QuidEst's page

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.

I already checked with the GM, and Void Warp will be usable despite the poor future-proofing on the targeting.

Even core can have some very... call them "zany" options, maybe?

Folks have given some good advice here following your request, so I don't have anything more to contribute on that front. One suggestion I have is laying out the feeling you're going for in the game to players. Set the mood, set the scene, give a feeling for it. Then, have players come to you with their ideas and have them tell you how they think they'll work well with it. If you're describing some adventurous dungeon delving followed by the members of the group unwinding at a tavern discussing how to spend their riches, you probably won't get a lot of teddy bear warrior builds. If somebody comes to you with a Magus build, you can say honestly that tracking that class is tough for you, and you'd prefer something a little less burst-y.

You can definitely go with the approach your initial post suggests! This is just a way to go about it in more of a session 0 style.

It feels really good that these are happening. The original post about the new errata was a very exciting announcement, followed by a little too much excitement with the OGL mess. Hitting the point where we are actually getting them feels like things are back on track and Paizo is moving forward.

As for my favorite errata... probably the balance being struck by the dragonkin natural armor change. It works better than the "perma-medium" armors, but I won't feel cheesy taking it to get that unarmored feel.

- Necromancy is one of the most reliable routes to avoiding death, apart from communicable undeath. It's also a route to immortality that avoids risk of disease and infirmity. (Playable undead rules notwithstanding.) Plenty of people want to avoid death.
- Necromancy greatly expands the possibilities for keeping a loved one around. Of the non-undeath routes to immortality, very few allow bringing someone else along for the ride.
- Avoiding one's afterlife might be intentional. Even the "neutral" options aren't really a lot of fun, and all involve ego-death and fueling the overall system.
- Undead are the easiest source of free work. Black market undead labor is probably very profitable. Constructs are difficult and expensive, and elementals have far more will of their own.
- Necromancy is legal some places. Kaer Maga, Geb, Nidal.
- The rules for players aren't how the setting actually works. People in- world can be born with an aptitude for necromancy and nothing else, or obtain necromantic power from a source or situation in their life. If it's necromancy or being powerless, plenty of people would choose necromancy.
- Necromancy can mess a person up something fierce. If you want revenge, it's hard to beat necromancy for the amount of suffering it can inflict, being able to affect even the soul.
- Academics. Understanding necromancy can lead to useful insights and discoveries, especially since its reputation means it's under-reoresented in research.
- Someone might need to deal with undead anyway. Osirian, Ustalav, Geb, etc. all have plenty of undead whether one is pursuing necromancy or not.

Mechanically, the Necromancer class potentially has the most focus points per ten minutes of any class, representing reliable, plentiful power. They aren't beholden to anything for power, which is a point in favor for many people in-world.

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 are skeletal and won't satisfy the corpse requirements to remove the debuff.
3rd: Rouse Skeletons because it's too thematic to pass up.

Free items:
Trickster's Mandolin converted from coda to staff (losing all special abilities), giving Prestidigitation, Illusory Disguise, and Ventriloquism.
Wand of Persistent Servant, allowing leaving a "bound spirit" to carry out a task.
Sleeves of Storage, explaining where all the skeletons for thralls are kept.

Notable purchased items:
Rhythm Bone, a magical bone single-use recording device.

Build thoughts: It still feels like there's a missing feat or focus spell. Taking a first-level feat in a fourth-level slot never feels great, but the second-level feat has to be getting up to two focus points. Maybe lose the subclass general feat, as nice as it is, and just give everyone Necrotic Bomb? Otherwise, looking forward to playing her. The Bone Shaper focus spell looks a lot better once it gets to scale a bit- level one is sad.

Oh, I misread that the first time! Yeah, that's a lot more useful. Definitely needs a reflavor for the character (and I would even say most characters taking it), but occasionally saving an action for ranged application is worth grabbing. Thanks; I appreciate the correction!

*cracks knuckles* All right, let's go.

Building a 5th level Runesmith for a one-shot. I haven't looked quite as closely at this class, but I know that having a free hand is an issue. We'll go with Kholo so that we can have a d8 bite attack, a shield hand, and a free hand. The Int/Str combo works well, and runed-up teeth are a nice visual.

Level 1:

Kholo: Crunch is what makes the build work, so grabbing that. For heritage, we'll have one hand occupied, so not Dog Kholo. Runes don't take up our MAP, so let's go ahead and grab Great Kholo.

Background: Considering Gladiator, but nothing in the background is useful for the character. Let's go with Printer- picked up some runic knowledge that way.

