Castilliano's page

Trip.H wrote:

And it is just completely bonkers to me that a martial class can honestly consider a +2 to their attack stat, because Strike is so worthless to them. Just another rather large red flag, imo.

Is it? I feel like having a strong alternative action that's actually worth the investment cost to use would largely be considered a good thing. We have plenty of ways to play a character who just strikes most of the time if you want.

The Runesmith needs some balancing, particularly with their ability to load up burst with out of combat engravings, but Trance being a good and viable part of your action routine is not one of those problems.

Ironically, pivoting away from Trance would make Engraving Strike more problematic, but at that point it's something of a self fulfilling prophecy.

There are some descriptors in there, strong & worth the investment, that I believe are the crux of the disagreement. Sure, if it's both of those, it's good. But if it's neither? And I think that's the point: if it's only worth a +2 attack stat, that's a red flag to Trip that Strikes are neither strong, so not worth that investment (or more investment? Not sure where he's drawing the line).

Edit for quote block error

Castilliano wrote:

Fortifying Knock + Runic Reprisal is a great combo: If they attack you, you explode an extra Rune/round.

Not exactly so. You explode only if they attack you AND hit you (which is uncertain due to your AC bonus after shield is raised). And if they miss, in your next turn you can't invoke attacking rune on your shield in this manner, and at the end of next turn it will fade.

So IMHO defenderly built runesmith can gain a lot from FK+RR, but for more offencive style TT is more useful

Correct, but I do expect to get hit, if not by the first foe, then one of their buddies. And if it's the boss or several creatures missing me, then the battle's going in our favor even if I don't get a bonus Rune on my shield the next round. And it'd take a meta-savvy enemy to know they can attack you every other round. Yes, they might (likely should) attack your allies after the first kaboom, but if your ally's a frontliner they should be able to tank better than you (especially if they have a shield that you could add a +1 to) and switching targets spreads the damage, yay. Again, this would be for Runesmiths that already carry a shield and enter melee (which in turn gives an action advantage to Trace).

Hopefully Runesmiths will be able to overwrite their own Runes just in case the enemy succeeds in downing your ally, then turns to you, but you're on an off-round so can't Trace your reactive Rune. That's something to mention in the playtest feedback for sure.

Fortifying Knock + Runic Reprisal is a great combo: If they attack you, you explode an extra Rune/round. Imagine if a caster or Kineticist could inflict their main attack if struck (and while blocking). Much like Tracing Trance, it represents an extra action, yet it's part of something you want to do anyway. I'd get TT if operating from range, but the shield feats if planning to melee. Since the range is so modest, I'd need blockers in the party too.

Trouble is that shields disadvantage Strike even more, using a hand and an action w/ Raise a Shield. Which leads me to say, I don't think there's a dilemma between Strike & Trace. None. Trace wins. Trace always wins when you're in melee (unless perhaps it provokes) and most of the martial feats involve melee Strikes and makes Trace/Invoke rely on a successful Strike (too much IMO). I am getting the inkling that ranged Strikes might work fine actually, filling in some opportunities, but still secondary to Trace. Archers don't seem a typical image of Runesmith I wouldn't think.

Your ideas mirror many of mine, especially that of the value of definitive subclasses. I think the class playtest has most of the seeds present, but hasn't explored the ramifications of what it has nor extrapolated enough, ex. the Runesinger concept has been talked about despite being one feat with minor impact. I'll expound later.

Miroku, the monk from Inuyasha. Uses ofuda to blast, seal, & debuff much like aforementioned characters.

The Warded Man, from novel, unarmed warrior empowered by runes drawn directly on his skin (whereas most have them on items). They represent most of his ability, bringing him up to par with his demon enemies (who few mortals can survive against, much less fight).

Dr. Strange & friends when making those glowing-glyph-bucklers and more, though once off a surface, runes seem less rune-ish and more special effects.

Marvel's rune magic & that arc when some characters were covered in runes that scaled them up to boss level (IIRC).

Mostly I think of Scandinavian lore; etching runes into one's equipment, at portals/landmarks, on stones perhaps in patterns or held up high w/ prayers making them glow, runes sketched into dirt, or scarred/seared onto flesh.

I do not imagine just drawing a rune w/ the speed of a blade onto a moving enemy (especially with the different physiology of some PF monsters). That seems absurd, though Paizo could rectify by reflavoring the rune as adjacent/under the target and moving where they do, or the Runesmith drawing (or maybe calling) the rune then applying it.

