What would be your ideal Necromancer?

While scrolling through the forums I can't help but notice the popularity of Necromancers and other "evil" or dark classes, the class mechanics can vary from an rpg to another such as being purely a summoner or a hybrid between a caster and a summoner, I was curious to what gameplay elements you would like to see implemented? Or aesthetics suggestions, spells and types of summons, overall what type of Necromancer you'd want Ashes of Creation to have or add on-top?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Songcaller

Having seen the wealth of info in the Ideal Class thread, I feel a lot of people will be disappointed by the classes/augments.

nullRedacted

Neurath wrote: »

Having seen the wealth of info in the Ideal Class thread, I feel a lot of people will be disappointed by the classes/augments.

In the sense they won't get their desired Necromancer? If it's the case I can see how it can disappoint a lot of players considering the plethora of ideas given in that thread, only a few things will be added I guess since it's a secondary, and not a full on primary class like it would be in GuildWars2 for example

Khronus

I will be playing Tank but Necromancer seemed so cool. I would like to see gothic/dark looking gear/characters with lots of blood animations on abilities. Skeletons (but not an insane amount) that will charge your target when you engage. Simple stuff.

Mowaby

Neurath wrote: »

Having seen the wealth of info in the Ideal Class thread, I feel a lot of people will be disappointed by the classes/augments.

The class system is strange. Some people look at the classes and think they will get skills based on that class. They don't realize the real class is the primary archetype. So a necromancer will be a summoner. Adding cleric to that makes it a necromancer. They will get some added flavor and augments that changes the summoner to be slightly more like a cleric. The flavor parts will change the summons to be undead instead of whatever they normally would be.

I think people get confused with the class system and will be disappointed when they don't get their ideal "add class here".

daveywavey

I'd want to throw around diseases and curses, and raise undead minions from nearby corpses.

Sunboy

A dead one.

bloodprophet

GW1 Necromancer was fun to play.
I never played the expansions so not sure how it went after the base game.

George_Black

Summoner/cleric

daveywavey

bloodprophet wrote: »

GW1 Necromancer was fun to play.
I never played the expansions so not sure how it went after the base game.

Yeah, I liked the GW1 Necromancer.

Sathrago

I would prefer if the necromancer was a mass minion summoner rather than a singular pet summoner. They can make this work by reflavoring their damage spells to temporarily animate skeletons and other sorts of corpses. Just as a poor example, lets say summoner has an arcane damage over time ability that causes the target to take more damage from your primary pet. Instead of it being arcane sparkles, they could change it to look like a ton of skeletal bone spiders rushing forward and latching to the target for the duration. From there you change the damage type and make tweaks that make it more unique compared to the original DoT that the summoner starts with.

I suspect this sort of reflavoring will be a major focus of how these things work, with only subtle changes to the actual mechanics of each ability to make it easier to balance out classes.

Sum12hate

Waiting to see how nagash responds.. but personally I enjoy the thought of necromancer being kind of like the antihealer more about debuffing enemies and using life steal to sustain allies

Dreoh

Mowaby wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Having seen the wealth of info in the Ideal Class thread, I feel a lot of people will be disappointed by the classes/augments.

The class system is strange. Some people look at the classes and think they will get skills based on that class. They don't realize the real class is the primary archetype. So a necromancer will be a summoner. Adding cleric to that makes it a necromancer. They will get some added flavor and augments that changes the summoner to be slightly more like a cleric. The flavor parts will change the summons to be undead instead of whatever they normally would be.

I think people get confused with the class system and will be disappointed when they don't get their ideal "add class here".

This is very true, and unfortunately unavoidable

People see the "classes" in the class table and think all 64 of them are going to be hand-tailored based on the name, whereas the name is actually added after the fact.

Unless Intrepid is actually going to put in a ridiculous amount of work, class variants aren't going to be as different from one another as some people are assuming.

Necromancer is just going to be like all the other summoner primaries, except the summons will have "Death/Life" attributes. In practical terms, this means while a base summoner might summon something like a basic "spirit animal", the Summoner/Cleric (Necromancer)'s "Death augmented summon spirit wolf" will probably a spirit wolf with a "shadowy aura" around it or maybe even a skeletal wolf that does necrotic damage or something.

Maybe I'm wrong and Intrepid is going to make every possible skill augmentation custom, but it's far more likely they'll streamline the augment system, because there's 64 classes. 8 primary archetypes, each with upwards of 20 skills. Combine that with each secondary archetype having (from what we know) 4 augment types, and then the racial/religion augments and whatever other random augments there are, and you can begin to see the exponentially increasing amount of work that has to be done.

This is why my question for this month's livestream is asking about how they are going to handle the augment system.

George_Black

We dont need all these "class-names".
But people freak out when you tell them 15 (up to 20 post release) real classes are better than 64 names.

It wont be too many months before we get a picture of what IS has put together. We can test it and then give feedback.

Dreoh

George Black wrote: »

We dont need all these "class-names".
But people freak out when you tell them 15 (up to 20 post release) real classes are better than 64 names.

I mean, yea sure your argument makes sense if this game was going with traditional spells and abilities, but it's using a spell customization system which means all these names are kind of necessary for easy consumption.

Your argument essentially boils down to "Customizeable abilities is worse because it's complicated" which is a lame stance to take

maouw

@Nagash
My Liege?
The living request an audience.

Voidwalkers

maouw wrote: »

@Nagash
My Liege?
The living request an audience.

I guess we need some offerings (*sacrifice*) and a summoning ritual ...

bloodprophet

He's been MIA lately. Hope he's ok.

Maezriel

Mowaby wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Having seen the wealth of info in the Ideal Class thread, I feel a lot of people will be disappointed by the classes/augments.

The class system is strange. Some people look at the classes and think they will get skills based on that class. They don't realize the real class is the primary archetype. So a necromancer will be a summoner. Adding cleric to that makes it a necromancer. They will get some added flavor and augments that changes the summoner to be slightly more like a cleric. The flavor parts will change the summons to be undead instead of whatever they normally would be.

I think people get confused with the class system and will be disappointed when they don't get their ideal "add class here".

Yea, I kindasorta blame Intrepid for their insistence on the word "Class" as their definition isn't intuitive and FAR to many people come to the game expecting 64 wholly unique classes or even that each one would be unique like WoW specs when we really haven't seen anything that shows that'd be the case

I know Steven said augments would be impactful but we don't yet have a basis for how impactful. For example, changing a Charge to a Blink is technically impactful (the higher your skill the more impactful it might be) but I'd argue that for the vast majority of players it's largely cosmetic

George_Black

Dreoh wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

We dont need all these "class-names".
But people freak out when you tell them 15 (up to 20 post release) real classes are better than 64 names.

I mean, yea sure your argument makes sense if this game was going with traditional spells and abilities, but it's using a spell customization system which means all these names are kind of necessary for easy consumption.

Your argument essentially boils down to "Customizeable abilities is worse because it's complicated" which is a lame stance to take

Ah thanks for choosing a lame arguement and naming it my position.
I wonder what else is is my arguement according to you.
Speaking of customization, go see AA, eso and AAU and come back to tell that "it's just complicated".
It actually never works.

It "boils down" to only few effective builds, and the rest is for RP.

Dreoh

George Black wrote: »

Ah thanks for choosing a lame arguement and naming it my position.

Well, that is what you said

"People freak out when you tell them 15 hard classes is better than 64 'soft classes'"

Also, you further proved it by doubling down by saying "It actually never works". Just because some games didn't get it perfect doesn't mean not to try to make a perfect version. Don't argue against experimentation and progress because of past failure.
I'd also argue ESO did it pretty well.

Child Item