Invictus Fatum's page

Thralls only lasting a minute is no biggie since you can just create another immediately when it falls apart.

For me, the biggest downside of having a thrall walk ahead of you ar all times is that it has 15 foot speed. Thus your party is moving slowly. But if you have others doing things that slow the party down anyway (raising shield or avoiding notice for example) then that is not a big deal either

What are people's thoughts about Conjurer of Corpses. I love extra spell slots and like the idea of summons, so on the surface it seems cool. Just not sure of action economy of Necromancer and whether it is a good option. Thoughts?

The thrall trait says all checks against the thrall auto-succeed which I would interpret as being a regular, non-crit success.

The trait also says thralls auto-fail any check, which is a bit weird since Escape is one of the actions they can take.

The focus spell explicitly calls out that attempts to escape do not auto-succeed and the DC is your spell DC

Got my PDF. I know nobody asked, but Dead Weight got a massive improvement. It now has the Thrall move up to 15 feat, is a fortitude save that destroys the thrall, but on a success they are Off-Guard, on failure they are Slowed 1 & Off-Guard, on a Crit Failure they are Slowed 2 & Off-Guard.

Well, Paizo has billed me, but my PDF still hasn't arrived. I emailed support and they said "There is currently an issue with PDFs not being granted to customer's accounts"

They offered a solution to manually put the PDF in my library and said they did it, but it still isn't there. I'm sad, really hope they get this fixed soon.

As soon as they do, I'm happy to start answering questions as I take the rest of the day off work.

Hedge Mage is often a mage with little to no formal training. In a lot of lore, it os usually a master apprentice deal or a self taught sort of thing.Considering Wizard is all about schools now, perhaps it is a class archetype for them that didnt go to a school.

Errenor wrote:

BotBrain wrote:

I'm also not a massive fan of Magus as a name because it's an IRL term for priests in Zoroastrianism that don't really have much to do with the spellsword angle.

It's also just an IRL fancy synonym for mage.

Even then I don't think its the right name. Magi aren't just mages they're also hitting you over the head with something.

I mean, you may not like it, but the term has been in use for a spellsword type for many years now. Sure, Pathfinder 1 & 2 have used it, but also things like Chrono Trigger, Supreme Magus, Shadowrun Returns, Fate, The Irregular at Magic High School, That Time I got Reincarnated as a Slime, Adam Warlock and the Magus, etc. just to name a few. All of these modern usages (modern being a stretch because some of these examples are from the late 90s...damn I'm old) refer to this person or role as a blend of magical and physical.

Words change over time based on mainstream usage, especially when dealing with fantasy settings.

I just kind of don't know what a Runesmith is. I know what runes are, and I know what a smith is, but I don't know what a rune smith is or does. The name kind of reminds me, and also how you have talked about it in the thread, is like full metal alchemist glyphs and sigils and then something happens? IDK. I guess it doesn't have a lot of hype because the name doesn't appear to be descriptive of how it works or what it does. Is it a crafting class? Like a blacksmith? Does it interact with crafting? Is it the BEST crafter, like Ornn from League that gives you extra good items?

Well, they do have class features that teaches them to make potency runes for weapons and armor of their level and lower. Additionally, they have a feature that makes Greater and Major striking runes do slightly more damage (thus a "better" version of the rune).

That said though, I get your point and don't disagree. I like your analogy and now can't unthink it. A Runesmith is very much the Full Metal Alchemist fantasy.

As to the Runesmith preview and lack of discussion overall I think the article was poorly done. It was posted on a site with oppressive and aggressive ads, making it hard to read. They talked briefly about it being changed from the playtest, but gave no recap or summary of the playtest and how it relates to the current version. It just sort of dumped a ton of information, but didn't contexualize or comment on much of it.

Over all, it was a hard read and felt like it was written by somebody who was simply told to do it rather than by somebody who was actually interested in the class or even the game. The other previews we've had so far were more enthusiastic and informative to the audience rather than just a data dump style.

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I think the system is ready for an occult focused book that really plays up the weird and can have the space necessary to fix the psychic along side getting 2 new classes.

That would be a book to get excited about!

But do we really need more classes? Conceptually, it seems Paizo has been scraping the bottom of the class barrel for a couple years now and there are so many existing classes that are in desperate need of additional support.