Class feat: Let's start with the feats, and then worry about runes. We have four options to pick from. Backup Runic Enhancement is useless for us because we're going unarmed and can't be disarmed. Engraving Strike is useless for us because we're going unarmed and it doesn't support that. Remote Detonation is useless for us because we're going unarmed and we don't have any Dex to speak of anyway. Rune-Singer is useless for us because our Crafting is always going to be better than Performance and we've built specifically so we always have a free hand. ... So, there aren't any first level feats that do anything for us. Backup Runic Enhancement, I guess. We can at least cast it on somebody else or something in an emergency? Please add a first level feat for shields or unarmed attacks!

Runes: We're going to have six, so let's pick those out. The two shield runes are good picks since we're expecting to be using ours a lot. Whetstones is what we'll be using on our teeth. Let's see... are diacritic runes a separate application? Ah- there's a capstone feat to make them separate, so no. We need at least two offensive runes to stack up on enemies, so let's grab fire and thunder (looks like the only damaging ones, and the only other offensive one is a team liability). For the sixth rune, let's see... we only get three etched runes, and we're probably going teeth and shield for two. I don't know the party, so let's get the reapply diacritic. We can put it on our teeth to be able to spend two actions for 12d6 against a target once per fight.

Skills: Society from background, Crafting and Arcana from the class, Athletics, and we'll fill in the rest as needed. We'll be reflavoring all the runes as arcane. We know a ton of languages thanks to Multilingual.

Level 2:

Class feat: All right, now we can take a real class feat! Fortifying Knock will let us raise our shield and get a second shield rune on it at the same time.

Skill feat: We get Magical Crafting for free at this level. We'll also grab Titan Wrestler so that Athletics doesn't get wasted on bigger enemies.

Level 3:

Grab Toughness or Fleet, and increase Athletics.

Level 4:

Class feat: Definitely can't afford to invest in Intimidate for Terrifying Invocation. Don't need Transpose Etching because I'm not building around it. Artist's Attendance is... weird? If I have a rune on myself, it's stride twice and apply a rune on a different creature, so I guess that works better than I thought on the initial read. Let's go with that for the initial combat charge.

Skill feat: Eyes of the City or Courtly Graces for more out-of-combat options.

Level 5:

Let's go with Ask the Bones. Once per day free action to recall knowledge is some really nice action compression on a busy class.

Thoughts:

Man, having no relevant first level feats is a real bummer! I'm glad there are runes that work for unarmed strikes, but please keep them in mind for the feats as well. I feel like Runesinger could easily be cut for space because it just lets you have a way worse modifier? Backup Runic Enhancement is never fun or interesting to take; it's only ever useful if something has gone wrong.

If the class isn't going to have any subclasses, the low level feats need to pop. As it is, building the character lowered my inspiration, not fed into it.

Xenocrat wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Curiously for skeleton thralls SF2 grenades are less dangerous than PF2 bombs with splash damage once that granades at last allows a reflex save

" A thrall has 1 Hit Point, is automatically hit by attacks, and automatically fails all saving throws. "

Yeah, but he means "Whenever one or more of your thralls would take damage from an effect requiring a Reflex save, you can attempt a DC 15 flat check. If you succeed, you choose one thrall to take no damage, and on a critical success none of the thralls take the damage." I'd say that one remaining thrall is little comfort.

Ah, wait. DC 15. No, no thralls is even less comfort.
I'm still mystified why they consider DC15 flat check abilities useful. Like DC15 to not lose a spell...

Honestly, it'd feel better as a proper 33% chance instead of 30%. Might houserule it it a 5 or 6 on the d6. It's not much of a nudge to the odds, but it feels a lot better. It's also easy to mistake DC15 as one-in-four, when that would actually be DC16.

It's a lot of space to support that. "Only ghosts" implies "only skeletons" and "only zombies", so you need three sets of parallel options. "Only arcane" is a factor of four. It might be possible, but it might be at the cost of something else.

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?

Mindless creatures are... mindless. Finding a strategy to distract a mindless creature from the party is only mildly easier with thralls than without. It also won't work on one of the biggest categories, undead, because they're more interested in attacking the living.

My friend and I laughed about how screwed Necromancer is if they're dropped into Starfinder, what with cheap flight, better ranged options, longer default combat range, weapon-based AoEs, the move from splash damage bombs to wider area grenades, and even the fact that the value of "third action spell attack" is undercut by the simple guns. It would be a lot of fun to fight one as a Soldier, though.

I'd love to see what a Starfinder Necrotechnician or whatever it'd be called would look like, though.

They specify in the subclass section that just because you focus on one type, it doesn't limit you to JUST that type.

Oh, right- I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder!

Spirits fade in, naturally. Alternatively, shine a ghostly lantern over a spot, revealing them.

For skeletons, bones come rattling out of a bag and assemble themselves on the way to the summoning spot.

Zombies stumbling out of shadows that they couldn't have fit in, or, since summoning adjacent to someone is so common, climbing out of someone's shadow.

I already had to come up with a necromancer character with some similar constraints, and she carried her skeletons in extradimensional maws.

