Currently the Create Thrall cantrip have some problems with what to do with the excess of thralls that it can create and what to do with them. So I'm was thinkg that one easier and elegant solution is to change it to not only create but also to control existing thralls too also it would be interesting if it was unable to do some thing with the additional thralls that you get as you level up once that they basically becomes resources to your focus spells that occupies space and flank.
My suggesting it change to something like this:
Range: 30 ft
---
You conjure forth an expendable undead thrall in range or control one of your existing thrall in range. Thralls created by this spell vanishes after 1 minute since their creation. When you cast the spell, you can have the thrall created or controlled by this spell make a melee unarmed Strike using your spell attack modifier for the attack roll or Stride up to your land speed. This attack deals your choice of 1d8 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage. This Strike uses and counts toward your multiple attack penalty.
---
Heightened (+3) Add an extra thrall to create or control. This additional thrall can Stride or Strike too. When you make multiple thrall to Strike the same target only roll the Strike once and sum their damage to calculate weakness and resistances. These aditional Strikes doesn't counts toward your multiple attack penalty.
===
As you can see there's 2 main changes here. One is to allow the necromancer to control existing thralls in order to avoid keep then ocupping aditional spaces when you don't want. The another is to avoid the multiple thralls not do anything while only one is attacking only one target. I know this may increate the turn time if the player uses the multiple thralls to attack different targets (yet it's not too different when someone summons a dragon and uses Draconic Frenzy) yet probably the most common case is the necromancer focusing into a single target to pass it's resistances or to kill it faster. Yet this also allows to exploit multiple enemies weaknesses with the thralls what's could be very interesting and fun strategy (similar to what happens with bombs splash damage).
The damage change to d8 also make them a little bit stronger at lower levels but it's balanced by Heightened (+3) making you get additional thralls a bit later but more consistant over levels and helps to balance the new aditional options to the cantrip.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how there can be an excess Thrall problem.
They don't hinder the PCs in any significant way.
The worst they do is provide lesser cover.
I can see making that an ally only benefit.
Moving a single Thrall isn't a big deal, but moving handfuls of Thralls would slow combats down considerably.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They can become a problem especially when necromancers can make a lot of thralls per action and the necromancer already surrounded most enemies.
Allies can walk through the thrall space but can't share it. Specially when necromancers uses their thralls as 3rd action attack spell this can difficult or even make impossible to a melee ally to get closer to an surrounded enemy.
This including can potentially crate complains between players due the excess of thralls due they need to move around the enemy potentially triggering move reactions because there's a lot of thralls in the adjacent spaces preventing to get closer more easier.
The question is does it stop movement through their square and if so tumble through is just a dc 10 action? It's weird because Thralls are and yet are not the most overpowered mechanic, if your DM's minions hit them with non-AoE effects they you basically don't want to win the fight and you can argue your DM is throwing the encounter but at the same time if they are't targetted then what is the point of them being creatures? Also if you want to stop an enemy from running away just make a box of Thralls around the battlefield, can't tumble through if there are 2 enemies back to back!
But I do like Thralls though.
I don't see how there can be an excess Thrall problem.
They don't hinder the PCs in any significant way.
I've already talked about this at length in another thread so I won't do that again... but I want to say that as a GM, I emphatically disagree. There absolutely can be an excess thrall problem, even if they're not hindering PCs (and they will hinder PCs if they're in spaces the PCs need to stop a Stride in to continue movement, which could cause real issues in small rooms).
There's another person at the table that isn't a PC, and too many of these showing up frequently will absolutely cause that person grief. However this mechanic winds up looking in the end, it needs to account for how a GM has to deal with it as well, not just how it feels to the Necro player.
I have suggested, in that other thread, a compromise.
Giving the Necromancer the ability to dismiss the Thralls won't hurt anything but it also won't help a GM that finds them too challenging.
So let's water down Trails even further.
The only effect they have on movement would be a 5' increase movement cost per Thrall occupied square.
The position issue didn't occur to me, but allowing any creature to share space with a Trall could be a boon to player and gm alike.
The question is does it stop movement through their square and if so tumble through is just a dc 10 action? It's weird because Thralls are and yet are not the most overpowered mechanic, if your DM's minions hit them with non-AoE effects they you basically don't want to win the fight and you can argue your DM is throwing the encounter but at the same time if they are't targetted then what is the point of them being creatures? Also if you want to stop an enemy from running away just make a box of Thralls around the battlefield, can't tumble through if there are 2 enemies back to back!