Ideas above (apologies if forgot something):
-Medium armor option
-Better Reaper's Armaments
-Scaling Bind Heroic Spirit (to access earlier)
-Major subclass like Warpriest

I was considering the medium armor too, and how there could be a 4th type of Necromancer that gets "Osteo Armor" or shell; something similar to the 8th level feat for armaments. That AC &/or less reliance on Dex would help early levels, and bone armor looks so cinematic. I could see several ways to implement this, but I'd prefer it advance to heavy armor at say 5th and carry the same Runes as your underlying armor/outfit. Kineticists have abilities with similar strength (and those would be easy enough to pick up at 4th via MCD so it's in competition).

Reaper's Armaments mirrors common Ancestry feats, meaning that as a class feat it should be improved, at the minimum gaining Critical Specialization effects. Maybe +1 void/cold/spirit damage?
I also dislike that it competes w/ Muscle Barrier, meaning it simply is better to gain one's weapon via their Ancestry instead.

Bind Heroic Spirit: yeah, making a Thrall w/ a successful Strike seems modest enough to gain earlier, especially given the amount of investment to build for actually striking. The +3 could be scaled back say to +1/6 levels. Still iffy offensively, but the save boost helps patch a hole. Trick here is we likely don't want martials to gain access to it.

Another idea for improvement would be to Osteo Armaments, since odds are a Str/melee Necromancer will want to purchase a better weapon than that, making the feat more for a backup or tricky weapon (in which cases it's excellent). Maybe keep the feat as is for the baseline with the ability to mimic the Runes on one's Handwraps (w/ the addition of Decaying still available).

Maybe a feat with +1 void/cold/spirit damage damage per nearby Thrall? (how near? adjacent to self? to enemy? who knows.) With a max bonus based on level whatever brings them up to the appropriate DPR. Perhaps incorporate it into Bind Heroic Spirit, which seems a cool flavor at first look.

I hadn't considered such a drastic option like Warpriest, but yeah, trade off that spellcasting proficiency if it's secondary to gain some reaping ability. Perfectly viable IMO. It could incorporate some of the weapon & armor ideas above.
(And I like Reaper as a name. Harvester? Hmm.)

If room opens up in the feat chain, I'd like to see something like a tandem strike w/ one's Thrall where you use the same MAP (counts as two for later, etc.. Whether you create a Thrall simultaneously or use (perhaps destroy) an existing one would be a question. It could be two feats, where the first is with an existing Thrall and the second feat creates one + some other effect like combine damage or Frightened 1 etc.

Given that the 8 h.p. classes mostly have a martial build option (or faux one w/ Kineticist or proxy one via Eidelon), I thought I'd speculate re: Necromancers.

The Necromancer has two feats that are among the most praised aspects of the class: Reaper's Weapon Familiarity (2) and Osteo Armaments (8). Both of them piqued my interest too, except what build are they designed for? Are these feats like Witch's Armaments; required options for completeness of the trope, but seldom if ever chosen? Or are they meant to be used? To actually hit anything, you'd need a +3 Str (w/ Finesse weapons doing too little damage IMO to make this worthwhile). Yet that's alongside a +4 Int if you want to make use of the other feats, and you'd likely die as well as just ruin your MAP since a baseline Thrall will have better attacks, cost no gold, and operate at a modest range. There's no point.

So my initial purpose with this thread was to address the conflict between having these two interesting feats, yet them being MAD & MAP dysfunctional (except maybe via MCD or a "death guy martial" Archetype). To survive in melee, you kinda need better stats, and that'd require weakening one's best attack, a.k.a. one's otherwise all-important Int). One can work around a low casting stat w/ Force Barrage, Soothe, & buffs, and several of the other 8 h.p. classes can make their casting stat secondary. But so much of the Necro's chassis involves Focus Spells w/ Int-based attacks/saves. Much better to build with a different chassis, I guess.

Except then for completeness, while typing this I checked the feats to see what other martial ones might sadden people and it surprised me; there's a nearly complete thread of feats that ignore Int: Body Shield (4), Reclaim Power (6), Lifesense (10), Become as Spirit (12) or Reinforced Skeleton (12), and Bind Heroic Spirit (18) (which I'd thought was terrible, but that's from a typical Necro's POV). That's a lot. Did Paizo plant a hidden build in the playtest that focuses on using Thralls as flankers, walls, and grist to keep oneself alive in the heart of melee (or perhaps not the heart, more like an arm)? Hmm.

So while there might be a complaint to lodge, I have to wonder if Paizo's addressed it already. Those feats make a melee Necromancer resilient. One could make a sturdy Dwarf +3/+2/+2/+1/+2/-1 or a Lizardfolk w/ +3/+2/+2/+0/+2/+0, maybe a Leshy even for extra oddness. Sure they won't excel like a dedicated martial, but they're also filling the battlefield with flanking buddies and have utility from their spells.