Would they fall?

I'm just reading over the Thrall sidebar, and the spell, and the description in the text. None of it mentions movement speed. and as someone pointed out we are allowed to flavor them as spirits... So even at level 1... would they necessarily fall? I mean, Even if we suppose they linger in the air, they still can't chase the target down, or anything. So would a suspended spirit thrall really be that wild of a supposition?

Sure they'd fall; they're creatures without abilities to stay in midair. If a spirit doesn't have a fly speed or levitation ability, it's still stuck on the ground. A GM might reasonably decide to make a home rule otherwise, of course. For the playtest, though, it's probably best to go with what's written there.

If spirit thralls are the only ones able to float in midair, than that's the only subclass for using its features in airborne combat.

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.

The difference here is that a Melee martial just needs Flight cast to solve the problem. Every other class resolves the issue by getting flight, even temporarily.

Necromancer doesn't. If you can fly, you still lose access to almost all your class features above ground. It's okay to consider their limited spells enough, but I think losing their main mechanic with no way to access it is a big enough problem that it could benefit from addressing.

Create Thrall plus Reach of the Dead let's you put one Thrall at 30 feet, the next at 60 and one more at 90.

Your Focus spells also add to your effective range.
Dead Weigh should be very effective against flyers.

Putting something far away on the ground isn't the problem- putting it high up is the issue. In your example, Create Thrall would create one thirty feet in the air, and it would plummet to the ground and be destroyed. Your second action wouldn't benefit from Reach of the Dead.

Dead Weight can only target a creature within fifteen feet of a thrall, so any creature flying 20 feet up (pretty normal for flight) will be out of reach.

Well at last is a way to avoid MAP. Once that Create a Thrall and let it fall over an enemy is a reflex save you can safely use a use another thrall to Strike when you are able to create 2 thralls.

The problem is that a lvl 7 enemy probably will able to succeeded or critically succeeded the save.

Also if your thrall is a skeleton there's a DC 15 chance to it survives.

The skeleton can't survive because a falling creature doesn't get a save. If somebody fell on a skeleton, the skeleton might survive.

As an addendum, I'd love a feat that allows thralls to be summoned who can hang in water or in air. I invision it as a single feat, maybe around levels 4 or 6, which grants first the ability to summon a thrall into water or some other liquid, and then call up a thrall in mid-air later on, around the levels when flying enemies are more common and ancestries are gaining the ability to perma-fly, probably around level 10-ish.

It feels like it'd be very tax-y to me... I've got another thread on Necromancer's issues with flying enemies, and this feels like you'd need to take it to solve the issue. That said, it's better than not having any solution to the problem.

Necromancer has a lot of ground control, but there aren't any flying thralls and ranges are both limited and usually from a thrall. An enemy hovering at a very casual 35 feet up is immune to just about everything the class can throw at them outside their spells. The class just seems to shut down at that point.

In another topic of discussion, the question came up about mid-air summons. As far as I can tell, it's not something that PF2 prevents like PF1 did. Thralls can't fly (can't even move, generally), so they're just going to drop. A falling creature is a basic reflex save of DC 15 to avoid taking half their fall damage. With a 30ft range, adjacent creatures are saving against 7 damage, while anyone further away is saving vs. less. Or is it a save to avoid half of one damage, since the thrall only takes one damage from the fall?

It's also a way for Flesh Magicians to just create difficult terrain directly, which seems reasonable to be able to do.

Falling skeletons and zombies feel a little silly, so it's probably best if this isn't a secret low-level damage option. I'd prefer any fixes to low-level play to be a little less goofy.

QuidEst wrote:

Hmm. I thought PF2 had locked down the midair summons, but it looks like that was 1e. It's a DC 15 save vs. 5-7 damage, so it's not really a problem by fifth level, but it's better than attacks at low levels. Might be worth getting looked at, alongside the limited options vs flying enemies.

While a super rare appeal, Flesh Magicians may want to rain thralls down due to their passive of destroyed thralls creating difficult terrain, lol.

What's even more hilarious is that the terrain explicitly lasts 10 min, so a FM-Necro with setup time may genuinely want to rain down a serious quantity of corpses before the party lures the foes into a fight.

Yeah- it's enough that I would be tempted to make a copy of the cantrip and rename it to "Rain of Flesh" just so it feels a little less goofy than air-dropping zombies.

Hmm. I thought PF2 had locked down the midair summons, but it looks like that was 1e. It's a DC 15 save vs. 5-7 damage, so it's not really a problem by fifth level, but it's better than attacks at low levels. Might be worth getting looked at, alongside the limited options vs flying enemies.

