Impossible Playtest Debrief

I was waiting for this to drop and thought it might be today.

I like the things discussed here and can not wait to learn more about the Impossible book and the official Necromancer and Runesmith as well as their Iconics.

Glad to hear the Runesmith's getting more options, but I'm a little surprised to not hear anything about having trouble with their hands being full.

I understand the move away from a gishy necromancer, but osteo armaments is one of my favorite feats ever. Having a scaling, disposable weapon you can create with an action is extremely cool and I really hope it finds a home somewhere. It is what I hoped for in things like mindsmith, soulforger, etc.

My genuine primary criticism of runesmith might honestly just be that it uses the term Rune when that is already a core term in the system.

I understand the move away from a gishy necromancer, but osteo armaments is one of my favorite feats ever. Having a scaling, disposable weapon you can create with an action is extremely cool and I really hope it finds a home somewhere. It is what I hoped for in things like mindsmith, soulforger, etc.

Maybe include it as some sort of necromancer-adjacent archetype, Bonemoulder or something. Then you could be a Kholo barbarian who uses their bone collection to summon weapons and bone armor. Summon bone barricades, throw skulls, etc.

While we intend to keep the necromancer firmly as a spellcaster rather than pushing it to “gish” territory, we will be looking into ways to make the occasional scythe attack more engaging.

Excited to hear this. Melee necromancer stuff seems kinda fun, if troubled in the playtest.

... Remember the necromancer is godawful at melee, not only are they full casters but they're already designed to spend MAP on attacks. So there's room to make internal melee support kind of strong and still end up with it not being very good or problematic overall.

No mention of the lacking number of thralls at the lowest levels is disappointing. :(

I’m still curious on if there’s any internal talk about the “unholiness” of the necromancer regarding the implication that they’re utilizing undead, which are very frequently unholy, but none of the abilities are unholy, which seems like a giant lore discrepancy to me.

And I’m curious about how you’ll be able to open this up to be able to have, say, a Pharasmin necromancer without any weird flavor contrivances.

Wasn't one of the big criticisms of Necromancer is that there was no way for the thralls to help with flying enemies as levels got higher and that became more common? Or being a completely dead feature in an underwater campaign? Surprised that wasn't mentioned at all.

Did not participate in the playtest but as far as necromancer in martial combat go, I'd kinda expect them to be tanky but not particularly hard hitting. 8 hp class with up to medium armor and a lot of extra temp hp or damage reduction via bone armor and general control over the forces of life and death sounds appropriate. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Thanks for those informations.

The only thing that disturbed me was the fact that the Necromancer had an automatic access to Vitality damage and the fact that this energy is banned by law in Geb.

I wish it wouldn't be the case.

>While we intend to keep the necromancer firmly as a spellcaster rather than pushing it to “gish” territory,

well i am unfathomably disappointed, literally all i wanted from Necromancer was to gish with it, I do not want to do a "occasional scythe strike" that is not only boring but is unfulfilling as all hell, i do not see why their cannot just be a subclass that gives it martial proficiencies and martial focused feats that are good instead of being a glorified ancestry feat, a poorly scaling strike and a focus spell that is way to late into progression to be useful (which is also just heroism made into a focus spell)
why can it not be? clearly their was an outpour of requests for it
its sad to see a class i was so exited for completely kill my desire to play it before its even out

also no mention of Runesmiths forced need for a free hand?

Glad to hear there's going to be some undead familiar options for the Necromancer in the full release. Was one thing I felt was really missing.

Good read! I'm excited for the reveal of this book at Paizocon or Gencon

Do wish Necromancer had something to push into a melee direction, ala Warpriest or Battle-Harbinger. A Death Knight type character is pretty awkward to do right now even with those.

My biggest issue was the immobile, cardboard cut-out thralls. I'm glad to see there's going to be more thought about injecting some more "life" into them.

Gaulin wrote:

I understand the move away from a gishy necromancer, but osteo armaments is one of my favorite feats ever. Having a scaling, disposable weapon you can create with an action is extremely cool and I really hope it finds a home somewhere. It is what I hoped for in things like mindsmith, soulforger, etc.

Maybe include it as some sort of necromancer-adjacent archetype, Bonemoulder or something. Then you could be a Kholo barbarian who uses their bone collection to summon weapons and bone armor. Summon bone barricades, throw skulls, etc.