Other than filling in the high-level gaps in feats, what else would a Necro need to thrive in melee? Has anyone already noticed this and playtested a low-Int melee Necro?

I understand wanting to reduce loot, but it rubs me the wrong way that enemies become poorer due to a PC's choice to be poorer. (Poverty fad?)
In fact, keeping that extra loot solves the problem of less diversity & shallower resources by providing the inverse to the PC's allies. It's kinda expensive to buy upward, and with the wealth curve I don't think anything's being bent any more than the VoP bends it the opposite way.

Imagine grabbing your downed ally's gear, and then dispersing that among the party. Would that bump anybody above the power curve? Especially, as noted, with the VoP PC stuck waiting for the "now it's required" levels. They'd all be more comfortable spending consumables, but not gain access to anything they couldn't get by pooling their money. I've heard that recommended so the main martial can get a Striking weapon sooner.

From the treasure charts, the wealth bump would represent getting treasure slightly less than a level earlier. If that's too much seems more a matter of opinion & campaign. I've played, and heard about, APs where you struggle in the early levels because of less fluid treasure, where selling the items would hurt a lot. Or in one case where you needed those items to survive, but that left y'all underequipped in traditional ways.

And as RD said, this is Homebrew Forum territory. And reduces treasure fluidity, since the gear, campaign-centric, and thematic loot of the foes won't be reduced, it'll most likely be the loose change.

If you lean into your martial abilities you get...not much except a desire to enter into precarious positions, and with low saves to worsen it. Since Runes are so much better, the easy answer is to limit them EXCEPT Runesmith would remain a lesser martial because you still want max Int, and since you want that shield up to survive, you're wielding a smaller weapon. If anything, having martial weapon proficiency feels like a trap. *sigh*
The Magus got around this trap by letting the weapon proficiency determine the success of attack spells, so leaning into weapons paid off, and you could even ignore Int (though with the Remaster, the number of attack Cantrips has dropped a lot!)

I love the concept, but I don't think you could make the character in the drawings and thrive. Not yet.

And then there's the problem that buffs from Runes can go on the weapons of full-fledged martials, so martial Runesmiths kinda need something for themselves damage-wise.

How close could you get a primal Summoner with a beast eidolon to the Hunter? Since I think the Summoner sets the power budget for "a class with a really high end companion".

Depends on your concept of a Hunter, and your imagination. For example, you could reflavor Boost Eidelon and the like to come from "training" or some connection. Yes, you can cast, but a lot fewer spells; a Hunter could dish out lots of buffs, so you might have to pick up an MCD. And you would be a caster, so it would put you at risk to enter combat and investing in martial feats pays off little.

So yeah, you could get the pet up to PC-ish levels, but Summoner kind of relies on the Eidelon's Strike + Cantrip to stay even, and that's not a Hunter playstyle IMO. A Ranger w/ a pet and three Focus Spells to aid their animal would likely be the closest build in PF2, though you'd be the strongest element, not your animal. There are a number of Hunter-like feats already available, so I think Paizo kinda already gave us our Hunter, and likely better for being "PC as primary".

I don't think it's needed because as noted one can already fulfill the concept of a Hunter. Mechanically, one can tune the proportions of martial/caster/pet to one's taste with the one exception (which IMO is where Hunter shined, at least mine) of the uber-pet. There are no uber-pets outside of Summoner which cuts deeply into the actual PC's power. Turning such a hybrid caster into a viable martial would be rough, as even a generic martial alongside a PC-level companion would be too strong (unless I suppose they shared MAP?). And then we've lost spells, so that's not that great and could have likely been built better as a Ranger. Which is to say, Hunters were competitive in all three areas, as martial/caster-buffer/pet-owner, and IMO trying to build such a class or archetype while keeping the power curves in place would be too difficult to expect. Not when Ranger w/ pet & Focus Spells is right there.

Or Summoner itself.

ETA: I would not want to replicate my PF1 Hunter. That little kitty cat stunned everybody at the table, outshining PCs on its own, even before buffing & commanding it, which I often refrained from doing so others could play.

And I can't see Paizo buffing pets any more than it has.

I've always run the enemies as truly playing to survive (or kill or other win condition, depending). They try all the same things that PCs do, it's just that encounters & resources favor PCs, otherwise the narrative would end too swiftly. A 50/50 encounter isn't more realistic, it's just deadly since even the winning team will likely lose members.