It doubles your readiness speed instead of tripling it. I don't think it's so bad that it should be removed. Without the feat, you can use two focus points every ten minutes. With the feat, you can use four every ten minutes. That's double the undead labor per day, twice as many troops supplied with undead armor, or an extra ten minute activity like Treat Wounds. Not everyone needs it, but it's good for the option to exist.

If you create a thrall in midair it will immediately fall and be destroyed by fall damage. You won't have time to use it as a source for a spell. Things don't Wile E. Coyote in the air until the turn ends, and thralls can't move, let alone have a fly speed they can use.

The problem with a necromancy list is that it would be too locked down. Right now, the occult list means your necromancer can turn invisible to flee when there's an angry mob, magically disguise an undead minion as a living creature, and use illusions to call up visions of an enemy's departed loved ones (or living loved ones, to claim they're recently departed). They have a wider selection of curses and can use telekinetic spells as spirits flinging things about.

Charisma doesn't really do anything for a necromancer, though. It's not useful at all on a big chunk of undead, it doesn't provide information about them, and it doesn't help with rituals. If it were more of a spell-slinger, I could see scaring people before cursing them. With two slots per level and tight action economy, though, I just don't see that fitting in. Psychic has a strong reason for an emotive vs. analytic approach.

Intelligence covers undead rituals already via Occultism, leaving it only missing recalling knowledge about them. The baked-in Undead Lore solves that.

QuidEst wrote:

Commander playtest had the animal companion feat line because it needed to test the unique banner interactions out, and because a mounted Commander could be an important playstyle difference.

That makes a lot of sense, thank you!

I'm def gonna point every Necromancer I play with towards the Undead Master archetype - I don't know who would say no to Cool Skeleton Riding Horse

I really recommend pointing them to the zombies instead. All the skeletal options have 4hp/level, so having it constantly dying out from under you is a problem, especially since it's a full week of downtime (not just adventuring) to get it back. Even if the zombies aren't as cool, have lower AC, and get less speed, getting around double the HP is so much more important that it's not a real choice. Put another way: every hit against a skeletal mount hits it as hard as a crit against a zombie mount.

Kekkres wrote:

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

I mentioned this in another thread, but I feel as if "a single, more unique undead that I can have a dynamic with" is a big character fantasy/roleplay dynamic the class doesnt currently support.

.... that's a summoner, or any class with the undead master archetype, we already have that

Sorry, I thought I emphasized that I don't mean that I want it purely mechanically. It's not even a matter of "using someone's dead loved ones against them" (??), I just was thinking of my experience with players and what they tend to want. Players who make a lot of little companions or fellas tend to want to have at least one "personality" they frequently interact with, so I was thinking about it's roleplay benefits.

People are right to point out that Undead Master exists, and probably won't be in the playtest cause they know the power budget.

However, I actually didn't even know the Undead Master archetype existed! I don't pick up every book, so I fully thought I would have to reskin an animal companion. Even if there's not a class feat for it, I think it might be nice to point a newer player towards the archetype through a ribbon or something.

(Wait, so why does the Commander playtest have the animal companion feat line?)

Commander playtest had the animal companion feat line because it needed to test the unique banner interactions out, and because a mounted Commander could be an important playstyle difference.

Blave wrote:

Since the remaster you always have as many focus points as you have focus spells. It's no longer spelled out in each individual class or feat.

You can absolutely go up to 3 focus spells as a necromancer. The problem is that you only start with one as a focus-based class and that you never get a bigger pool unless you pick up more focus spells. This will most likely happen eventually for pretty much all necromancers but dependong on your feat priority, your lower level will have you pretty focus starved.

Consume Thrall is barely a bandaid on a severed arm. Spending two actions in combat to regain a single focus point doesn't mesh well with the action economy of a caster.

Okay, I haven't had much play time with the remaster rules, so I did not know this, thank you. I do think the Consume Thrall should upscale as the necromancer levels up to let them fill out to their maximum pool though at higher levels, even if they do still limit how often they use the ability

That would be busted. As it is, Consume Thrall turns the class into a pseudo four-point focus pool class. That's a little better than the various once-a-day abilities to regain a focus point, but not by much. If it refilled their focus pool, it'd be a six-point focus pool, and that's way outside expectations.

They actually point out that you can and should be using thralls to trap check.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, they point out that you can use thralls to disarm a trap that the party has found, not to find the traps. But I probably shouldn't have gone into the traps discussion in the first place; it's kind of a tangent.

How about unlimited casting of Phantasmal Minion?

I think that would be powerful, but combat limited.

That's exactly the sort of thing I'd love, yeah.

So, the first step for the playtest will be me building out my character from Blood Lords who was a non-caster necromancer.