Most levels had a gish/Strike/melee feat option, so I wonder if he's just talking about proficiencies, the emphasis on Focus Spells, or what. I'm not holding Necromancer to a Warpriest or Magus standard, but that of a melee Bard or Druid where a Strike adds to one's action arsenal rather than defines it. Hopefully w/ some macabre oomph.

And yeah, transplanting all those feats over to an Archetype that martials could enjoy would solve a lot! Then one can play a "necromancer" by taking the Necromancer-adjacent Archetype to fully explore all those options (and w/o the 2x cost of an MCD.)

Hopefully, the Runesmith will also be able to set up faster in combat.

Really appreciate getting the writeup! It's good to have a gist of what to expect. I'm hoping some of the clunky mechanical issues will also be addressed (Necromancer anywhere but the ground, Runesmith having hands issues), but I understand that's usually not the thing these blogs cover. Looking forward to seeing what the final versions bring, and from the blog writeup, both classes will end up closer to my personal ideal than the playtest versions. That means more fun playing them as-is, and less work doing a tweak here or there.

My thoughts;

1) Please address Mastery of Life and Death not actually working due to many void spells having a "non-undead" clause or an undead only spells. This is part of a wider issue that Bones Oracles and Dhampyr's face, but it's particularly problematic for Necromancer

2) Please address the hand economy problem for Runesmith. This was incredibly frustrating during the playtest and pointlessly limited fighting styles if you were trying to play by RAW.

3) Would you consider a class archetype to give the Gish feel some people are clamoring for? Something sort of like battle harbinger but with key attributes and weapon specialization scaling properly.

4) Necromancer also had some noticable problems with range and dealing with flight, please make sure to address those.

Both Diacritic Runes & Composite Invocations were seen as "very interesting"? Huh, that's curious. Wouldn't have guessed from the forums.

The former was seen as only worthwhile outside combat w/ all the better options w/ one action; and thus not so worthwhile w/ so few slots available. And I read zero appreciation of the latter, even though I'd posted a thread asking explicitly for feedback about them. I mean conceptually they sound cool in light of "written magic", but balancing them as is seems impossible given how its foundation is already difficult w/ its action-investment-future-reward mechanics (which composites compound by asking for even more patience and more variety of runes, some of which kinda have to be sub-par as it's impossible for all to be equally effective against all opponents).

Anyway, I don't feel debriefed about the direction Runesmiths are going, while I do feel Necromancer's heading in at least two good directions.

Wasn't one of the big criticisms of Necromancer is that there was no way for the thralls to help with flying enemies as levels got higher and that became more common? Or being a completely dead feature in an underwater campaign? Surprised that wasn't mentioned at all.

They don't usually drill down too deeply in these sorts of debriefs, they mostly give the "here's the big questions we were wondering about at the start of the playtest" resolutions. Like I'm sure they're going to do something about the borderline game-breaking damage a runesmith can do on a two-round loop if they're able to get off a bunch of one action traces, but they don't need to admit that here.

I still have hope that we will eventually get class archetypes for necromancers of other traditions. Occult will always be the least fitting and least interesting tradition for necromancy for me, but the class looks already great otherwise.

I still have hope that we will eventually get class archetypes for necromancers of other traditions. Occult will always be the least fitting and least interesting tradition for necromancy for me, but the class looks already great otherwise.

While I don't agree with you, I would like to point out that they said in the briefing that they'll be making it so Necromancers have access to the Necromancy themed spells that AREN'T on the Occult list, so that should satisfy most of your itch.

My biggest issue was the immobile, cardboard cut-out thralls. I'm glad to see there's going to be more thought about injecting some more "life" into them.

Agreed. If there's one thing I wanna do as a necromancer, it's inject stuff into other stuff.

I'm loving everything I'm seeing here. Looking forward to hearing more about this im-possible book at Paizocon/Gencon!

Will you address the naming problem of "runes" for upgrading equipment and the "runes" of the runesmith?

2026 is just .. so far off still!
Can't you just release this in summer instead?
I have a group wanting to run Tyrant's Grasp in pf2e, we want the necromancer class now :P

Wasn't one of the big criticisms of Necromancer is that there was no way for the thralls to help with flying enemies as levels got higher and that became more common? Or being a completely dead feature in an underwater campaign? Surprised that wasn't mentioned at all.

As I recall this isn't really an issue. You call it into existence in an unoccupied space. nothing says it has to be on the ground. Even if it immediately falls, which it doesn't have to because it can be a partly or entirely made of spirit, They can still get their attack in.