Yes, this! I really want to go at least a year or two of no new classes. Instead having a book that focusses on expanding out Class Archetypes for each and every class. Then add more feats for each class. Rework a few things that need it *cough* Inventor *cough*

Ancestries are another thing I'd love to see get expanded with a similar treatment. Then, more general archetypes are fine with me too. I think there is enough content to fill a regular sized rulebook with these things and then some. As for demand, I believe if it was advertised as adding more Class Archetypes and/or sub-classes people would still be very interested. I know my tables would flock to this sort of thing.

Im not Paizo and I'm not in the books business so I could be wrong, but being a ttrpg player and having been in ttrpgs for over 20 years, I am 80% sure if you made a book called "oops all feats" and just stuck in a bunch of feats for all the existing classes and races it would sell really well.

Obviously not and to even think that would be an option is crazy to me. Of course, like existing books, it would need a theme, more content, spells, items, and a narrative. All I'm saying is that the page space currently devoted to new classes would be devoted, instead, to an expansion of the existing classes.

Think similar to many expansions or DLCs to games. Guild Wars 2 (one of the most popular MMOs on the market) don't add new classes with every expansion. Instead they add class expansions that equate to new sub-classes or class archetypes and skills (feats) to existing classes. This, is a primary driver of excitement and sales.

It all comes down to presentation, marketing, and quality of content. A book of "oops all feats" as you put it would obviously flop and would signal to me that Paizo gave up trying. However, a book of heroes finding new ways to defeat the ever present and growing dangers, or a book of ancient knowledge uncovered, or a book of cosmic exploration into various planes where the natives have different approaches to what it means to be a [insert existing class], should be one to grab the attention of a similar audience base who buys the new books today.

Unicore wrote:

I think the system is ready for an occult focused book that really plays up the weird and can have the space necessary to fix the psychic along side getting 2 new classes.

That would be a book to get excited about!

But do we really need more classes? Conceptually, it seems Paizo has been scraping the bottom of the class barrel for a couple years now and there are so many existing classes that are in desperate need of additional support.

Yes, this! I really want to go at least a year or two of no new classes. Instead having a book that focusses on expanding out Class Archetypes for each and every class. Then add more feats for each class. Rework a few things that need it *cough* Inventor *cough*

Ancestries are another thing I'd love to see get expanded with a similar treatment. Then, more general archetypes are fine with me too. I think there is enough content to fill a regular sized rulebook with these things and then some. As for demand, I believe if it was advertised as adding more Class Archetypes and/or sub-classes people would still be very interested. I know my tables would flock to this sort of thing.

Crouza wrote:

Well, I was wrong. RIP wave casting I guess. F@%#.

Magus was a wave caster except not really because it got a bunch of extra slots later to make up for the lack of them it had due to wave casting.

This is a much simpler way of doing things and has the game working more consistently. These are good things.

That's true, the real buff is to Summoner. Unlike Magus, they didn't get the extra spell slots to work with built in (could take Fey Eidolon to get more at physical cost, or take a feat for an extra summoning spell, but tjat was about it).

I feel good for them.

EDIT: The acion not being a spell also means no heightening and thus, no scaling. I wonder where the base damage of a thrall Strike and its scaling is defined. Probably in the thrall trait.

The damage is in the Comand Thrall focus cantrip. That does scale and looks like the archetype gets regular access to it. It just doesnt get the action compression of the full Necromancer, which is fair.

They also may do like they have other classes (such as Thaumaturge) and create a more limited version of create thrall. A version that summons only 1 and you can choose for it to attack or not. Like the playtest version.

Invictus Fatum wrote:

I think Command Thrall will be a lvl 4 or 6 feat.

That would be terrible since you need Command Thrall to have your thralls do anything at all.

I haven't seen the wording of the new Create Thrall focus spell. I was under the impression that having it attack was baked in as an option in Create Thrall (either attack with one, or create 2). If the wording specifically says you can, as a free action, use Command Thrall, then i stand corrwc5wd and agree.

Upon re-reading the Know Direction article it isn't listed, but it heavily implies it os a co.pressed 1 action for both abilities, so likely yes, we'd need that too

My guess is:

Create thrall focus cantrip (baseline as printed)
2 Cantrips and one prep slot for a cantrip
Occultism trained

I think Command Thrall will be a lvl 4 or 6 feat.