I say this as a GM willing to let parties err and encounter OP monsters; one example being a rare TPK where a player acknowledged that all the warning signs had been given, yet they'd gone in too cocky to a lair they should've avoided (at least for the next few levels). My players learned that the setting itself was realistic with its various power imbalances, and not adjusted to suit them even though they had the limelight of being main characters (and hence always had something reasonable to occupy them, even if they wanted to toy around elsewhere). Players learned to equip means of escape and have plans to retreat, which isn't easy to coordinate on the fly in the face of an enemy that understands Common. Of course as they grew in power & influence, they reaped the rewards of being on the favorable side of such imbalances while I didn't have to disturb the world's verisimilitude to introduce powerful foes/obstacles/allies; they'd been around, a few quite aware of the party's progress...

ETA: There might be something in the campaign journals. I haven't read those in over a decade so couldn't advise which ones, but there used to be some that showed the monsters as legitimate threats (even if ultimately their fate's were sealed).

Secret Wizard wrote:

It makes no sense to me that Flurry of Blows gets a cooldown and Twin Weapon Flurry doesn't.

I swear I'm not trying to derail with discussion, but I think a clarification here is necessary bc all the Flurry feats I found in short order had exactly the same cooldown. Flurry of Blows, Two-Weapon Flurry (fighter, dual warrior), and Twin Takedown (ranger) all have the Flourish trait. Is there another ability you're referring to?

I think he's talking about how Monk's Flurry (Flurry of Blows via MCD Archetype) has a new cooldown period of 1d4 rounds, something that Twin Takedown (also one round) does not have. (The other flurries are two actions, so I'm thinking not those.)

I'd be wary of the AP final bosses as often the parties acquire specific tools and abilities vs. them to compensate, or simply have acquired more items while 20th vs. a fresh 20th level allotment. But there will still be lots of other encounters geared toward 20th, perhaps the boss(es) from the day or arc before that.

Blue_frog wrote:

Well, obviously, getting temp HP every round is a very strong option - but that's not the question. The question is whether it is RAW or not.

I think we're all pretty much in agreement that the rules are unclear here.

I disagree. I think several (including myself, maybe Finoan & Blue Frog in their responses) regard the rules as clear, and that the adjudication relies on whether temp hp/round (esp. on a Sustain with other benefits) is "too good to be true"/an oversight or not.

Throwing on more thought into the pot, Sustain provokes Reactive Strike. Those temp h.p. might be necessary to keep RS from shutting down an Animist's shapechanging, at least down to a skirmisher which loses a lot of its oomph.

ETA: I haven't decided either way whether it breaks the threshold, so by default I'd have to go with allowing it, at least on the fly or in PFS.

Ooh, yeah, I'd forgotten that the Druid would need to Dismiss first. Paizo will have to step in, if only for the sake of PFS GMs. That does make for a better 3rd action than anything the Druid naturally gets, and IIRC that Sustain was one of the balancing points in another debate, so making it useful undermines that balance. Hmm.

As above, plus they might have a spell, breath weapon, Grab, tactical Stride, etc. to perform after their first Strike. So always use on first Strike, it's likely their larger attack too (rather than their Agile one), and while you might be less likely to avoid a hit, you're more likely to avoid a crit so it's effectively even on damage prevented. And you can't use it on the second Strike if the first disables you from taking Reactions (most likely from a crit dropping you, but maybe some carrier effect like paralysis (et al)).
The exception being if there's a reason to avoid getting hitting twice, Rend being the most likely example of a crit-like damage spike to avoid.

If the new shape has temp hp as part of its package, then changing into it gives you temp hp, as awkward as the ramifications feel. The ability would have to clarify you didn't get them to rectify that.
Is it too powerful to be true?
There's Renewed Vigor (Barb 8) to compare it to and the yes, high-level Metamorphosis (Spell 9) giving you 40 hp each time (though notably it points this out explicitly).

I think the fact it's temp hp keeps it from being abused too much, you are a caster after all. And that's costly being effectively Slowed 1 at least until playing high-level w/ free Sustain feat (& perhaps a Stride via the Heightened Haste). IMO there's not enough weight to override what seems clear: you get the hp each time, much like a Wild Shape Druid could use another Focus Point to do similar.

