• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

[Let's learn] 13th Age

Nate_MI

Formerly 'Raveled'
Validated User
The 13th Glorantha book does have suggestions for hale and hearty necromancers. You get the normal bonuses from having a high Constitution but you take a -1 to all attacks and saves because you're not close to the death that you manipulate.
 

ESkemp

Registered User
Validated User
The 13th Glorantha book does have suggestions for hale and hearty necromancers. You get the normal bonuses from having a high Constitution but you take a -1 to all attacks and saves because you're not close to the death that you manipulate.
That's not really a hale and hearty necromancer, though. If you told me someone has a -1 to all attacks and saves, I'd assume they were sickened, weakened, or cursed.

The whole thing just feels to me like the equivalent of making wizards take a penalty to attacks and saves if their Strength is over 10 because wizards need to be bookish nerds. I don't think there even is a consensus that wizards need to be bookish nerds, much less a consensus so strong that you'd feel a need to impose a mechanical penalty for playing against the stereotype. Particularly in a game like 13th Age, which encourages you to define your own traditions and concepts, the necromancer stands out as pretty miserly on the "permissible character concepts" front.
 

AndrewTBP

You are Number 6
RPGnet Member
Validated User
If someone wanted to play an Abhorsen style necromancer in my 13th Age game I’d suggest they start with a Bard.
I’d also ask Garth Nix for his opinions, because we were housemates in the early 1990s, while he was writing Sabriel. ;)
 

Aikireikinu

Tsundere Cat
RPGnet Member
Validated User
I'd just remove the penalty for having a good CON. It won't effect balance in any meaningful way.
 

AndrewTBP

You are Number 6
RPGnet Member
Validated User
The 13th Glorantha book does have suggestions for hale and hearty necromancers. You get the normal bonuses from having a high Constitution but you take a -1 to all attacks and saves because you're not close to the death that you manipulate.
When someone says “close to Death” in a Gloranthan context, I immediately think of Humakti, Zorak Zorani, & Harrek the Berserk.
 

ESkemp

Registered User
Validated User
Yeah, you don't really overpower the class by removing the penalty. It's a good enough workaround, and certainly you can reskin other classes as necromancers -- in a 4e game I ran, a player reskinned a vestige-pact warlock into a necromancer, which worked very well. It just feels odd that there's this entire pop culture mythology out there where necromancers are based more on the Addams Family vibe, or maybe the more romanticized version of Hades/Persephone story, and there aren't any Cackling Soliloquy-level nods in its direction. 13th Age builds a good CAS-style 1930s sword and sorcery necromancer, it's just odd that it doesn't reach out to also tap this other popular, more contemporary vein of inspiration.
 

Civil Savage

Proud Lifetime Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Occultist

My reaction here is somewhat similar to some of the comments above on Necromancers. It's a little odd to me that a game that gives every PC One Unique Thing deliberately makes a class that's required to be the-one-and-only. And kind of markets it as the big super weirdo thing, but in practice it's mostly just a set of spells that are intercept actions, but still do mostly what spells in this game do - damage or heal or maybe some buffs and such. Not Time Stop or Wish or anything.

I'm sure it can be an interesting class. I just don't know why it needs to be "there's only one." You can be, sure, but theoretically a group could decide there's only one sorceror, or only one chaos mage, right?
 

Nate_MI

Formerly 'Raveled'
Validated User
In my experience the Occultist is one of those classes that has a lot of "wait wait wait... Can I do a thing?" moments attached to it. That's just an inherent problem in a class that mostly acts on others' turns, though.
 

JoeNotCharles

Registered User
Validated User
I assume they didn't want to have to arbitrate what happens if two Occultist try to act on the same turn, and did it by going heavy on the fluff. Pretty clumsy if you ask me.
 

AndrewTBP

You are Number 6
RPGnet Member
Validated User
The latest Iconic podcast covers the Occultist. They have some fun ideas.
I've never had one in my game.
 
Top Bottom