But I do like Thralls though.
Tumble Through one, attack the other?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, maybe, I dunno... stop creating thralls when an excess will be a problem...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem to stop creating thralls when an excess will be a problem is that you also loose your main one-action 3rd attack too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem to stop creating thralls when an excess will be a problem is that you also loose your main one-action 3rd attack too.
So. Cope. Figure something else out. It's not the end of the world.
Sometimes, choices are hard. That's part of the game.
It's not only a question of be a part of the game but. You are a necromancer, and you surrounded your enemy with thralls, now you cannot attack this enemy with your thralls because you surrounded it with them!?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... You are a necromancer, and you surrounded your enemy with thralls, now you cannot attack this enemy with your thralls because you surrounded it with them!?
There are other things in the Necromancer's kit. Thralls aren't the end-all-be-all. There are other options. And, rarely, will a Necromancer be playing solo; they'll have teammates doing things as well.
So, if/when an excess of thralls would be a problem, the simple answer is to quit making thralls and do something else. It's really not that hard.
... You are a necromancer, and you surrounded your enemy with thralls, now you cannot attack this enemy with your thralls because you surrounded it with them!?There are other things in the Necromancer's kit. Thralls aren't the end-all-be-all. There are other options. And, rarely, will a Necromancer be playing solo; they'll have teammates doing things as well.
So, if/when an excess of thralls would be a problem, the simple answer is to quit making thralls and do something else. It's really not that hard.
I think you are missing the point here. I'm not (only) talking about gameplay tactics but also the own concept of control your thralls outside of "explode" them with your focus spells.
You are a necromancer not an undead protector tree forester that can explode them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a pretty good stab at solving the thematic-mechanical balance concerns around the current Create Thrall as a core mechanic. I have a few suggested changes though: even condensing attacks to a single roll dramatically increases the potential edge cases that have to be clarified and the in-game cognitive load for GM and PC alike; and, I think it's best to separate the Create and Control cantrips, otherwise listing duration becomes tricky and triggering off creation vs just control gets weird.
[Uncommon | Cantrip | Conc. | Grave | Manip. | Necro. | Thrall]
Range: 30 feet
Duration: 1 minute
You conjure forth an expendable undead thrall in range. When you cast the spell, you can have the created thrall make a melee unarmed Strike using your spell attack modifier for the attack roll. This attack deals your choice of 1d8 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage. This Strike uses and counts toward your multiple attack penalty.
Heightened (+3) You can create an additional thrall, however only one thrall may make the granted melee unarmed Strike; the Strike's damage increases by 1d8.
For the Create grave cantrip, I think a bulleted list like those for spells with multiple options like prestidigitation would be appropriate to reduce cognitive load. Similar to the Create cantrip, only one thrall should make an attack. I also added the Interact option that people have talked a lot about and added the subtle trait to put this command on similar footing to Sustains and Commands (I left manipulate in bc it seems like a lot of pointing/waving/etc would go along with these commands).
[Uncommon | Cantrip | Conc. | Grave | Manip. | Necro. | Subtle | Thrall]
Range: 30 feet
Targets: 1 of your thralls
You issue a silent command to an undead thrall in range. When you cast the spell, choose one of the following effects:
- Move. The thrall Stands or it Strides up to your Speed.
- Interact. The thrall uses a single Interact action to perform a simple task that requires no skill check.
After resolving the chosen effect, if the thrall is still within range, it can make a melee unarmed Strike using your spell attack modifier for the attack roll. This attack deals your choice of 1d8 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage. This Strike uses and counts toward your multiple attack penalty.
Heightened (+3) You can target one additional thrall, but all thralls receive the same command and only one thrall may make the granted melee unarmed Strike; the Strike's damage increases by 1d8.
[Uncommon | Cantrip | Conc. | Grave | Manip. | Necro. | Subtle | Thrall]
Range: 30 feet
Targets: 1 of your thralls
You issue a silent command to an undead thrall in range. When you cast the spell, choose one of the following effects:
- Move. The thrall Stands or it Strides up to your Speed.
- Interact. The thrall uses a single Interact action to perform a simple task that requires no skill check.
Honestly this seems fine all by itself as a single action cantrip. You're essentially giving your thrall that 3rd action instead of taking it yourself.
Or, wait, no. Make this a free action that is triggered by you casting a grave spell (but not grave cantrips) or spell from a slot. Heightened versions might allow you to make a strike or take a skill action using your spell attack modifier rather than an interact with no roll, but probably also should consume the thrall in the process on anything but a critical success.