Yeah, with such a robust frontline a Cloistered Cleric would be well protected, and the greater proficiency matters IMO in a party lacking much spellpower. Warpriest suits more if you're going to armor up & Shield Block or get a beefier weapon. Since a bow wouldn't get the extra damage that martials get, it won't do that much past the early levels (where yes, it'll be a nice third action). But since you'll likely be busy with other third actions like Medicine, Recall Knowledge, moving, casting Shield, etc., I wouldn't put too many resources into the bow, and as noted, there's always a crossbow for those few times you do get to shoot. And some of those one-action Focus Spells you'd have to choose from make a worthwhile substitute too (like for Earth or Fire).
So with a crossbow (maybe even heavy) plus a Focus Spell, you'd have two rounds/battle (more w/ more Focus Points) to cast + attack, which is half of many battles, and you'll often want to do other stuff anyway (but always casting when possible, even if only a Cantrip).

I say this having GMed for a guy who invested a LOT of feats into archery as a caster, and the guy simply lacked the opportunity to use it much since in tougher moments he'd always have to resort to his best spells + an action to keep himself alive.

And yeah, Rogue MCD doesn't actually help you much with Thievery directly, though yes, it does plump up those meager Cleric skills and that light armor would be nice if Cloistered. I'd be torn, but Medic is quite strong as noted (and you can stick near the Champion to provide your PC damage mitigation & emergency healing).

Also it'd help (at my table) if your (normally shaped) PC went Prone first. That'd hinder one's ability to stalk, which suits the terrain IMO.

A local university RPG club ran a PvP finale for a DnD game day nearly 40 years ago, and while it was fun for the winning side (mine, *tee hee*), it was miserable for the losers. Both sides (unknowingly?) played the same builds for parity, but the first party to notice the other buffed up and ambushed the other while they were occupied crossing a moat with a monster (so both in combat and somewhat spread apart). Utter destruction, would not recommend running with third parties, but wouldn't that then devolve into just gladiatorial combat? And yes, the logistics of running two tables with a master table unseen by the players made it ridiculously slow even with several DMs. We were intended to separately enter on opposite sides of a target castle, clashing at the finale, yet didn't even enter the building.

The only way I can imagine PvP being fun is if one party truly plays the expected-to-lose monsters knowing that's the case, and playing multiple creatures throughout the scenario. Even then they'd accumulate more PC knowledge than warranted, and would use tactics some tables frown on like hitting downed enemies and focus firing on healers/casters. To temper that they'd have to play more as a GM than players, meaning it's kinda like having multiple GMs more than multiple players. And with play-by-post, it's simpler to GM anyway, so...?

What exactly are you expecting here? To learn from excellent examples so you can set up something similar? How much info/meta would the monster side have? What's gained by them being individuals?

I don't know if it got added to the rules, but iirc there's supposed to be an exception to sickened that if you have a day-long version, you can slowly eat/drink enough to sustain yourself.

I just read that recently, so recently I think it was clarified somewhere in the errata because yeah, that'd kill ya' faster than the disease itself.

The increase in the benefits of bumping Heroism from 6th to 9th feel smaller than the benefits of casting a 9th Rank spell instead. Of course the math shifts if you pack several combats into that Heroism duration, have short adventuring days so seldom run out of high Rank spells, or there's some factor hindering your PC's involvement (that doesn't hinder the Fighter's). And one must consider what situations/saves/enemies the other casters cover & how well.

There's some momentum from previous editions dating back decades, one aspect of which is the phrasing including "device". That's the nomenclature, yet many of the Hazards don't involve device so it'd be odd for Survival for instance to "disable quicksand", etc. If "device" were substituted in this hypothetical general action, I'd agree with your premise. Well, except there's also sabotaging devices, so maybe it's messier if we unpack further, though that could separated out if necessary.

So maybe "Disable Hazard" might work, except even then not all devices are Hazards...and maybe we're sowing more confusion than necessary since, again, we have a historic nomenclature already in use. And as you mentioned, it works as written so... *shrug*

An unspecific Class DC can be any Class DC that you have simply because any Class DC IS a Class DC that you have. There's no cause to over-interpret.

I believe this is the reason Paizo culled down all the spellcasting proficiencies to the highest because martials had this advantage over casters when picking up abilities outside their class. And it's balanced since the PC is still buying feats at 2x the level (and so many of these pricier feats would become near worthless if stuck at Trained). Class DC centered classes like Kineticist label their abilities as "Kineticist Class DC" specifically to avoid poaching abilities that would be too strong via MCD. (Their feats are their shtick more than other classes whose primary abilities remain above superior to those taking the MCD for it.) The Remaster came after the Kineticist and did not alter the wording of previous Class DCs nor the abilities based on them. Paizo makes no mention of this "very important if true" distinction.

Playtest survey is extremely important.

