Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hynkel

Wizard subclass concept : animancers

Recommended Posts

Animancers are an important part of the PoE lore, and I always thought they should get their own class with their own abilities; it just feel weird that the mind controled animancer from WM2 is just a generic wizard.

 

Now that subclasses have been officialized, I think it's time for the soul scientists to take their place into the game system.

 

Animancers could be weaker wizards (e.g whose spellbook is limited to 2 spells/level. Could need some tweaking depending on how wizards evolved in Deadfire). In exchange, they'd get a flesh construct pet.

 

For better flavor, arcane assault coumd be replaced by a per encounter pet buff ("soul overcharge" or something similar) and arcane veil by something redirecting damage from the wizard to the pet ("soul empathy").

 

Anyway, just my two cents !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Counterpoint:

Animancers should never be a class or sub-class. Animancy is a science and so treating it like a class would be foolish. A character of any class could potentially be an animancer IMHO.

Edited by illathid
  • Like 18

"Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic."

-Josh Sawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye we met a wizard subclass Helig the necromancer (at least i think it will be one) who also happened to be an Animanccer so these two idea i think are separate. Josh also said that animancer wont be a class i assume this applies to subclass. I think it is interesting though. I made a scientist wizard run in POE1 so it would be interesting to play up the science role. 

Edited by jnb0364

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animancy is a science, it has nothing to do with wizards. As for animancy as a class - that's like saying that physicist should be a class. What, you drop everything mid-combat and start contemplating Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? That's cool and all, but not exactly helpful in a battle.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Engwith undead lord from the endless path does imply that animancy is just a fancy new name for magic.

 

Anyway, if people don't like it, too bad. I just thought it could be cool to go Frankenstein when it blends so well with the existing world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe make Animancer subclass but avaiable for everyone? A lot of abilities would be shared, everyone can steal some essence or animate object or get some sceletors.

But each class would have something special. Like warriors would be more into animating weapons, ciphers will create spirit copies of themselves (3 strikes at once), ranger will be more into necrotic kittens, and so on.

 

The problem could be that even such extended version would be not enought, players will always complain.

Also that would be even more troublesome than adding normal class.

maybe with multiclass, own class is simplest soution, can still mix with any other, and there could be multiclass abilities.

Maybe some dlc. Animancy + Rise of Animancers quest line (action in Valian Republic).

Edited by evilcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, animancer would be a character Background, like "Scholar", "Scientist" or "Mystic".

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If animancy is to be playable, I think it should be as its own class rather than as a wizard subclass. Part of what makes animancy interesting is that it's not just a particularly worrisome set of spells, and I think that to the extent the game does make it veer toward magic, it becomes less interesting. I rather like the idea that an animancer can be of any profession, and making it a class would allow that to the extent that it could be multiclassed with other things.

 

I'm also fine with it not being a playable set of talents but rather a component of various characters' profiles, more like being a scientist from the Living Lands or an artist from Old Vailia.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wymund is a priest of Skaen and an animancer.

Thaos is a priest of Woedica and an animancer.

Helig is a wizard and an animancer.

Galvino is a cipher and an animancer.

Caedman Azo is a wizard and an animancer.

 

It's clear that animancy is not tied to a class and thus doesn't work as a subclass. It could be a type of prestige class - which we don't have.

  • Like 3

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about animacy is that it proceeds from the use of machines/tools and the effects that they induce in the souls of subjects. Arguably, then, the class progression format is fundamentally ill-suited to it since its capabilities are separate from the personal power of its practitioners. Take Heritage Hill, for example, where

Leaden Key scrubs inflicted the ravages of undeath on an entire district just by flipping the right switch

, or Caedman Azo, who had

gotten far enough along in his research into the production of "prosthetic" souls that Thaos found it necessary to step in to discredit him.

 

 

I agree with darqleo that backgrounds are a more appropriate place to introduce the Animancer for those who crave the title (though arguably it is already encompassed by the Scientist background, which for some reason only people in the Living Lands can have). Actually practicing animancy would be better represented through the use of skills, specialized equipment, and perhaps the occasional talent (such as limited but functional knowledge of Engwithan, like Icantha had, to better operate machinery for non-Watcher characters, something similar to the Gunner talent to allow simpler animancy devices to be used more quickly and thus be more practical in combat, etc.) The most dramatic and powerful forms of animancy would probably have to be quest-related, area-restricted, or tied to scripted interactions, but beyond that, what you could do would be based on two things: your skill and the power of your devices. More powerful devices could require different minimum skill levels to use safely depending on how powerful they are, but most of animancy's combat applications should probably have more to do with weaponizing its hazards than summoning undead or augmenting souls. Remember that all undead are of a single type with the only difference being their states of degeneration - going the standard necromancer route of zombies to vampires as your level increases hardly makes sense when the base state for undead is fampyr and it could take months for them to degenerate into a revenant suitable for a low-level character. Similarly, animancy-based combat buffs wouldn't make a whole lot of sense given how time-intensive and unstable animancy treatments have been shown to be. Disrupting souls to cause afflictions (potentially including turn/command undead-type stuff) or damaging them directly, on the other hand, both seem like things that should be possible in the midst of combat, albeit with substantial risks of backlash that can be reduced with sufficient skill and the right tools.

