bro1017's page

Reaper Weapon Familiarity: It's almost better on martial people dipping into Necromancer, unlocking advanced axes. But my main gripe is that these weapon proficiencies don't have much reason to be locked behind a feat - namely, what is preventing Necromancers from just knowing how to swing Scythes at level 1? (I know the comparisons don't necessarily work 1-to-1, but all Clerics get a special weapon for free and all Bards get every martial weapon for free. It's not unprecedented.)

Draining Strike: You've touched upon a common trend here. Muscle Barrier and Body Shield are also forms of early-game survivability feats, all of which require Thralls. Presumably, you're playing a melee build to perform melee attacks instead of casting Summon Thrall. Doing those melee attacks leaves you without the Thralls which allow you to perform well in melee. That's a heavy mismatch between the melee options and the basic ability to use those melee options (related to my rant on Bind Heroic Spirit later on).

Osteo Armaments: It got better when someone informed me that the summoned weapons don't have a max duration, but in 90% of scenarios you're better off simply purchasing an actual weapon and spending your feat elsewhere. That said, I would never wish for this feat to be removed - its core thematic is extremely strong.

Bind Heroic Spirit: I'm glad that other people also see this as a build-defining feat which arrives far too late. I am personally of the opinion that this could be a rank 1 single-action focus spell which only summons Thralls (no Heroism), and that alone would be a MASSIVE improvement to the Necromancer's gish viability. (I'm even theorizing whether such an ability could just be a passive effect on the class itself - they're still heavily incentivized to stay at range going all-in on INT with Summon Thrall, but basic melee support wouldn't detract from that basic playstyle at all)

I'd even settle for a rank 3 focus spell which mirrors the heightening of Heroism, and even that feels like a really late implementation of what I'd call a playstyle-defining ability.

I'm fine with the notion that the Melee Necromancer gets less Thrall generation. I'm less fine with the thought that a level 18 Necromancer summons 3 Thralls per action, about to be 4 per action at level 19, and ONLY JUST NOW can their melee attacks summon a singular Thrall. (I know right now it also affects their ranged strikes, but if the concept of an gun Necromancer is what's choking out the melee benefits... that's just a supremely weird reason to kneecap the gishes)

---

Warpriest-Style subclass: I'd go a step further and say Battle Harbinger. If you aren't aware - it's a new Cleric subclass which replaces their spellcasting with Magus-style spell slots and proficiency growths. Partially because I don't think we're ever going to see another full caster gain an option like Warpriest, partially because I already view Necromancer as a class where I'm fully okay giving up my old spell slots.

That said, Necromancer is interesting to me as a light class because their feats DO allow them to become hugely resilient. In theory, anyway (see my argument on Draining Strike). It only sucks because their iconic gish uses a scythe in light armor, which is kind of bad at level 1. Level 10+, your ability boosts allow studded leather to cap out your AC without foregoing INT or STR at all, but actually making it to that point is rough. I don't think there's a perfect answer here, because medium armor would solve the mechanical problems in the early game whereas I don't think the class even makes thematic sense with medium armor. (And I kind of which PF2 were more lenient with people not instantly capping out their AC for this precise reason - the mechanical incentive is massive)

ugh idk, I agree with your thesis that they'd do better with medium armor. I just wish that weren't so true for thematic reasons.

The thread was essentially "I prefer 1E, 2E is just not to my tastes". That's a valid opinion, but on a feedback board based around improving explicit aspects of 2E, it didn't really provoke any critical discussion.

I'm not a big fan of Heightening Spells, no one I've gamed with has found it very pleasant to manage and track.

I'd rather spells gain the benefit of heightened effects based on your casting skill proficiency, although this would require a massive change to the games balance.

Massive change to the balance is an understatement. The system specifically removed auto-heightening spells because it feeds into the "quadratic caster" paradigm.

Incidentally, I'm curious how your group finds the current system unpleasant to track. Spells have very set functions, which is only improved by spell slots. To me, that's way less bookkeeping than determining "fireball does this much damage at my level, my buffs can target this many people, and that changes every time I level up"

I don't particularly think casters need lower level spells at-will. To me, that feels like a buff aimed at blasters which would send utility-focused casters into the stratosphere.

I feel that partially because we already have upgrades at higher levels. Fireball is Burning Hands with a higher radius, cast range, and is a sphere instead of a cone. I think Burning Hands SHOULD fall off in the presence of better spells.

Meanwhile, I don't think spells with massive utility should have no cost. Utility wins wars.

To Syndrous, I do like your suggestion to a point. It looks to me like a 5e Warlock, which I and my groups have had great fun with. That said, you can also see their limits, namely 2 spell slots. Yes, they can cast Mage Armor at no cost, but if they had much more power, I honestly think they'd outright break the game.

Either way, I think it would be an interesting dynamic if 2e casters had FEWER big spells per combat, but the ability to regenerate them more easily. People love powerful spells, but they are only special with some limit on there. If someone were able to rain destruction many times per day, but only once per combat, would they feel as though they had a better impact in each combat rather than 2 combats of 2-3 large spells?