Arguably most important, as it seems like they sift through every comment in the survey. While I'm sure there's input from the forums, it'd be imbalanced to give them equal weight since there's a lot of repetition from a small segment of their customer base.

Castilliano wrote:

Or another one I like is changing Runes to damage over time, as in the Rune remains on the enemy burning, zapping, etc. as persistent damage. This avoids too much stacking, and while those Runes persist it gives opportunities for other tactics like making support Runes/Striking. And IMO it fits the flavor of tagging someone better than a simple boom.

Similarly, Runes might be lower damage, but reusable with every Invocation (likely w/ a limit of one Invocation/round or a Sustain cost too).

I really like this idea.

No idea what its power level looks like, but conceptually it is very nice.

If implemented, I'd want to give it some resistance to ending the persistent damage, but persistent damage is already so difficult to end that I don't think I could justify it.

Thank you. I think the imagery came from the anime I've been watching, i.e. Inuyasha which features many ongoing energy-rune effects.

The power level would be whatever the instant damage translates to when persistent. I figure Paizo has some sort of formula for that, like +1d6 Bleed equals +Xd6 instant damage for when they're making such abilities. And then factor in other context game designers would be savvy about. Personally I'd enjoy having several enemies burning (etc), like I was continuously contributing.

As for removing, yeah, persistent is persistent enough, though I think a skill check for the magic type (or any of the four for a generic rune) would be a nice out, as losing an action is pretty costly too. (And on the PC-receiving side, less costly, but IMO more necessary.) And with monsters it's easy to reapply anyway, so there's no real escaping it (only mitigation via saves). Add a Diacritic to penetrate Resistance, maybe alter those "multi-rune gives an extra effect" feats to trigger with an ongoing effect too, which would makes those worthwhile (rather than overkill and/or too situational). I think it leaves more room for debuffs too, like Dazzled when on fire (though that'd eat a chunk out of the damage for sure, it's more interesting than pure damage, and gives that extra nonnumerical layer that PF2 favors.)

Yeah, I'm preferring this, as it can solve the OP's OP issue as well as the "is this really a martial?" question by giving them bashing time once their Runes are ongoing, as well as potential feat options for better bashing against foes w/ an ongoing Rune.

So one might limit:
Runes per creature per type (so no multiples of same type)
Runes per creature, all (so one max per creature)
Runes per round, encouraging Strikes
Runes per Invocation, which I prefer as in one might trigger all the fire Runes, but not all the types at once. This helps disperse the impact, w/o hindering multi-target Invocations (which IMO kinda need to remain strong to support the action input).
Or one might alter Runes so they can't go directly on a creature, but rather the ground under them or on their target as a booby trap or applied via a weapon/paper/Runestone/fist Strike (et al).
Or another one I like is changing Runes to damage over time, as in the Rune remains on the enemy burning, zapping, etc. as persistent damage. This avoids too much stacking, and while those Runes persist it gives opportunities for other tactics like making support Runes/Striking. And IMO it fits the flavor of tagging someone better than a simple boom.
Similarly, Runes might be lower damage, but reusable with every Invocation (likely w/ a limit of one Invocation/round or a Sustain cost too).

And I'm on Unicore's side re: Strikes as in if I were to make a Runesmith I'd preference only have enough Str to support my armor. It's simply too costly to maintain Str & Int at max (and in a class with low saves!) given the lack of support for Strikes (which are so easily swapped for making another Rune). And finesse Strikes would do so little w/o some boost.

As somebody who has theorycrafted a few builds based on exploiting Sure Strike, I understand and defer to Paizo's wisdom. The spell remains strong for that 1/combat w/o becoming core (which arguably no 1st level should be into later levels). Also I'm glad I hadn't launched any such PCs in PFS yet.

I'd like these feats more if they gave critical specialization to said weapons.

Proficiency bonus is off the table w/ PF2's principles, so Crit Spec might be all they can add to at least match the Ancestry feats (Class feats being more costly). So yeah, that's a minimum need, and I'd actually like something more, otherwise I feel these are traps for non-martials. They can be worthwhile for a martial though, though not via an MCD unless already headed there.

If Paizo can balance it, and not make the feat to access all three feel mandatory, I'm all for it. And I'd embrace a diversity of feats, or different effects/damage types for the same feat depending on undead type.

I also think Necromancer should lean away from Focus Points not in getting away from the current ones, but by comparing them to Kineticist abilities which can be spammed (and w/o Thralls, even if they do have different costs/investments). Except to rush to a pool of 3, some of the low-level ones are worthless because they will soon not be worth the Focus Point. I imagine much Retraining w/ this class, which seems a flaw IMO. One comparison point is how many Focus Spells in other classes upgrade at the level that rival Focus spells become available.