---------

I pray they don't do like they did the Magus and take it's primary feature (spellstrike in that case, create thrall in this one) and lock it behind a feat. In fact, I hope they change the Magus multi-class in this reprint to fix that.

This is from my post on the new Blog that Paizo dropped.

In the encounter we see a number of abilities used, but the one that really caught my interest is the lore on how Thrall creation works. Seems that the thralls are simulacra rather than the actual raising of the person. He's still using necromantic energy and he is using the actual remains of the person to draw the power, but he's using it to create a copy of them as a thrall.

To me, this is a major distinction. Even in the story it implies that he calls the same people (or rather copies them) for each specific task over and over. Frankly, I'm a big fan of this approach to the lore.

The lore on how Thrall creation works is interesting to me here. Seems that the thralls are simulacra rather than the actual raising of the person. He's still using necromantic energy and he is using the actual remains of the person, but he's using it to create a copy of them as a thrall.

To me, this is a major distinction. Even in the story it implies that he calls the same people (or rather copies them) for each specific task over and over. Frankly, I'm a big fan of this approach to the lore.

Release date is July 30th and Subscribers should have the PDF two weeks prior to that, so about July 16th.

Getting back on the topics of mechanics of the Necromancer and its hype, I just came across a small post by Know Direction with another awesome tidbit.

Seems there is a 6th level feat that gives Necromancer an extra spell slot, always at your highest rank, that can only be used for Summon Undead. Apparently it does something else too, but they said they had an article next week that will cover it in more detail.

Whatever else it does is bonus to me. An extra spell to summon undead at highest rank...yes to more to add to my growing horde! I'm going to find it likely hard to pass up, but man all the feats I've seen so far are between good and phenomenal. No duds so far, so can't wait to see what else is coming!

A post I made in another thread reminded me of a character concept from my old D&D 3.x day I plan to recreate with the Necromancer. For those who remember the 3.x prestige class, the Malconvoker, you should see where I'm going (just with undead rather than demons/devils).

He knows how much of the world views undead and the Necromancers that make them. Pure evil, or at best vile. And sure, most of the undead he's encountered and even creates are less than benevolent. But he leans into that. He's learned to create undead, both mindless and with their own will, and use their destructive and vile nature to do good. The mindless ones are easy to manipulate, just be sure to point them at the greater evil and let them do what comes naturally. The ones with a will of their own require a masterful tongue to convince them that their goals and his align. While more difficult to control than the mindless ones, the payoff is that much greater and ultimately the greater good they can reap.

He knows he will be reviled for his methods, but that is OK by him. His reward is in the deeds he does, and in the satisfaction of bending these repulsive creatures to his will and leave the world a better place for it.

Of course, once the task is done, he is sure to clean up his mess by destroying the foul creatures he tricked into doing a good deed.

I seem to remember reading when the undead PC options were released that the nature of the negative (void) energy that sustained them was a constant corrupting force. That some rare undead are able to stave off the corrupting affects through willpower or exceptional purpose or force of their personality at least for a time, years, sometimes even centuries, but that it was an inevitability that they would eventually be fully corrupted by it.

Frankly, I liked this description. I also like that it came from an in-world source so there could always be wiggle room.

As for the other part of this discussion, I think it is fair that some people in the world would react poorly based on the region. Obviously a necromancer in my Iruxi or Kholo societies wouldn't get a second look. Even more pragmatic or power based human societies would be ok with it. Those who are closer to Pharasma or who are not exposed to it much would find it revolting. And that's ok to me, makes the world seem more real rather than accommodating to how we, as players, feel.

As to me personally, I can definitely see myself playing a more "good" Necromancer. Either because they come from a culture that doesn't view it as evil, or by using it as a means to an end in a pragmatic way. For example, one of my favorite D&D 3.x classes was the Malconvoker. They specifically had to be good aligned, but their schtick was that they summoned demons and devils to fight their enemies. Forcing evil beings to work for the greater good.

I want a Shifter and it should be in a book by itself with mechanics based around how the Kineticist works (but it's own style of course).