 

Making a vessel sidekick become available through the use of animancy skills and machinery would be a nice touch for a quest-related application of animancy, I think.

 

Wymund is a priest of Skaen and an animancer.

Thaos is a priest of Woedica and an animancer.

Helig is a wizard and an animancer.

Galvino is a cipher and an animancer.

Caedman Azo is a wizard and an animancer.

 

And there's Osrya, another wizard who practiced animancy. Ydwin's also a notable example in that she's the first on the list who can have no spellcasting capability whatsoever (as a single-classed rogue), and who knows what Ethelmoer or Moedred are class-wise.

Edited by blotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about animacy is that it proceeds from the use of machines/tools and the effects that they induce in the souls of subjects. Arguably, then, the class progression format is fundamentally ill-suited to it since its capabilities are separate from the personal power of its practitioners. Take Heritage Hill, for example, where

Leaden Key scrubs inflicted the ravages of undeath on an entire district just by flipping the right switch

, or Caedman Azo, who had

gotten far enough along in his research into the production of "prosthetic" souls that Thaos found it necessary to step in to discredit him.

 

 

I agree with darqleo that backgrounds are a more appropriate place to introduce the Animancer for those who crave the title (though arguably it is already encompassed by the Scientist background, which for some reason only people in the Living Lands can have). Actually practicing animancy would be better represented through the use of skills, specialized equipment, and perhaps the occasional talent (such as limited but functional knowledge of Engwithan, like Icantha had, to better operate machinery for non-Watcher characters, something similar to the Gunner talent to allow simpler animancy devices to be used more quickly and thus be more practical in combat, etc.) The most dramatic and powerful forms of animancy would probably have to be quest-related, area-restricted, or tied to scripted interactions, but beyond that, what you could do would be based on two things: your skill and the power of your devices. More powerful devices could require different minimum skill levels to use safely depending on how powerful they are, but most of animancy's combat applications should probably have more to do with weaponizing its hazards than summoning undead or augmenting souls. Remember that all undead are of a single type with the only difference being their states of degeneration - going the standard necromancer route of zombies to vampires as your level increases hardly makes sense when the base state for undead is fampyr and it could take months for them to degenerate into a revenant suitable for a low-level character. Similarly, animancy-based combat buffs wouldn't make a whole lot of sense given how time-intensive and unstable animancy treatments have been shown to be. Disrupting souls to cause afflictions or damaging them directly, on the other hand, both seem like things that should be possible in the midst of combat, albeit with substantial risks of backlash that can be reduced with sufficient skill and the right tools.

 

Making a vessel sidekick become available through the use of animancy skills and machinery would be a nice touch for a quest-related application of animancy, I think.

 

Wymund is a priest of Skaen and an animancer.

Thaos is a priest of Woedica and an animancer.

Helig is a wizard and an animancer.

Galvino is a cipher and an animancer.

Caedman Azo is a wizard and an animancer.

 

And there's Osrya, another wizard who practiced animancy. Ydwin's also a notable example in that she's the first on the list who can have no spellcasting capability whatsoever (as a single-classed rogue), and who knows what Ethelmoer or Moedred are class-wise.

 

I thought Ydwin was a Cipher/Rogue?


"Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic."

-Josh Sawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is either cipher or rogue. Like Edér is fighter or rogue. She doesn't start as a multiclass character but you have to pick rogue or cipher as her base class and then you can multiclass into any other class (if you wish).

 

I think what blotter meant was that even she has no spells at all (like the examples I mentioned above) when she is a pure rogue she still can be an animancer. So spellpower of any kind is not needed to practice animancy. Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

Edited by Boeroer
  • Like 2

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think what blotter meant was that even she has no spells at all (like the examples I mentioned above) when she is a pure rogue she still can be an animancer. So spellpower of any kind is not needed to practice animancy. Corret me if I'm wrong.

 

Yeah, that's what I meant: the ability to keep an animancer like Ydwin as a rogue throughout the game demonstrates the separation between animancy and magic (or powers, prayers, etc.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Animancers should be something on-top of everything else. Like how the Watcher is on top of everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is either cipher or rogue. Like Edér is fighter or rogue. She doesn't start as a multiclass character but you have to pick rogue or cipher as her base class and then you can multicalls into any other class (if you wish).

 

I think what blotter meant was that even she has no spells at all (like the examples I mentioned above) when she is a pure rogue she still can be an animancer. So spellpower of any kind is not needed to practice animancy. Corret me if I'm wrong. :)

 

I figured, but was a bit confused on the wording. Thanks!