YuriP wrote:

IMO Ghost thralls could have a not only a different flavor but also mechanic from other thralls. Instead of occupy an space like other thralls they could do some other effect like make an will check vs necromancer spell DC to not be frightened when enemies pass throught it or just do nothing but be able to fly and stay stoped in the air instead of falling when created in mid air to be useful in air encounters.

That's definitely a niche that should be explored.

Giving each thrall a distinct mechanical effect might offer a lot of variety baked in.

Bone Thralls can be the "flanky" ones. Flesh Thralls could be the "grabby" ones (maybe not grapple from the get go, just immobilize or speed penalty) and ghost thralls could be the spooky ones.

That would make Necromancers even more mechanically distinct from each other.

I was considering this, with the qualm that one type will likely outshine (or undershine?) the other two. Or that one would want the ability to switch (which might be a feat, but should it be a given?).

There is one important thing to be gained: PFS acceptability.
Undead Masters have to be Evil, which yes, can be converted to Unholy, but that's still off limits for PFS players. Of course a book that features Necromancers would be the perfect spot to update the Undead Master to have less evil variants. This would allow other undead-themed builds to acquire an undead pet too w/o the 2xlevel cost.

Why would investing in non-Thrall Undead warrant a reward?
Are those options poor ones in need of a boost for balance?
Being thematic is its own reward, isn't it?

The one thing I just want to be sure and say is that I am not interested in playing a Runesmith as a blaster. I want to play it as a competent martial who can provide meaningful party buffs and other support. I would expect to get more value from etchings than from invoking.

This isn't to say that I don't want blasting to be viable -- because I hope it is able to support that playstyle for people who want it. I just hope that the power curve on the blasting isn't *so* high that they have to weaken the parts of the toolkit that I am actually interested in to keep its overall power in line.

Thank you.

I agree there's a major mechanical impact based on how well enemies of various intelligence levels measure a Thrall, and by what means. Even an RK check burns an action, which is too costly at higher levels. And would that RK check apply if you alter the appearance of the next Thrall? And then you whip out one with actual hp or Summoned.

Can you lock down a mindless creature by spamming Thralls?
Seems too OP, yet what's the meta that solves that even if we do allow sentient creatures to recognize a Thrall's frailty?

Spell slots?

Though yeah, many undead come with flight, so there should be way to unlock that for Thralls (or for thrall-fueled effects).

So many directions and themes to link into, right?

But if you're leaning into Eldritch Archer, then Fighter's superior. Ranger's archery strength is in Hunt Prey (which you can't do with the 3-action arrow) and action compression on said prey (which doesn't jibe with it either). Meanwhile, the Fighter's accuracy augments the effects. And with Felling Strike and that 10th level Slow one, you have other single-shot options that help a party out.

Personally I wouldn't be able to resist playing a Care Bear w/ rainbow powers, at least until other bear characters came to mind. The decision paralysis would be...unbearable. *no remorse*

Ooh, Bard-a-bear.
Barbearian.
Oh my, too much punnery.

By the fact that your Thralls would normally be immune to the void damage but your class features changes it to vitality damage is kinda silly.

That's hilarious.

Another thematic solution to not depend from corpses is that necromancer could use "material components/locus" to create the thralls like bones for osteomancers, pieces of flesh for caromancers or piles of funeral ashes for vitamancers. And the rest of the undead body grows from magical energy. These components doesn't really exists mechanically being part of manipulate trait.

This means that thrall would keep their current mechanic of being created from nowhere but with a better explanation of how it's made.

I was thinking along these lines too, where the Necromancer carries tokens to transform, i.e. teeth (perhaps from a hydra for fans of Ray). Whether Necros recycle them, pluck their own hair or nails, or whatnot doesn't really matter; that little flavor smooths over the "from nothing/no once living body" or "tapping the (evil) Void itself" issues.

And yeah, I agree the Thralls need to have more options, some worth a feat, others that simply should be possible w/ an entity that can Strike. Heck, some worth a Focus Point, maybe destroying the strained Thrall rather than sacrificing it. Even if mechanically the same, having the flavor of rampaging undead feels better IMO than popping them like fuel. (Also, if they're the fuel and the Necro can supply that fuel indefinitely, a Thrall's existence is more a hiccup than a substantive participant.)

Typically medium bodies also don't make difficult terrain, with room for GM adjudication say if you're holding a doorway against a horde and it's reasonably become clogged or topple some larger creature. (I almost always do it with Huge or larger creatures.) Apparently zombie thralls are squishy & chunky enough they make difficult terrain, but not so much as to be slippery. And it decays(?) in ten minutes.