Meh, I spent 50 years bringing my 6th level Cleric to cast 3rd level spells on the 4th level of the dungeon. I think I'll be able to figure out Rune/Rune by context.

It also does sound like those rooting for Runesmith subclasses are in for disappointment.

It sounds like the solution to the runesmith just picking offensive damaging runes is going to be to reduce direct damage and add persistent damage. This will allow more different kinds of offensive runes without creating nova blasts, which is good, but it would be really cool if some of the offensive runes were more conditional on the enemy’s actions. This would still keep them from being big nova threats, but incorporate a lot of rune/glyph magic narratives.

It also does sound like those rooting for Runesmith subclasses are in for disappointment.

Which is, as always, a huge mistake on every single class without strong chassis like Fighters and Monks.

I hope we're wrong and we end up having Runesmith subclasses.

_shredder_ wrote:

I still have hope that we will eventually get class archetypes for necromancers of other traditions. Occult will always be the least fitting and least interesting tradition for necromancy for me, but the class looks already great otherwise.

While I don't agree with you, I would like to point out that they said in the briefing that they'll be making it so Necromancers have access to the Necromancy themed spells that AREN'T on the Occult list, so that should satisfy most of your itch.

You do realize that this access will probably come in the form of a feat tax, right? At least, that's how these things have been mechanically-evaluated so far. They're not given as class features at level 1, as far as I know, which is what anyone would consider as having access to necromancy spells on a Necromancer class.

Mangaholic13 wrote:

_shredder_ wrote:

I still have hope that we will eventually get class archetypes for necromancers of other traditions. Occult will always be the least fitting and least interesting tradition for necromancy for me, but the class looks already great otherwise.

While I don't agree with you, I would like to point out that they said in the briefing that they'll be making it so Necromancers have access to the Necromancy themed spells that AREN'T on the Occult list, so that should satisfy most of your itch.

You do realize that this access will probably come in the form of a feat tax, right? At least, that's how these things have been mechanically-evaluated so far. They're not given as class features at level 1, as far as I know, which is what anyone would consider as having access to necromancy spells on a Necromancer class.

No? Sorcerers, Clerics, Oracles, and Psychics can all get out of tradition spells from their subclass (Yes, I consider a Cleric's god a subclass)

Meh, I spent 50 years bringing my 6th level Cleric to cast 3rd level spells on the 4th level of the dungeon. I think I'll be able to figure out Rune/Rune by context.

Up a Level, Down a Level.

Aristophanes wrote:

Meh, I spent 50 years bringing my 6th level Cleric to cast 3rd level spells on the 4th level of the dungeon. I think I'll be able to figure out Rune/Rune by context.

Linkified!

LOL! Thought of this as well! :)

It sounds like the solution to the runesmith just picking offensive damaging runes is going to be to reduce direct damage and add persistent damage. This will allow more different kinds of offensive runes without creating nova blasts, which is good, but it would be really cool if some of the offensive runes were more conditional on the enemy’s actions. This would still keep them from being big nova threats, but incorporate a lot of rune/glyph magic narratives.

Yes, I would like a nice set of retributive runes, the Blood Vendetta and Blinding Fury of runes.

Nice debrief.

I got to Playtest the Runesmith, but not in time to do the survey, however, I agree with the broad strokes outlined in that feedback.

Looking forward to what y’all cook up!

I think what the spell list issue has highlighted is that there's a lot of spells that probably should be available to occult, but someone decided they didn't think bards specifically should have it so it was left out.

I get that the Bone Weapon feats lent a really cool aesthetic, but was there really that much focus for some people on being a Martial Necro? I feel like the biggest part of the fantasy was being a languid, sinister mage sending my ruthless undead servants to do all my heavy hitting. What's the point of all these zombies I've constructed if I have to stab people with my own meat?

Likewise, I think it's fair to keep runes away from pure damage dealing. If I wanted to just blast people I'd be a spellcaster or Kineticist. The name of the game should be cleverness and preparation. Martial mastery combined with a bevy of intricate little tricks that spiral out into effects no one else can replicate. Does that sound hard to play? Yes. Does it sound fun as hell? Also yes.

Glad to hear the Runesmith's getting more options, but I'm a little surprised to not hear anything about having trouble with their hands being full.

Definitely agree here! Hopefully it's something they're looking at even if they didn't specifically mention it in this post. It was very awkward having weapon and shield stuff in class features while also still needing your hands free.

Do wish Necromancer had something to push into a melee direction, ala Warpriest or Battle-Harbinger. A Death Knight type character is pretty awkward to do right now even with those.