Vin Barlow was a gnoll from the Mana Wastes sick of just scraping by and living off whatever nasty creatures could be hunted down and burned into some semblance of edibility. He moved to Geb and got some work with the construction guild. Clandestinely, he started performing rituals to tie his hammer to the construction projects themselves, drawing out the secrets the stones held in them. It was enough to make him quite knowledgeable and a passable ritualist. Filled with questionable notions of the gnoll rulers of the area predating Nex and Geb's arrival, he sought to obtain a life of luxury, attended by undead servants and eating inexpensive food prepared by immortal chefs with centuries of experience. After an untimely death, he got an off-the-books resurrection from the Church of Zon-Kuthon in exchange for his worship (however transactional). He'd impressed them earlier with his ability to make undead feel pain. The secrets of the stones shifted to secrets of the shadows, and he mostly paid his debts by inflicting pain rather than enduring it.

Vin was a Thaumaturge (weapon implement primary) with Undead Master free archetype. Wide-ranging knowledge thanks to Diverse Lore, some undead creation rituals, and a scorpion whip reflavored to a spiked chain. His undead mount was four skeletons carrying a throne, reflavored from zombie mount because skeletal mount is way too fragile for combat.

This isn't a particularly one-to-one rebuild, because Vin's build was the best workaround I could do at the time. The overarching goal is one of hedonistic luxury and undead minions to boss around.

---

As a Necromancer proper, Vin would be Int-based instead of Cha, which means grabbing Courtly Graces to still fill similar social roles. Undead Lore puts in a lot of work in the campaign, along with Society and Occultism. Int base works better with kholo than Cha, so he gets a free Str boost at the expense of Wis- fine by me.

1st level:
Grim Fascination: Bone Shaper. Zombies make for unsightly and unhygienic servants, and spirits can't do much. That gives one focus spell, Fleet, and the thralls have a 30% survival rate for AoEs. Well, for one of them to survive at any rate. We get Undead Lore (equivalent to a good background selection at this level), and we can damage undead with void spells. Will need GM permission to use this feature in Geb, because it says that it does vital damage instead, which is illegal, but that's probably fine.

So how does level one look? Well, we can make a d6 attack at thirty feet, which is like a weak Kineticist. We have one focus spell which is a fifteen foot line from a thrall. It's an attack roll, so... we really don't want to use it on the same round we summon. It's a d8 instead of a d6. That feels so bad, I might rethink the subclass choice entirely, just like I had to go with zombies instead of skeletons for the mount in the old build.

What else do we have? One prepared spell per day, and cantrips. Uff, level one feels bad. Let's go look at zombies... We get Toughness, an equally good feat. Thralls leave difficult terrain. The focus spell reduces movement, immobilizes, or grapples on a crit fail. Unfortunately, these all end with a single point of damage. Trading two/three actions for one attack action? Ehhh... maybe. Looks like level one is just going to suck regardless. It really feels like Necrotic Bomb should be a freebie so you have a good, reliable option.

Combat cantrips need to be save-based, so that'll be Void Warp and Haunting Hymn. GM permission will be needed to target undead with Void Warp.

2nd level:
As a focus-point class, I need something good to do with my focus points. Bone Speaker or Conceal Spell would be thematic and fun, but I just can't afford to go until fourth level with a bad focus spell and a pool size of one. Necrotic Bomb is some good save-based damage with a useful shape. It's weird that Mastery of Life and Death isn't optional- if I'm an undead necromancer detonating a thrall next to me, I have to damage myself.

With the addition of the second focus spell, the class seems more where it needs to be. Vin can summon a thrall, have it attack, and detonate it. That's twice per fight, after which he needs to start using his two real spells, cantrips, or try to fit in a Consume Thrall. I'm a little bummed that it feels so mandatory to take that.

3rd level:
Reaction thralls on death! It's just fun.

4th level:
Body Shield looks fun, but with one thrall per action, that's a bit impractical right now. Bony Barrage is nice, but cones are hard to place, and again, two thralls is a bit steep right now. Let's go for the old Vin flavor and grab Bone Speaker.

6th level:
Bone Burst, easy call. Next level, we're getting two thralls, and this doesn't take focus points.

8th level:
Conglomerate of Limbs. Big summon to muck up the battlefield and lock people down, plus we hit three focus points.

10th level:
Lifesense, I think? Hmm. It's that or go all the way back to second-level feats and grab Conceal Spell.

12th level:
Reinforced Skeleton or Vital Conduit, depending on what I settled on.

14th level:
We're moving past where the game ended. We've got a few spells here- five thralls that deal a little bit of chip damage on attacks, or a one-action save-vs.-frightened. Those both seem underwhelming for a 14th level focus spell? I know Skeletal Lancers is good action economy and makes thralls, but a successful save against 7d12 is still equal to four lancer hits, and that's a 2nd level feat.

16th level:
Desperate Revival is a terrible choice in Blood Lords. Effortless Concentration, probably- it's just such a good deal, even with so few slots.

18th level:
Ectoplasmic Aura is an easy pick, since I'm not trying to wade into melee.