As for the book, maybe something like" Tides of Change" or "Changing Fates"

25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

hope paizo put magus and summoner in new book is because they really put some effort into fixing them

the feat pool problem of both class are significant

Must disagree on Summoner. They have a bunch of good feats, probably at least one at each feat gain. And the feats support basically all three combat styles - ranged, casting, melee. This is not PF1E; feats aren't meant to stack up on one thing, they're far more often meant to give more options. The summoner's do.

IMO if they tweak summoner, then what I'd like to see is one or more of the following:
1. More eidolons. This one's not necessary, just fun.
2. Different focus spells that go beyond "buff your eidolon". Those are boring and also rarely worth an action in low-level play.
3. Some sort of plus up to the Archetype, for the non-Summoner PCs
4. Maybe a feat or focus spell that makes summoning spells worth it? Maybe buffs a summoned critters' AC and attack by 1/4 level or something? Because, y'know, summoner.

I agree with everything you list, but feel I have to add one thing. They need to make Tandem Movement a class feature rather than a feat. Summoner plays so much smoother with it, and the feat is so good that it makes it almost mandatory for nearly any build.

Aside from that, my hopes are simple. The feats that give the eidolon monster abilities (grab, knockdown, etc.) got nerfed in the remaster due to how those abilities were changed. Hope they do something to compensate for that. Also, would love a proper and balanced Synthesis feat tree and/or Eidolon built around the Synthesis idea.

I am curious to see what everything thinks on these two points.

What is functional to hit for spell attack?
What is the acceptable crit chance on a spell attack after including the best common case for teamwork math swings?

My simple take is for them to take a page from the Kineticist book. Their impulses are like spells in so many ways and they get Attenuators to add to their attack roll (but not saves). Simply give casters similar items and call it a day. It keeps Kineticists behind (level wise) martials for a while, but makes them feel so much better as things scale.

Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I feel like the sheer fact that this many people were this invested in this particular cantrip exclusive to this subclass of this class -- to the point that it's completely dominated a forum ostensibly about a completely different book -- might just be a good indicator that it was dominating the meta and there was a good reason to knock it down a peg.

Seriously, were all of you actually playing this exact same build?

Couldn't agree more. I came here hoping for Necromancer, Runesmith, or other new content speculation and discussion, and what I found was just more the the exact same Magus/Psychic discussion that has dominated so many other threads.

Given how big of a discussion topic it seems to be, I agree that it was probably too much (or people just theory crafting and like to complain about theoretical). I GMed a Magus for 11 levels and they never used Psychic archetype and also never felt underpowered. Sure, they were feast or famine type, but they never seemed to lack in power between spellslots and Gouging Claw.

True enough, and it is a corporate decision no doubt. Guess I preferred when Paizo functioned less like the typical corporation and engaged more freely with the community in creative ways. Again, using the Magus/Summoner playtest as an example, the primary creator of each of the classes participated (mostly passively or in ways to provoke thought) and were obviously proud to discuss what they and their team created. Sometimes it was just to thank somebody for an "actual play" rundown and mention things like "I never thought of..." It felt engaging and rewarding to be part of the discussion.

Perhaps its nostalgia of an old fart that has been following and buying Paizo products for the whole of both PF1e & PF2e runs (as well as proud owner of every Dragon magazine). I've enjoyed how they encouraged their devs. to talk to people and just feel this playtest (and last one as well) are a sad separation of that into a different mindset. It isn't bad exactly, but...

That said, I appreciate that we are still doing playtests at all and hope to hear some news mid-playtest, or at least some teasers from the team.

I'm well aware I may be flamed for this post, but I'm going to post this anyway. I miss the playtests with Dev. interactions. It has become less with more recent playtests and while I get it, they want unbiased and raw feedback, the lack of any dev. interaction on this playtest has been deafeningly silent. I miss the playtests where a dev. would occasionally pop into the forums and make a clarification on a poorly written feature or feat, or an acknowledgement of an unintended interaction, a question to induce conversation, or even a "thank you" and quick comment about some feedback.

All of these things made the playtests feel interactive and important to Paizo. The playtest going on now, with lack of any seeming interest by the dev. team just seems bland, even though it is with some extremely exciting classes and mechanics. I don't know, I just miss playtests like we had with the Summoner/Magus where it was obvious that the Paizo team was following it with great attention and fervor. Where it was clear they were proud of their creation and genuinely wanted to hear the feedback from the playtesters.