Given shared metaphysics, the others should leave detritus too. I think one would have to pile up a lot of corpses from the other thrall types to hinder movement because they have less substance than normal creatures. I'd say too unreasonable an amount to expect in an encounter except Necromancers can spam them so fast that sure, it might occur.

Has this become an issue in play? Or theorycraft?
Seems a similar (non-)issue occurs w/ martials, if one were to try to pick up a Barbarian's Rage, Sneak Attack, a Thaumaturge's MCD version of their damage boost, and so on. Lots of potential to stack there too, but has it surfaced outside of for silly speculation (maybe only mine, possibly Raving Dork's too).

Has anybody found it worthwhile to pick up an imbalancing amount of "silos"? Seems it'd be rather costly, with little to show for it that couldn't be gotten elsewhere easier.

I think I'd most like to see the rune-singer become a class archetype, myself. Something that can have the space required to change the runesmith, but also won't detract from its initial implementation.

Given how PF has moved away from feat chains (and that a lot of the other subclasses can be conceived with a few bread-n'-butter feats), an Archetype seems the way to go. Heck, I might even open it up to other singers, a.k.a. Bards and other craftsfolk (if a hybrid Inventor's feasible conceptually in Golarion).

I was thinking about the different pools of resources like this the other day, except I was considering it a positive, not a problem to be solved. If we want more classes, it's kind of required so we don't end with Star Trek aliens, just reskinned humans, or in this case "martial chassis + one shtick" & "full caster + one shtick". Those are simple enough to homebrew (much less balance), while Kineticist & this pair are beyond anything I could have dreamt up (much less balanced). That's professional output there IMO.

ETA: balance clause

My image of Gnomes comes mostly from Gnomes, that coffee table book from around 50 years ago which portrayed them much like brownies, or tinier versions of garden gnomes for that matter with the same conical hat an all, living a rabbit-like lifestyle in burrows. Shannara helped too.

I wonder how much del Toro's gnomes have influenced the younger generation, i.e. Gnome Chompsky? "Whaddya' mean they don't have a bite attack? They're tiny shark people."

I always thought Gnomes were comparable to the lil', lighter version of Dwarves: Wine instead of ale, fine jewelry vs. mining gems, gizmos instead of forging, both kinda stocky & hearty & w/ opposite Charisma shifts. Then Golarion went and emphasized the fey aspects, lessening it for Elves. And they used to look much different in art, but became more humanized, which yeah, made them look like older Halflings.

So yeah, I'd like to see changes, whether backward into their long-nosed, ruddy-faced, stocky builds or forward to vibrant fey motifs, or hybrid of both maybe in different contexts, as long as they become visually distinct for more than their size, garb, and occasional Bleaching.

(And I'd attributed Lini's looks to her druidic vibes.)

ETA: Bleaching implies loss of color, so yeah, maybe they should be more colorful, so that one thinks "pixie-blooded" (however chunky).

Back in the early days of Golarion/PF1/breaking from WotC, (I believe) James Jacobs made a comment about happily ditching non-evil undead, and that even mindless undead would be evil w/ none of that ancient protector Elf undead stuff. Of course that's what, a couple decades ago? And other worldbuilders take part too, adding stories unlocked by allowing exceptions.
And so we have exceptions.

Perhaps ethereal phantoms (or entities possessed by same) or some other afterlife designation would've helped separate the two concepts. But that's assuming it'd be more than semantics when the concepts intertwine, though we do have some.

Heck, not even all fiends composed of the substance of Evil itself are evil, though typically that tiny set is Unholy re: mechanics (at least in conversion, not having seen any post-Remaster yet). Same with made-of-goodness-itself angels falling, though oddly they seem to totally flip sides/mechanics. Asmodeus knows his business.

I'd prefer the power balance budget go elsewhere, but more objectively thinks it's on theme. Sure. Trouble is it's more on theme IMO for them to create makeshift substitutes rather than rely on items crafted by others.

As for using items well, maybe instead of breadth of items they could lean into getting more depth/intensity/use out of each item (which arguably they're doing already).

Or maybe better use of the items they've crafted? Balance with that would get tricky, but seems doable even if not palatable to PFS.

*The Warded Man has entered the chat.*

(Peter V. Brett novel, title also The Painted Man in some markets.)

DMurnett wrote:

Necromantic lore

Necrotic Lore

It sounds better (IMO)
It covers dead things not raising dead things.

:)

"What is that?!"