Heck, make it a 1 action spell by default and then let there be a feat that does the free version.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, now that I think about it, there should probably be at least a couple grave cantrips that consume your Thrall as part of the cost instead of a focus point. Necrotic Bomb and Muscle Barrier could probably be dialed down a bit to be stronger than a cantrip but not as strong as a focus spell, but leave Life Tap and Dead Weight as focus spells. Bone Spear could go either way, but may as well leave that one alone since Bone Shapers use it.
That would solve part of the longevity issue at low levels people have mentioned.
Honestly this seems fine all by itself as a single action cantrip. You're essentially giving your thrall that 3rd action instead of taking it yourself.
Or, wait, no. Make this a free action that is triggered by you casting a grave spell (but not grave cantrips) or spell from a slot. Heightened versions might allow you to make a strike or take a skill action using your spell attack modifier rather than an interact with no roll, but probably also should consume the thrall in the process on anything but a critical success.
Heck, make it a 1 action spell by default and then let there be a feat that does the free version.
Yeah, I forgot to put in action symbols and can't edit now. But the Control cantrip is meant to be single-action. Having a feat that lets you do Control as a free action triggered by using a limited resource is also fun!
Actually, now that I think about it, there should probably be at least a couple grave cantrips that consume your Thrall as part of the cost instead of a focus point.
I think this is a good idea, and something that could easily be tied to the Grim Fascinations. Bone Spear could easily be translated to a grave cantrip with minor damage rebalancing, and weakened Muscle Barrier and Necrotic Bomb would make good grave cantrips for flesh magicians and spirit mongers, respectively.
Idk, I think its a fun design space that didn't really get dug into yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. I almost think it was meant to in some draft, with create thrall creating a pseudo focus pool that you could then spend, sort of like an Inventor’s unstable.
Sort of glad the did ultimately go with focus spells and regular spells, but a handful of grave cantrips that still used that would be cool.
Also, the grave fascination bonus focus spells do need to remain focus spells imo. Otherwise the necromancers don’t get focus spells or points at all at first, and that’s not good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Uncommon | Cantrip | Conc. | Grave | Manip. | Necro. | Subtle | Thrall]
Range: 30 feet
Targets: 1 of your thralls
You issue a silent command to an undead thrall in range. When you cast the spell, choose one of the following effects:
- Move. The thrall Stands or it Strides up to your Speed.
- Interact. The thrall uses a single Interact action to perform a simple task that requires no skill check.Honestly this seems fine all by itself as a single action cantrip. You're essentially giving your thrall that 3rd action instead of taking it yourself.
Or, wait, no. Make this a free action that is triggered by you casting a grave spell (but not grave cantrips) or spell from a slot. Heightened versions might allow you to make a strike or take a skill action using your spell attack modifier rather than an interact with no roll, but probably also should consume the thrall in the process on anything but a critical success.
Heck, make it a 1 action spell by default and then let there be a feat that does the free version.
I agree with AnimatedPaper. Also I still prefer to put everything in the single cantrip. The idea is that all necromancers including its archetypes will have both cantrips so it doesn't makes sense it just occupy more book space with 2 cantrips instead of put everything into a single one.
I also noticed that n8_fi put an Interact action here. I don't think that's a good idea. We already have many strange restrictions that was added to Eidolons due Interact so I prefer to not enter (again) in this problematic situation. Also I like the idea of thralls being an stupid army of undeads that's is unable to open a door like most zombies movies are.
I also think that Subtle trait is too much. It's obvious who is controlling the undeads and I don't see too much reason to make necromancers immune to silence spell when all other casters (with exception of psichic) have to deal with it for almost every cantrip.
Also I still prefer to put everything in the single cantrip. The idea is that all necromancers including its archetypes will have both cantrips so it doesn't makes sense it just occupy more book space with 2 cantrips instead of put everything into a single one.
The thing is that combining them into a single cantrip means you have to add a bunch more wording to make distinctions and clarifications in how things work. Realistically, it would likely come out to be a similar amount of book space but significantly more potential for confusion when reading.
I also noticed that n8_fi put an Interact action here. I don't think that's a good idea. We already have many strange restrictions that was added to Eidolons due Interact so I prefer to not enter (again) in this problematic situation. Also I like the idea of thralls being an stupid army of undeads that's is unable to open a door like most zombies movies are.