All that said, I'm sure they are taking all of our feedback and will do great things, I just can't shake how this one feels different is all. Heck, we are a month in and they still haven't even said boo on what makes it an "Impossible" playtest, not even teasingly.

I can totally understand why people who want the occult spell list are voicing their opinions, but why would anyone try to shut down others from having the option to choose between the two lists? If you don't like divine spells, then just choose to play occult.

You're right. While on the topic, I think my Fighter should have the choice to trade weapon expertise for Sneak Attack. Rage, or Exploit Vulnerability. Don't limit my choices!

Post 7 I think the damage output should be pretty good.

Before level 7 it's harder to use all your potential, but that could change in the final book if they adjust thralls.

Thos is exactly what ive seen in my actual play playtests. Pre-Level 7, the class is clunky and a little painful at times. Level 7 and beyond, it feels smooth and interesting.

I REALLY hope they adjust this in the final. I've seen nothing in my level 3 (as a player) or 5 playtests (as a GM and posted here with play-by-play) that suggest 2 thralls at that level de-balances anything.

My two cents then I'll leave. I respectfully disagree. Occult works with Necromancer theme and has most of what the Necromancer would want as has been thoroughly discussed and debated in another thread (frankly to an exhausting level).

The gaps we see in the Necromancer's toolkit, I thoroughly believe, will be filled in the book that Necromancer comes out in by no doubt adding additional on theme spells.

My breakdown:
Divine: No, as this is barrowing or being given power by a greater being. I don't like this concept for Necromancer as the Necromancer seems to me to be the concept of rigorous research and development to impact their own destiny and not rely on another entity

Primal: Nothing to do with Necromancy as a rule

Arcane: possibly, but it is more of a wide tradition and at a personal level I think Occult simply jives with the Necromancer theme better

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Unfortunately there are a lot of undead it won't work on though. Many are immune to Mental abilities and Soothe has the Mental trait. Thos includes Thralls (so no healing the special thralls with Soothe).

Soothe having the mental trait is one of those things that makes the occult list feel like a poor fit thematically

While I agree that Soothe isn't a great fit, I actually like the Occult list for Necromancer.

I have no doubt that the book in which Necromancer is released will have plenty of new and on-theme Occult spells to add to the spooky and necromancy utility and undead feel.

I'm playing in a fifth-level one-shot tomorrow, and using the chance to play a necromancer. Conveniently, I already have a necromancer raccoon who keeps skeletal minions in her extradimensional clothing-maws. That translates pretty naturally to a tanuki necromancer, so let's get started.

One-shot information: Grim Symphony, a PFS scenario set in an Ustalavian mad scientist's manor.
Martials receive 100 gp, a +1 striking weapon, +1 armor, and a magic item up to 4th level. Casters receive 100 gp, a staff (or converted coda) up to 5th level, a wand of a 2nd-rank spell, and a magic item up to 4th level.

Necromancer Ira

Ancestry: Tanuki, subbing in for raccoon.
Heritage: Steadfast, picking up Teakettle Form. This allows her to turn into a talking skull, which is a really fun trick for a necromancer.
Ancestry feats: Scorched on Cracked Mountain for first level, just being grabbed to avoid skewing playtest results too much with more of tanuki's shapeshifting. Hasty Celebration to fit the character by bursting into celebrations if one of her thralls crits.

Background is Academy Dropout because she's the least dignified of my mage trio. Dubious Knowledge suits her.

Necromancer
Bone Shaper, since she's going with skeletons.
Feats are Necrotic Bomb for a save-based focus spell and Bone Speaker to have a broader knowledge base, and to test if Necromancer can afford to take a fun feat instead of another focus spell.

Feats: Toughness, Read Psychometric Resonance for out-of-combat options, and Pickpocket for shenanigans.

Spell prep:
Cantrips: Figment, Telekinetic Hand to kind of make up for thralls being unable to do anything, Void Warp for a save-based cantrip, Shield, and Needle Darts (reflavored as bone shards) to have a 60ft. ranged option.
1st: Fear (c'mon, she's a necromancer), Illusory Disguise to disguise party members as mindless zombies - probably need to swap that out, since the staff covers it
2nd: Soothe for emergency healing, Ghoulish Cravings as an up-close debuff. Thralls...