  • Like 1

"Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic."

-Josh Sawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a specific type of Animancer could be a subclass for a particular class. Or several different subclasses could be related to Animancy (though I wouldn't like multiple subclass possibilities devoted to "Wizard Animancer, Cipher Animancer, Rogue Animancer"... I'd prefer more variety).

 

A better way to handle it might be to have an Animancy lab where the PC can experiment and learn. Maybe create items, including summoning or corpse-animating items, or create pets or sidekicks....

 

(Though an Animancy lab on a ship might not be the best idea if a storm hits.)

Edited by SaruNi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps some subclasses can be about utilising some aspects of Animancy?

 

In the case of a wizard subclass, there can be a necromancer subclass since there is some overlap between necromancy and animancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Multiclass it is very easy to just make class:Animancer and you can mix it all the way you want.

There is potencial in multiclass feats.

If there be Animancy as player class there probably should be epic quest explaining and lighting everything once for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's reasonable to want animancers as a class.  In most class based systems your class doesn't just determine powers, it also reflects jobs, philosophy or understandings, and daily practices.  Animancy certainly comes close to many of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it also reflects jobs, philosophy or understandings, and daily practices.

 

This really varies with particular classes, but I'll grant that animancy does suggest a great deal in regards to profession and perspective (even if there are bound to significant procedural and philosophical differences between animancers both regionally and individually).

 

That said, I think there are other ways to get animancer out there as a label/character identity without subjecting animancers as a whole to the thematic constraints that come with the class format, such as backgrounds and faction allegiance. If animancers are relegated to a specific class, then their most dramatic and infamous exploits almost inevitably get tied to level. Does that make Pandgram a level 20 animancer? Then what level was the volunteer who became the first undead and wreaked such havoc in the process? What about the animancer in the Baelreach incident who accidentally destroyed the souls of dozens of volunteers? Seems like he'd have to have a pretty high class level - was he level 10 or so, perhaps? If so, what levels were the angry villagers in the mob that killed him off afterward? What level do you have to be in order to make a wicht? Or an animat, for that matter?

 

Mixing animancy in with class mechanics introduces these sorts of questions, which rather cheapens the history surrounding it in my opinion. It also undermines some of the themes relating to animancy, in particular the audacity of their research and the risks of tampering with forces beyond their understanding. After all, if the really earth-shattering exploits of animancy require a minimum class level to perform, then reaching X level as an animancer becomes an implicit qualification.

Edited by blotter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If animancer is a class background like 'Merchant' then maybe it should be Mechanics +2.

 

This would be a really valuable bonus so there could be some sort of downside to being an animancer too... maybe certain people in the game world react negatively to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that the range of skills is being expanded. Currently, there's something like 17 instead of the original five. Lore, for example is broken up into Religion, Metaphysics, and possibly others, while skills overall are divided among the active skills (which you use in game) and the reactive skills (which you use for information/dialogue options), if memory serves, with separate points for both groups. Mechanics seems likely to remain an active skill, though, but it might be subdivided like lore was. Or not, part of the reason for the change was to allow for more character definition through your skill point allocations, and they may not feel that splitting Mechanics into lockpicking and disarm traps, for example, would be worthwhile from that perspective.

 

Metaphysics is probably the go-to skill for souls right now, so I would expect animancers to have a bonus in that. If each background provides a skill bonus of each type and Mechanics remains as-is, then I agree that it would make sense for animancers for to gain a bonus towards it as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that the range of skills is being expanded. Currently, there's something like 17 instead of the original five. Lore, for example is broken up into Religion, Metaphysics, and possibly others, while skills overall are divided among the active skills (which you use in game) and the reactive skills (which you use for information/dialogue options), if memory serves, with separate points for both groups. Mechanics seems likely to remain an active skill, though, but it might be subdivided like lore was. Or not, part of the reason for the change was to allow for more character definition through your skill point allocations, and they may not feel that splitting Mechanics into lockpicking and disarm traps, for example, would be worthwhile from that perspective.

 

Ooh, I hadn't heard this. I'm excited. My skill selection from main character to main character looks pretty much identical in POE because I'm pretty inclined toward lore and mechanics. It would be nice to play smart, talky characters who were more distinct from each other and had areas of knowledge appropriate for their backgrounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It would be nice to play smart, talky characters who were more distinct from each other and had areas of knowledge appropriate for their backgrounds.

 

Yeah, it's one of the changes I'm most looking forward to. On the subject of dialogue, I think they also mentioned Insight, Intimidation, and Persuasion skills, so there's probably going to be a lot more competition for those skill points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Counterpoint:

Animancers should never be a class or sub-class. Animancy is a science and so treating it like a class would be foolish. A character of any class could potentially be an animancer IMHO.

 

What he said.

 

Animancer could be a background, just like scholar.


It would be of small avail to talk of magic in the air...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...