Many people have stated a desire for the thralls to do stupid simple things much like a phantasmal minion does. Opening up specifically single Interact actions does not open any of the restrictions that came with eidolons. Eidolons can take Interact actions, they are just limited in what gear they can use or wield. Being able to use an Interact action makes no change as to what other actions the thralls can use because they start out from a very different allowed-actions space than eidolons.
I also think that Subtle trait is too much. It's obvious who is controlling the undeads and I don't see too much reason to make necromancers immune to silence spell when all other casters (with exception of psichic) have to deal with it for almost every cantrip.
The subtle trait is not really a sticking point for me. Sure, it also makes sense for it to not have the subtle trait, I was just thinking of the way that this is a cantrip that essentially emulates the Sustain action of a normal summon effect, and that Sustain would not be affected by silence, counteract effects based on sight, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Interact is that it allows to hold. This already open a large possibility to do many unexpected things with them. One solution could be restrict then to be able to hold items but some player will start to complain about why they can hold if they can interact and how long Interact goes? How many hands they can have? Does the thralls be able to operate complex mechanisms? Are they able to activate itens that they are holding like bombs? No? Why not?...
And I can start to list a big number of questions that many players done. When we just say that thralls are just stupid to interact and that they can only Stride or Strike its enought to full fill the theme of thralls triggering traps just moving or Striking then that's the current main complain specially in exploration mode to use thralls as disposable for dangerous situations.
Also as I said before. I personally like the idea of an horde of undeads that are unable to open a door. This full fills many horde of undeads stories fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just copy/pasting my "spender" cantrip idea to pair with the "builder" existing create thrall.
IMO, a base kit tool like this should have its spend benefit be genuinely useful to the Necro as often as possible, while also not being "overpowered."
My way to thread that needle is to give this action-heavy class a way to maintain just a step of movement while managing their class resource in the same action.
[Uncommon | Cantrip | Conc. | Grave | Manip. | Necro. | Thrall]
Range: 60 feet
Targets: 1 or more of your thrallsWith a jerk of animating energies, you stir your thralls into action. When you cast this cantrip, you energize up to the same number of thralls that you could add via Create Thrall. These thralls Stride up to 20 feet, and one may make an attack as if freshly created.
Additionally, you may consume any thrall within 60 feet to energize yourself, enabling you to Step before or after your thralls act.
This is not overpowered at all, as it creates 0 thalls, and every time you use the consume Step, that was literally a full action you spent earlier until you get Expert at L7.
This is a separate thing to change, but I think that for no-prebuff fights, Necro is actually going to struggle like hell early game. I honestly think that Create Thrall should start at 2 thralls and go up from there. Or perhaps word it so that you create 2, but if a thrall attacks, it instantly falls apart.
Because oof, an entire action is hard to use as a builder if it's 1:1 on the spend side. This means that the Necro will pretty much *always* create thrall adjacent to foes, because the value of that attack is like half the power of the cantrip.
Just think about how many Magi find the idea of manually recharging spellstrike to be an unacceptable proposition. Yes, Crt Trll gets a little spell attack, but this resource is an unavoidable action cost, and one that can be popped with incidental AoE (including by the party's Alchemist).
(It honestly might be healthier / better for Necro if Create Thrall itself just allows a Step every time you cast it. Not really kidding there, as I don't think we've seen a class this bottlenecked by a builder action before.)
.
I'll just briefly repeat my main point in the other thread. If Necro gets a 0A "delete thrall" button, that massively dumbs down the class and removes a fun minigame. It completely changes how you think about positioning your thralls, as in you will only think less. I think a 0A delete button should be avoided at all costs, and as long as a spender grave cantrip is added, that worry is addressed.
As far as the Interact and utility use of thralls go, I'm 100% with YuriP, not really any design path to viability for the thralls to gain that, imo. (Okay, that's not really true. There could be a feat that gives the thralls a whitelist of familiar abilities, and adds some new ones. So long as items cannot be inside a thralls hand by action end, even those could be written. A "throw item in your reach" action, for example)
I think the easiest way to really fulfill that fantasy is to give the Necro a L1 familiar feat like Alch that comes with the undead tag. And give the familiar an optional ability that lets them count as a thrall once per fight! (or adds a Doomed stack if overused or something)
I think Necro will have serious issues with thrall setup, so that could be super thematic and a big help/crutch.