Looking forward to your thoughts and whether you see the same things as my players did. If I remember that scenario though, I feel you'll have less issue with AoE attacks as my players did, but you'll also find Void Warp doesn't have much mileage in that scenario as it is undead heavy and Mater of Life and Death doesn't change its targeting parameters (so can't target undead or constructs with it).

That scenario is a PFS season one scenario and very fun, but also an easy one in terms of difficulty. Still stands out as a personal favorite of mine as PFS goes.

AestheticDialectic wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Why would a Necromancer ever prepare Soothe if they have access to Heal (or Harm to heal their undead thralls) ?

I really feel this would be stepping on the Divine casters' territory way too much.

MC Divine caster should be enough to fill the need for those who want it IMO.

They wouldn't and shouldn't. Heal is necromancy, soothe isn't. My take has been that the necromancer should be divine. No toes are being stepped on, necromancy is power over life and death and divine does it the best

It might have Soothe since it can heal Undead and living creatures.

Unfortunately there are a lot of undead it won't work on though. Many are immune to Mental abilities and Soothe has the Mental trait. Thos includes Thralls (so no healing the special thralls with Soothe).

I like that we can summon Thralls without some limit, beyond the actions spent and the minute duration.

If you summon too many and it becomes a hinderance to your team, that is on you. Any Necormancer worth his weight in bones wouldn't do something that foolish.

That being said, I wouldn't be oppossed to or find it themetaicaly inappropriate for a Necromancer to have a way to dispatch his thralls, likely at teh cost of an action.

I could also see Create Thrall, or a seperate cantrip, being able to make a single existing thrawl move and or attack.

I just want something cool to do with them that doesn't require a focus point. Doesn't have to be that strong, just something reliable.

Consume Thrall ALMOST scratches that itch, but it is a 1 per 10 minute thing (rightfully so). Maybe just something like

Essence Transference
1 Action
Destroy one of your thralls to give you or one of your allies 2 Temporary Hit Points that last until the end of your next turn
Heighten +1: Increase the amount of Temporary HP gained by 1

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Rowenstin wrote:

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Thanks for the feedback! I don't wanna only hone in on a small part of what you said, but IIRC isn't the Summon Thrall attack optional? You can create a Thrall, choose not to attack, then two action spell attack at no MAP right?

Yes, it's optional, and the best option if you want to use a spell with a spell attack. But it's obvious that you're giving up the possibility of dealing this extra damage, even if it's not that great. I think that incentivizes the use of spells with a save.

Of course you can choose not to attack, but then you're losing damage so your attack roll spell needs to be better than the combination of the attack from Create Thrall & whatever saving throw spell you cast. Which pushes the Necro towards picking saving throws spells over attack roll spells, if the two spells would otherwise be similar in power.

Not to mention that saving throw spells are generally considered to be a bit stronger already, but that's a whole separate issue.

100% this! Not attacking with your thrall so you can do an attack spell, basically negates part of the reason to summon the thrall. It basically makes your focus spell simply a 3 action spell, and as they are, they aren't worth three actions on their own (granted I know they can still flank, but still...)

I don't think dismissing the fact that they can flank is wise

That is not a "but still"

That is a big caps holy crap this is awesome and strong

I but the thrall attack as a more commitment no resource bread and butter option, not something I'm missing out on if I choose to go a different way.

I'm not dismissing this benefit at all. However, before level 7 you only get 1 thrall per casting to fuel your primary source of damage and control via Grave Spells. So often you are blowing them up before they can stay long enough for this in many cases.

So, what you have is that, without the attack, you basically are casting things like Bony Barrage as an affective 3 action focus spell and quite frankly none of the focus spells are tuned high enough to be worth three actions.

At least with the ones that are saves, you can get the attack for some decent (1 action) damage and then get primary effect of your Grave Spell.

Granted once you hit level 7, this dynamic changes and you have the extra thrall to provide the great flanking benefit without feeling like you are missing out on a grave spell. However, given most fights last 3 to 4 rounds, spending one round to setup multiple thralls before level 7 is often a tough pill to swallow (especially if you have two martials who can flank with each other which is often the case in my experience, but that experience may vary).

Of course now that leads to my suggestions, which I will leave in other threads, on the need to have more than 1 thrall a casting before level 7 would make the class much smoother play. But that isn't the topic here.