20th level:
Should Living Graveyard force more saves? If it's just initially, then it's a pretty bad deal. Perfected Thrall makes good use of Effortless Concentration. Oh, but as a thrall it shares MAP with Vin... I guess it's a second 10th-rank slot, then?

---

Overall... Necromancer didn't do much at all to fulfill any dreams of undead-supplied leisure. It feels like human Necromancers are the ones getting the full experience, and everybody else is making cuts to catch up. An attack-roll focus spell shouldn't be one of the starting options, because of how anti-synergistic it is with the core class feature, and the flesh starting focus spell shouldn't be brushed off with a point of damage.

I needed a little more from the class. Another focus spell included by default, a fun out-of-combat feature... I'll need to try it in play to see if the actual play experience feels better, because it's entirely possible I'm just dismissing the thrall action too much. At the same time, it feels like I'm also brushing over how with one flying or long-range enemy, and everything falls apart.

QuidEst wrote:

Ah, I should be more clear: while Witch can absolutely send their familiar for trap-checking, that's a once-per-day thing. PF2 wouldn't give you a familiar that respawns immediately after being killed, or an at-will movable body that sets off traps.

Yet, the description of what a necromancer does during exploration mode says that they do exactly that.

Out of combat simple traps are a bit of a trap option (pun intended). Either the trap is powerful enough to one-shot a PC from the Massive Damage rules, or it is a trivial speed bump that costs the party nothing more than a couple of 10 minute activities to recover the HP lost.

It says using one to set off a trap that you spotted, which seems intentional- you can't have the thrall walk down the hall to set them off, but you (and the rest of the party) can keep an eye out, and use a thrall instead of rolling to disarm.

I don't really care much about the traps; I just want my undead to be able to do little tasks. Paizo might need to balance that against "but that would invalidate all the traps we built into our adventures", so I'm just trying to think of ways to avoid the problem.

QuidEst wrote:

familiars

bingo. Also Undead Companions. And some or all of that would probably appear in the release anyway. But it already exists.

Familiars are too small to get the door, etc., and having used undead companions, they're very combat-focused and usually on cooldown after being destroyed. Both can kinda fill this role, but it'd be nice for the class to support it more natively.

QuidEst wrote:

- Yes, there's some cognitive dissonance involved in allowing this without allowing trap checking. (Necromancers should also never walk down a dungeon hallway without sending a disposable undead ahead, but that's not something PF2 balance would ever allow.)

Um... Why not? Are you sure about that?

Ah, I should be more clear: while Witch can absolutely send their familiar for trap-checking, that's a once-per-day thing. PF2 wouldn't give you a familiar that respawns immediately after being killed, or an at-will movable body that sets off traps.

This is a very petty point, but I play petty characters. Being a necromancer means being able to wave your hand and some shambling corpse, skeletal servitor, or spectral shade will pour you a goblet of wine. They don't necessarily need to be able to do anything fancy, but I should be able to have menial out-of-combat stuff done without a spell slot. If I have a reason to be casting Phantasmal Minion, then something is off.

- Absolutely, I can ask the GM for this. Almost any of them will say yes, outside of PFS. It's a lot more satisfying to have the class itself support that, and might help the "video game necromancer" feel by giving some roleplay options.
- Yes, there's some cognitive dissonance involved in allowing this without allowing trap checking. (Necromancers should also never walk down a dungeon hallway without sending a disposable undead ahead, but that's not something PF2 balance would ever allow.) But we already have something like that for familiars, so I'm not too worried about that.

Maybe one special thrall per day can be made well enough for this? No duration, takes simple commands outside combat. Then if it's sent to check for traps, it's gone for the day like a Witch's familiar. Or the "attack" option of the cantrip can be an interact or manipulate out of combat.

Necromancer Weapon and Armor prof?

Simple (with support for some martial weapons as an option) and light, from what I read.

Thrilled to have some early info!

- The very temporary nature of the thralls means my thoughts of reflavoring it to a brutally callous enchanter are not gonna work.
- I really hope we get some kind of interact action option. While I can just flavor things, it feels important to be able to have your undead servitors pour you wine (even if it doesn't save actions). Failing that, Undead Master free archetype does the job. There's just something fun about wrenching a being into unlife for some mundane task.
- One minute, one action, up to four per action... Level 19, you can have as many as 120 thralls out if you're just trying to prove a point. Yeah, that feels like a legit undead horde of you just need to have them look imposing. But even at first level, having up to thirty is enough to pull some bluffs. At the same time, that's so action-intensive that practical combat numbers will be a lot lower.

I'm expecting Runesmith to actually lean towards a remastered Alchemist resource model. Long-term runes handed out at the start of the day to allies, and a replenishing pool of short-term runes mainly used to slap onto enemies in fights.