And Necro should not only have the familiar upgrade feat, but why not give it a feat to upgrade the familiar into an "Animal Companion"? That kind of "build your own bodyguard" is a pretty common Necro trope and player desire. (though it might kinda make some Summoners cry a bit)
I still think since the act of summoning your thrall is a spell ability
You should be about to free action dismiss however many you want.
As far as the Interact and utility use of thralls go, I'm 100% with YuriP, not really any design path to viability for the thralls to gain that, imo. (Okay, that's not really true. There could be a feat that gives the thralls a whitelist of familiar abilities, and adds some new ones. So long as items cannot be inside a thralls hand by action end, even those could be written. A "throw item in your reach" action, for example)
I think the easiest way to really fulfill that fantasy is to give the Necro a L1 familiar feat like Alch that comes with the undead tag. And give the familiar an optional ability that lets them count as a thrall once per fight! (or adds a Doomed stack if overused or something)
I think Necro will have serious issues with thrall setup, so that could be super thematic and a big help/crutch.And Necro should not only have the familiar upgrade feat, but why not give it a feat to upgrade the familiar into an "Animal Companion"? That kind of "build your own bodyguard" is a pretty common Necro trope and player desire. (though it might kinda make some Summoners cry a bit)
I like the idea of necro have an undead Familiar/Companion option could satisfy many concepts. I just don't know if it will good enought to compete with familiars master and beast master. I know that's undefault for PF2e but maybe just add a option to "when you get a familiar/companion you can choose if you this familiar will have undead trait" instead of put the feats into the necro feat list. I won´t like to see it like current kineticists, alchemists and inventor familiars that get the trait but lack of most familiars improvement feats (in most cases is better to take then via archetype due this but they loose their trait that the class gives to them).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think since the act of summoning your thrall is a spell ability
You should be about to free action dismiss however many you want.
Dismiss is 1A.
You very well may have a GM let you use it to delete a thrall, but they have no reason to change Dismiss into a 0A.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I wonder if Mage Hand + Reach of the Dead is going to be used as a solution / RP way to work with this.
The Necro's ability to use thralls as their spellcast points is kinda *the* class defining feature. And while it is an amazing blank check, it does require creativity and meme spreading for that to be explored, so it's not something that we'll see much of during the playtest.
I like the idea of necro have an undead Familiar/Companion option could satisfy many concepts. I just don't know if it will good enought to compete with familiars master and beast master. I know that's undefault for PF2e but maybe just add a option to "when you get a familiar/companion you can choose if you this familiar will have undead trait" instead of put the feats into the necro feat list. I won´t like to see it like current kineticists, alchemists and inventor familiars that get the trait but lack of most familiars improvement feats (in most cases is better to take then via archetype due this but they loose their trait that the class gives to them).As far as the Interact and utility use of thralls go, I'm 100% with YuriP, not really any design path to viability for the thralls to gain that, imo. (Okay, that's not really true. There could be a feat that gives the thralls a whitelist of familiar abilities, and adds some new ones. So long as items cannot be inside a thralls hand by action end, even those could be written. A "throw item in your reach" action, for example)
I think the easiest way to really fulfill that fantasy is to give the Necro a L1 familiar feat like Alch that comes with the undead tag. And give the familiar an optional ability that lets them count as a thrall once per fight! (or adds a Doomed stack if overused or something)
I think Necro will have serious issues with thrall setup, so that could be super thematic and a big help/crutch.And Necro should not only have the familiar upgrade feat, but why not give it a feat to upgrade the familiar into an "Animal Companion"? That kind of "build your own bodyguard" is a pretty common Necro trope and player desire. (though it might kinda make some Summoners cry a bit)
My post had a strong mistake that was pointed in another post.
Have a familiar/companion competes with thralls action economy so this is a build that usually isn´t worth.
I think the simplest option would be to just build an option within "create thrall" which allows a created thrall to strike, or alternatively stride, or use a simple interact action. Since normally "a Strike", "a Stride/Step", and "an Interact action" are equivalent for PCs. I think it's fair to let the GM make calls about what interact actions thralls can and can't manage- open a door or pick up a thing seems fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think I’m understanding people’s issues with Interact actions. Thralls start from a position of “can’t act unless the Necromancer’s effect specifically tells them what to do.” Being able to Interact through a control spell lets them hold and carry items, sure, but it doesn’t let them make attacks with weapons. They also still couldn’t Activate Magic or alchemical items even with only Interact components (Activate is its own activity with Interact as a subordinate action); these are also actions which generally make sense to be too complicated for a thrall to perform. If there are other things people are concerned about, I’m pretty confident that viewing the thralls from this direction of granted actions would assuage the concern.
