The original text for their Spirit Vessels revelation included this:

Necromancy spells that create undead lose the evil descriptor when you cast them. Mindless undead created by your magic are of neutral alignment, while thinking undead possess your alignment.

It was eventually removed, and stated to be an oversight. While trying to find the official statement, I discovered that there was apparently a much older oversight that accidentally allowed paladins to follow Asmodeus, Lawful Evil deity of devils.

Though there are still fringe cases of non-evil undead. Ghosts are stated to be neutral, and a shadow can be any alignment, if you are a Shadowdancer. Your shadow minion shares your alignment. Additionally, the undead created by a Dirge Bard are not evil, though that is likely because they aren't created, but are likely closer to animated objects, manipulated through the power of heavy metal.

[Neonivek]

In all fairness though... Most undead aren't "Evil" they are just possessed by large amounts of negative energy which gives off a sort of "Evil Aura" so to speak.

No mindless creature can truly possess an alignment.

[BlackFlyme]

I personally think that any undead with an intelligence above an animal's should be able to pick its own alignment like any other fully sapient creature.

Though I do wonder if a Juju Oracle would get a different reaction from the undead they raise due to sharing an alignment.

Would the undead still be predisposed to avoid their creator, and prefer to be running around being a dick like other intelligent undead, or would they just turn to the oracle and go "ayy, lmao!" and be best buds?

[Neonivek]

I personally think that any undead with an intelligence above an animal's should be able to pick its own alignment like any other fully sapient creature

That is true.

Though usually the methods to become an intelligent undead is just so corrupting either immediately or over time that you are pretty much bound for evil. Especially since even if your "good" you are still comprised of negative energy.

[Bauglir]

The True Necromancer class could also be dangerous, if not for its necromantic powers than for the fact that it's basically a Mystic Theurge with additional powers just tacked on on top; same caveat though.

I would strongly recommend against this, unless by "dangerous" you meant "is playing on Hard mode". You wind up 5 caster levels behind as a result, because not only do you lose levels from multiclassing to qualify, the PrC drops a level from each progression as well. So you're 2 to 3 spell levels behind at any given time, and the versatility generally isn't worthwhile unless you plan to engage in some obnoxious cheese to get level 9s and a high CL anyway. To put it in perspective, a Fighter who takes Leadership, and whose cohort takes Leadership, has more powerful spellcasting options than you do. I mean, Leadership is a terrible feat for any DM to allow, but still.

EDIT: That said, if it works for the campaign's power level, a player can go for it. I kneejerked on that one; optimization is not mandatory. That particular class just grates on me, though. Much recommend Dread Necromancer as a base class over that.

[BlackFlyme]

I've heard that True Necromancer is not that good, but I haven't actually looked at it. It's 3.5, right?

And leadership can be cheesy, depending on the circumstances. I know of one exploit that allows an unlimited amount of cohorts. Take the PrC Noble Scion. At second level in the PrC, your cohort is allowed to be only one level below you, instead of two. At level 10, your cohort is allowed to be the same level as you. Now give your cohort leadership, and give them the PrC, rinse and repeat.

It's also the only companion that a certain player would want to allow in the game. Apparently animal companions, familiars, and mounts are simultaneously over and underpowered, and should never have been introduced into the game, let alone have their own archetypes, but an entire extra player character is just fine.

[Neonivek]

Now give your cohort leadership

That instantly right there is a big "no no"

But beyond that... That tactic doesn't work for one specific reason: You find cohorts you don't make them.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, he's got that backwards. Leadership is the least balanced possible implementation. You understand correctly why this is so. True Necromancer is a 3.5 class, yeah. I believe it's in Libris Mortis, but my memory could be wrong on that one. I generally say that if somebody wants to go Full Necromancer they should look at the Dread Necromancer in Heroes of Horror, though. If what you're after is the fluff, it lets you fill that excellently right from the word "Go" instead of making you jump through PrC hoops, and mechanically it's one of my favorite classes because it aligns so neatly with expectations, gives you powerful options, and yet avoids giving you the Real Ultimate Power that lets optimized Wizards break the game. You can do lots of cool stuff, but also be challenged.

It was the major inspiration for one of my many abortive attempts to rewrite the entirety of Arcane Spellcasting through alternate base classes that specialize by school. Good times.

[BlackFlyme]

He's typically the one who calls dibs on getting leadership, on the rare occasions it is allowed, and probably just doesn't want anyone else to have any companions. Because people who play games for fun are losers who must bow down to the cheating min-maxers who play to win.

He's got a strange attitude towards the game. He hasn't even played the majority of the classes he adamantly claims are terrible. Necromancers are terrible build ideas, Oracles are just shitty clerics, clerics are shitty wizards, sorcerers are shitty wizards, alchemists don't make sense because potions shouldn't mimic spells. The only thing I agree with is that advanced firearms are kind of bull, since they always target touch. Basically, if it isn't a battlefield controller that can shut down the encounter with a flick of the wrist, it is shit.

He once read a farcical min-max guide on wizards that jokingly claimed that by playing a wizard, you are a god, and that you should act like it in-game and out. I don't think he realized it wasn't meant to be serious.

[My Name is Immaterial]

He once read a farcical min-max guide on wizards that jokingly claimed that by playing a wizard, you are a god, and that you should act like it in-game and out. I don't think he realized it wasn't meant to be serious.

That sounds like Treantmonk. I don't think they ever said to act like a god, but that you have the power of one as a wizard.
This one, maybe?

[BlackFlyme]

That sounds like the one. The specific line he clings to is this one:

- and they will feel like "they" won. That's the point - you're God after all, let the mortals have their victory.

If others can complete an encounter without his help, then they have won by their own merit, and he is not God, and that's not good. For him, anyways.

[My Name is Immaterial]

I mean, ideally, any encounter should only be completable with the help of the entire party, but I imagine that he's pushing to the other side of the spectrum, where he can solo things.