Maybe not quite a Death Knight, but I find a hobgoblin Obedience champion filled just what I needed for my Tactics Ogre-inspired Terror Knight. Praise Genzaeri, mistress of magpies, matron of battlefields! Smite fools, be durable, and inspire terror.

A lot of necromancer-y spells are still available to Magus since they are arcane, so that's another venue. fully armored, inexorable iron with a scythe, and spellstrike with Boneshaker or what not, from the legacy of Necromancy being an old wizard school.

_shredder_ wrote:

I still have hope that we will eventually get class archetypes for necromancers of other traditions. Occult will always be the least fitting and least interesting tradition for necromancy for me, but the class looks already great otherwise.

While I don't agree with you, I would like to point out that they said in the briefing that they'll be making it so Necromancers have access to the Necromancy themed spells that AREN'T on the Occult list, so that should satisfy most of your itch.

It really doesn't, because I just really love the concept of a 100% primal necromancer, a master over life and matter (the essences of the primal tradition) who has absolutely nothing to do with the occult in any way and isn't able to do the mind and soul magic occult should be about. Arcane or divine necromancers would be cool too and more fitting to me than occult.

I hope Runesmith gets an elven rune that allows for some sort of Sanctuary effect. And a magic dagger that gives some sort of advantage, like allowing them to treat the hand holding it as free for engraving or something...

Just the first thing that comes to mind whenever I read about the class. I'm looking forward to seeing the final version!

Just a quick mention that I really hope the Necromancer's familiar is one that comes back the next day like a Witch's or Animist's, because "bring back your familiar" is textbook entry-level necromancy.

"While we intend to keep the necromancer firmly as a spellcaster rather than pushing it to “gish” territory, we will be looking into ways to make the occasional scythe attack more engaging."

This is incredibly disappointing to hear. Especially after the work for both of the subclasses (Warpriest update and the new Battle Harbinger) that make Cleric able to be a relatively effective martial caster mix. I don't want to 'occasionally' strike with a scythe. Like come on the responses to the stuff you already had was fantastic why shy AWAY from what was clearly a point of interest in the playtest? Stuff like this and the Sure Strike errata are making me really question design decisions of late.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the necromancer multiclass does. While caster gishes aren't my jam, I do expect that grabbing the multiclass archetype on Magus (for hitting those thrall attacks when you need to) or Commander (for a battlefield control focus) will allow for some nice options without needing to split focus.

As far as archetypes on Necromancer go, I'm very excited that we're getting an undead troop archetype, or something like that.

The way I see it, Gish Necromancers work in two ways:

1. Standard Caster "If I have a leftover third action I can strike, and feats reward me for that behavior, but the focus of my turn is on something else."

2. Grave Spells that consume Thralls to fuel Grave Spell effects flavored as Death Knight themed melee powers.

That said, I def don't think it should be a huge emphasis unless we have a lot of room to fill up with extra stuff in the book it's in, we have so many gish options in the game right now it's crazy and the animist in particular makes a really good death knight, what with it's Death Grip, Grudge Strike, Apparitions being a form of undead in every way that matters and the whole 'possession for martial skill theming.'

... we have so many gish options in the game right now it's crazy and the animist in particular makes a really good death knight, what with it's Death Grip, Grudge Strike, Apparitions being a form of undead in every way that matters and the whole 'possession for martial skill theming.'

Don't mean to get too off topic but what is this death grip you are referring to?

The way I see it, Gish Necromancers work in two ways:

1. Standard Caster "If I have a leftover third action I can strike, and feats reward me for that behavior, but the focus of my turn is on something else."

2. Grave Spells that consume Thralls to fuel Grave Spell effects flavored as Death Knight themed melee powers.

That said, I def don't think it should be a huge emphasis unless we have a lot of room to fill up with extra stuff in the book it's in, we have so many gish options in the game right now it's crazy and the animist in particular makes a really good death knight, what with it's Death Grip, Grudge Strike, Apparitions being a form of undead in every way that matters and the whole 'possession for martial skill theming.'

I think the dev is saying they won't be letting go of Legendary Spellcasting in order to beef up Martial Weapon Proficiency (unlike say Warpriest & Magus). With Thralls, their attacks, & Grave Spells being the chassis, I prefer keeping Legendary. But if Paizo's going to entice us with these gish feats, there has to be more synergy & reward. Or, as mentioned, a Necromancer-adjacent Archetype for martials, which IMO would fill the last concept niches.