Seeing people mention "how much feature space is available to thralls", my personal prediction is that thrall power/utility/option space is largely determined by how many feats you dump into it. A small base option or two (blow them up, plus "have them tackle somebody" for physical thralls and "do something spirity" for incorporeal thralls), and then plenty of feats that add more things you can do with them and/or improve their effectiveness in some way.

QuidEst wrote:

even outside the premise of rarity not being a proxy for power- it's two systems with different balance assumptions. "Investigator multiclass on Operative in a bug-hunt oneshot" is probably the sort of thing I wouldn't be allowing cross-pollination for.

Not disagreeing or anything, just want to point out that if we take a look at all classes in PF2 currently, Investigator is probably the one most likely to be brought over for its narrative function. Investigations in SF2 are even more common than in PF2, and we should probably get prepared for this exact discussion.

Oh, definitely. The type of hypothetical described, bringing Investigator multiclass into a non-investigation one-shot on Operative? That is something I'd nix.

QuidEst wrote:

So, how would I actually handle this based on the premise? I would give free-action study against any target the Operative has already aimed at that turn. That way, there's always some action being spent on setup (but generally not two), and switching off the studied target comes at the cost of not getting the Aim benefits.

This is an *excellent* suggestion.

Thanks!

The problem with making DaS a free action specifically against the target of an Operative's Aim is that many of the Operative's feats blend Aim and Strike into the same activity, e.g. Weakening Shot, Double Tap, Hampering Shot, and so on. I would go as far as to say that the Operative pushes the player quite heavily to pick at least one, if not several of these feats, because they turn your basic rotation of Aiming and Striking into something that can do a little extra. By the time you could actually use DaS, your main Strike would already have been said and done, and you'd already have committed to a target with Aim.

I think "free action DaS, aim at one of two targets based on the result, sniper rifle shot, reload and move" is too strong to have always available. Obviously, I think adding a free debuff on top of that is more of a problem. To me, this is a feature of my suggestion- if you want to use the more powerful Operative metastrikes, you're either forgoing your fortune effect or you're paying an appropriate action. Heck, for non-sniper weapons, checking if that third action would hit before deciding if you want to shoot or not is still a useful tool. (Or, it's a regular game where free action DaS is only available some of the time based on the ongoing investigations, so there's less need for a custom restriction like this.)

This falls most solidly under "reject the premise" for me- but I'll still answer assuming the premise as well, since that's what premises are for. Combining SF2 and PF2 stuff is a special case, even outside the premise of rarity not being a proxy for power- it's two systems with different balance assumptions. "Investigator multiclass on Operative in a bug-hunt oneshot" is probably the sort of thing I wouldn't be allowing cross-pollination for.

But! That's not the question, and hypotheticals can be stand-ins for more nuanced situations.

Q1: Tough one... The problem is that "one action" is maybe too steep of a cost, while "free action" is very cheap for what is effectively an at-will Sure Strike. (Just swap targets if you would miss.) Other possibilities include allowing a sham investigation but then requiring commitment to it (e.g. "How many bugs will I kill?", but losing track means that the bugs can't help answer that anymore because there's no total to add to), finding some compromise that strikes a balance between the two action-wise, and finding some compromise that limits which targets get free action rolls for. I would not allow an unconditional free-action study against all targets, though.

Q2: Yeah, that's busted! Free action, study a target to see if you'll hit, optionally aim (against that target or another), shoot with Fighter accuracy with possible bonus damage, and reload while moving.

Q3: Get the best damage (or high crit damage) weapon with multiple shots. Go crit-fishing with study, and follow up with aim.

So, how would I actually handle this based on the premise? I would give free-action study against any target the Operative has already aimed at that turn. That way, there's always some action being spent on setup (but generally not two), and switching off the studied target comes at the cost of not getting the Aim benefits. It also fits thematically- looking down the sniper barrel and determining if the shot will hit, then either taking the shot, or pivoting to a more opportune target without the benefit of careful aim.

A few thoughts from looking over the mechanics again:
- Having the spell prepared or known means automatic recognizing the spell, so really common things are probably reflexively recognized without somebody bothering to pay attention to the subtle differences.
- Identifying a spell as an action is a Recall Knowledge check, but using a feat to do it as a reaction is much more specific about always using the skill corresponding to the tradition, with being untrained capping the result at failure. In-world, it's probably a question of how many people are real specialists at recognizing spells- those are the ones who would spot something off.

So, I imagine anyone who is really focused on the identification of spells would be able to spot the ruse quickly without much doubt. There probably aren't many of those, though. As a GM, I'd almost certainly allow the regular Recall Knowledge action to use Religion to ID a spell that somebody is trying to make look like it was cast divinely. So in most cases, I imagine it would come down to the spells themselves.