Rowenstin wrote:

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

Thanks for the feedback! I don't wanna only hone in on a small part of what you said, but IIRC isn't the Summon Thrall attack optional? You can create a Thrall, choose not to attack, then two action spell attack at no MAP right?

Yes, it's optional, and the best option if you want to use a spell with a spell attack. But it's obvious that you're giving up the possibility of dealing this extra damage, even if it's not that great. I think that incentivizes the use of spells with a save.

Of course you can choose not to attack, but then you're losing damage so your attack roll spell needs to be better than the combination of the attack from Create Thrall & whatever saving throw spell you cast. Which pushes the Necro towards picking saving throws spells over attack roll spells, if the two spells would otherwise be similar in power.

Not to mention that saving throw spells are generally considered to be a bit stronger already, but that's a whole separate issue.

100% this! Not attacking with your thrall so you can do an attack spell, basically negates part of the reason to summon the thrall. It basically makes your focus spell simply a 3 action spell, and as they are, they aren't worth three actions on their own (granted I know they can still flank, but still...)

I feel like my gut answer is that two thralls at once isn't too much at level 1, but 6 thralls in a turn is. So I'd be receptive to gaining one free thrall when you roll initiative maybe- but I'm also someone who would be fully happy spending turn 1 just triple casting Create Thrall for kicks

If 2 per casting is too much, I'd rather the ability I proposed so as not to have cases where you get a thrall at initiative roll and then it be dead by the time your turn comes around.

As for potentially 6 per turn, I honestly don't see much difference between lvl 1-6 doing that and level 7 doing that. In this test, as you can see from the lvl 5 encounter, adding an extra thrall per casting wouldn't have tilted the necromancer into OP at all. As it was, "Bony" was woefully less effective than any of the other three characters (and none of them were optimized by any means). Adding in an extra thrall would have at least given the character a few opportunities to feel better.

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Here's a thought. Perhaps thralls differ based on the type summoned and thus feel more mechanically useful and varied.

When you create thrall you get the initial choice of:

Skeleton - attacks when summoned
Flesh - attempts to grab when summoned
Ghost - attempts to intimidate when summoned

All would use your SA modifier and all would then be treated exactly the same after the initial roll. All of these things are things any PC can do from lvl 1 so I don't see it as OP, but it would make for some cool variety and make my thralls feel special.

If thos is too strong by some accounts, perhaps that is based on the initial Grim Facination you choose and then there are level 1 feats you can get to add the other choices.

with those I can see an issue with Ghost not interacting with MAP like the other two and, if using Demoralize rules, each creature targeted would then be immune for 10 mins

I dont see it not interacting with MAP as a problem as Demoralize is a legit 1 action tactics you or anybody can do anyway. Frankly I see it as action compression like so many other actions various classes get (thrall plus demoralize).

As to being immune for 10 minutes, that's an issue, but can be approached a few ways. If you rule it is the thrall (not Necromancer) making the Demoralize attempt, then a new thrall could do it just fine. This may be a bit too powerful though. If you rule it is the Necromancer making the Demoralize, then they would be immune, though it is similar to the Braggart Swashbucker and their Intimidation to gain Panache.

Here's a thought. Perhaps thralls differ based on the type summoned and thus feel more mechanically useful and varied.

When you create thrall you get the initial choice of:

Skeleton - attacks when summoned
Flesh - attempts to grab when summoned
Ghost - attempts to intimidate when summoned

All would use your SA modifier and all would then be treated exactly the same after the initial roll. All of these things are things any PC can do from lvl 1 so I don't see it as OP, but it would make for some cool variety and make my thralls feel special.

If thos is too strong by some accounts, perhaps that is based on the initial Grim Facination you choose and then there are level 1 feats you can get to add the other choices.

For me it is more about being able to use thralls without having to use a hero point. Something akin to Consume Thrall, but that is spammable and less powerful.

I think the water thing is a pretty thematic weakness to have.

I believe you're thinking of Vampires. I'm not sure of any lore in any medium that gives Necromancers a thematic weakness or aversion to water.

Good thing Necro is a full caster!

This is hardly a necromancer specific problem. What does a melee focused martial do in this situation? You need to use another tactic.

I don't view this as a problem. The fact that the class doesn't have one ability that solves every single problem isn't a bad thing.