- Given that Soothe is occult only and really recognizable (lots of occult casters have it, and healing not being recognized as Heal is also notable), Razmir is probably seen as being one of the many deities that gives Soothe as a spell. There are nineteen other deities or pantheons that give Soothe, and that's before any additions in the new book. Throw in some edict about healing the mind as well as the body, and it's not really too suspicious. Illusion spells are another big thing that occult has set apart from divine, but those tend to have the Subtle trait and various protections from detection.
- There are 254 spells overlapping divine and occult, and 307 spells that occult has but divine doesn't. A competent Razmiran priest is going to at least favor the overlap. Soothe is necessary to address the glaring omission of Heal, and most people won't look too closely.

If you're somebody in the setting, it's probably obvious from outside Razmiran that something is up. But that could be "Razmir is just a cover by Norgorberites", "Razmir is an unholy god", "Razmir is a god of deception", or "Razmir is faking being a god". The external evidence is much more in the nature of drug exports, foreign policy, etc. A priest of Razmir having a few occult exclusive spells can be explained away by those being deity-granted, and I understand that the archetype has some built-in fake healing. Since I think you'd need a real specialist to spot it being the wrong kind of casting, the exact nature of the ruse is probably drowned out by all the external propaganda.

*goes to start writing a few missing deities* Wait, no, 2e specifically.

Yeah, the cheat-sheet is nice, especially with the categories all laid out.

Great work from both the author and narrator of the audiobook! I enjoyed how different elements of the game were worked in very naturally, as well as the overall writing style. That said, I can see why Paizo hasn't written full stories with the iconics- they feel a bit flatter for fitting certain character archetypes so well. For all the depth of backstory, Ezren is still a wizardy wizard who wizards, because that's what he was designed to be. Same for the other three protagonists. Not something that would stop me from recommending it, but I'll be happy if there is a return to original character protagonists in future books.

QuidEst wrote:

I can't believe that Paizo has licensed an official crossover with Mission Impossible (the 1966 television series, not the now better-known Tom Cruise movies)! Since I can't believe it, I think it's probably something else.

The capitalization definitely seems intentional, though.

Possibly to do with the Impossible Lands, perhaps?

Look, if you want to make reasonable predictions, sure.

But seriously, I'm excited to see what it is! Impossible Lands has some great stuff.

I can't believe that Paizo has licensed an official crossover with Mission Impossible (the 1966 television series, not the now better-known Tom Cruise movies)! Since I can't believe it, I think it's probably something else.

The capitalization definitely seems intentional, though.

Object familiars have something that I think should be mentioned. Versatile Form is effectively discounted for object familiars, because they get Construct without needing Tough.

It might also be worth mentioning patrons that can sometimes skip Animated. Familiars with long range abilities or ones targeting your own space can ignore it a little better- mostly Paradox of Opposites, Wilding Steward, and Mosquito Witch.

I'm also just chiming in on the calling and binding matter. Heralds are meant to be called; that's why they were designed in the first place- as a representative of a god with low enough power to be called (and even bound, with probable consequences) by PCs.

Yeah, it's surprising that Aroden let his followers bind her. That's a big part of the problem, and another thing in a long list of Why Aroden Wasn't a Great Guy.

---

As for why Geb would turn her into a lich when that's riskier- it clearly wasn't all that risky for him based on the information available at the time, and a mindless undead wouldn't have accomplished anything of what he wanted. He was able to force Arazni to run his country for over a thousand years. If Arazni's plan had gone as she'd intended, she'd have just been unbound from lichdom and dead. Geb would have gotten away with it consequence-free. The whole "surviving as a full-fledged deity" was a surprise to both of them, and trying to plan around people becoming gods means never getting anything done.

I feel like it's important to remember that the lores aren't there as a big feature. They're filling two roles: one is as "tags" for wandering feats to allow forward compatibility, and the other is addressing the weird situation where a spirit of something doesn't give you any knowledge of that thing. It's fine if a spirit doesn't make you on par with a specialized gnome Investigator, just so long as you aren't ignorant about the topic.

If the lores were also wisdom-keyed, there would be a strong incentive to take spirits for broadly applicable lores. It would push the class towards more of a spirit detective.

"Usually the creature or effect forcing the movement chooses the path the victim takes. If you're pushed or pulled, you can usually be moved through hazardous terrain, pushed off a ledge, or the like. Abilities that reposition you in some other way can't put you in such dangerous places unless they specify otherwise. In all cases, the GM makes the final call if there's doubt on where forced movement can move a creature."

To me, this is pretty clear. Hazardous terrain isn't something you can reposition somebody into. You need to push or pull specifically. I take push and pull to mean away/towards the aggressor, generally requiring the aggressor to move to another spot if they want to change the direction the target moves in. Given the forced movement rules, I also take "obstacle" in the reposition rules to mean "any hazard".