100% agree. That said, I wouldn't say no to a level 8 feat or lvl 9 class feature that let thralls hover in place in the air.

LOL - say Hordemaster ten times fast and tell me it doesn't sound dirty

To me it comes down to a Recall Knowledge check. They can do Recall Knowledge about you (the Necromancer) to understand what thralls are and the likelihood that what you summon is one. Or they can Recall Knowledge on the thrall which will have a DC by level of 13 (lvl -1) to identify it.

If an enemy did this, as a GM I would probably let them do a Recall Knowledge against one of them and then be able to recognize any other thrall as a thrall (as no matter how hard you try, they won't look exactly like another undead) given they know what they are about now.

Alternatively just:

Free Action
Trigger: You roll initiative.

There's precedent for it with Gunslinger initial deeds.

I thought about that, but then that allowed for a chance the thrall dies before you get your turn.

There is precedent for feats exactly like the one I propose though. Such as:

Even the Odds
Free Action
Frequency: Once per 10 minutes
Trigger: Your turn begins

OR

Bend Time
Free Action
Frequency: Once per day
Trigger: Your turn begins

C_bastion wrote:

So on the number of Thralls created issue, do you think up to 6 thralls at level 1 would be too many?

I was wondering if something along the lines of "if you have no Thralls created by this spell, you make 1 additional Thrall when casting" would work?
That way you can't spam out too many bodies easily, but you can get the ball rolling.

I like the basic idea but tracking which thralls were created by the spell and which by abilities like Inevitable Return might cause too much headache.

How about making one extra thralls that's (even more) temporary? You create the current number plus the temporary one, which will only last until the end of your current turn. Would give you "ammunition" for your focus spells and other abilities like Draining Strike without taking up space on the battlefield.

Honestly, no, I don't think 6 thralls if one uses all three actions is too much even at level 1 given that they still make the same number of attacks, map is applied, and movement isn't much different between level 1 & 7.

That said, if Paizo believes they are too much (perhaps they plan to buff them) then my suggestion would be a once per 10 minute ability something like:

Free Action
Trigger: Your turn begins
Frequency: Once per 10 minutes
Description: Create a thrall within 30 feat.

This would be simple to implement and thus could be used to get started with 1 extra thrall once per combat. Personally I would just prefer 2 thralls per casting of create thrall, but this would help a lot if Paizo doesn't like that idea.

The prevalence of Necrotic Bomb use is a bit…narratively underwhelming. I guess, when mapped to an RPG being a Necromancer, turning your undead minions into exploding void-stuff makes sense, but it definitely feels very video-gamey. And much more akin to an Alchemist lobbing a different kind of bomb. Creat your thrall, have them attack and then…at the end of your turn…when well positioned between a bunch of enemies…blammo. And…repeat.

I agree with most of that, though I think I am fine with the fantasy of blowing up my minions. That said, you are spot-on with the prevalence of Necrotic Bomb and my players definitely felt this.

In this playthrough Fleshy's player definitely felt more powerful than Bony's player did. Bony Barrage had its moment, but still felt like he was missing out on the big trigger of Necrotic Bomb.

And to be clear, I think other, more interesting options needs to be brought up to Necrotic Bomb level rather than Necrotic Bomb taken down. Even with that option, the damage output was at around un-optimized Kineticist level and without it the damage was below even that.

One piece we talked about was how the Living Graveyard was really cool, but not level 20 cool. More options like that toned to be throughout the leveling career would be neat to have. I mean heck, most of our games spends most of it's time at levels 4-8 and we want fun variety there too.

I posted this in a similar thread, but will put here too for relevance

This came up in my playtest game Actual Play Scenario - Necromancers - Lvl 5

The players found a trapped door, but didn't have the skill to disable it. Necromancer summoned a thrall, but since the trap triggered on the door opening, all the thrall could do was stand there with it's nose on the door and stare. The players thought it was absolutely stupid that they could make the thrall attack somebody, but couldn't teach it how to simply push on a door.

This came up in my playtest game Actual Play Scenario - Necromancers - Lvl 5

The players found a trapped door, but didn't have the skill to disable it. Necromancer summoned a thrall, but since the trap triggered on the door opening, all the thrall could do was stand there with it's nose on the door and stare. The players thought it was absolutely stupid that they could make the thrall attack somebody, but couldn't teach it how to simply push on a door.