The only thing I can think that this actually requires in rules text is stating the Bulk limits of thralls; based on being level -1 creatures with no stats, it would be easy to just say encumbered 5, max 10.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So my version would look like this
1 Action Florish
Flourish would be a bad move. Would totally ruin the class for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flourish would be a bad move. Would totally ruin the class for me.So my version would look like this
1 Action Florish
I agree that Necro doesn't need that limiter placed there.
Much of Create Thrall's power being inside a MAP attack is enough of a "spam disincentive" as is needed IMO.
And that part of the Necro fantasy is spending a full turn raising your disposable combatants.
The problem with Interact is that it allows to hold. This already open a large possibility to do many unexpected things with them. One solution could be restrict then to be able to hold items but some player will start to complain about why they can hold if they can interact and how long Interact goes? How many hands they can have? Does the thralls be able to operate complex mechanisms? Are they able to activate itens that they are holding like bombs? No? Why not?...
Because activate is not a simple Interact Action. Activates sometimes require Interact actions as part of this, but that doesn't make Activate an interact, merely that it contains an interact within itself. To clarify, perhaps limiting this to the basic interact actions from Player Core would be a reasonable enough limitation.
As far as holding goes, I'll have to look it up. I'm a little confused why that's a huge problem, especially since in my version you wouldn't be able to activate or even really use the item, beyond something extremely basic like pouring wine into a cup, but I did miss several months of arguments so I'll do some reading when I have time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Interact is that it allows to hold. This already open a large possibility to do many unexpected things with them. One solution could be restrict then to be able to hold items but some player will start to complain about why they can hold if they can interact and how long Interact goes? How many hands they can have? Does the thralls be able to operate complex mechanisms? Are they able to activate itens that they are holding like bombs? No? Why not?...Because activate is not a simple Interact Action. Activates sometimes require Interact actions as part of this, but that doesn't make Activate an interact, merely that it contains an interact within itself. To clarify, perhaps limiting this to the basic interact actions from Player Core would be a reasonable enough limitation.
As far as holding goes, I'll have to look it up. I'm a little confused why that's a huge problem, especially since in my version you wouldn't be able to activate or even really use the item, beyond something extremely basic like pouring wine into a cup, but I did miss several months of arguments so I'll do some reading when I have time.
There are simple interact actions, like listed in Skillful Tail and similar feats: "You can perform simple Interact actions with your tail, such as opening an unlocked door. Your tail can’t perform actions that require fingers or significant manual dexterity, including any action that would require a check to accomplish, and you can’t use it to hold items."
Because activate is not a simple Interact Action. Activates sometimes require Interact actions as part of this, but that doesn't make Activate an interact, merely that it contains an interact within itself. To clarify, perhaps limiting this to the basic interact actions from Player Core would be a reasonable enough limitation.
As far as holding goes, I'll have to look it up. I'm a little confused why that's a huge problem, especially since in my version you wouldn't be able to activate or even really use the item, beyond something extremely basic like pouring wine into a cup, but I did miss several months of arguments so I'll do some reading when I have time.
Just as a reference point, many Alchemists will take and deal with managing a familiar just so the lil helper can hold and hand you items with their actions.
All my Alch PCs do this. There is nothing more valuable than saving actions, and any PC that plans on using items can get great value from something else doing that on their behalf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think I’m understanding people’s issues with Interact actions. Thralls start from a position of “can’t act unless the Necromancer’s effect specifically tells them what to do.” Being able to Interact through a control spell lets them hold and carry items, sure, but it doesn’t let them make attacks with weapons. They also still couldn’t Activate Magic or alchemical items even with only Interact components (Activate is its own activity with Interact as a subordinate action); these are also actions which generally make sense to be too complicated for a thrall to perform. If there are other things people are concerned about, I’m pretty confident that viewing the thralls from this direction of granted actions would assuage the concern.
The only thing I can think that this actually requires in rules text is stating the Bulk limits of thralls; based on being level -1 creatures with no stats, it would be easy to just say encumbered 5, max 10.
With Thralls like this, I'm never walking anywhere, my butt will rarely leave my palanquin.
They will be bringing my a dinning room table with me most places, so my party can take cover behind it.They will dig tunnels, deliver explosives/accelerants and set them off,break down walls,strip dungeons of treasure,gather wood for bonfires,drop stones on my enemies, redirect rivers,etc.
Their bodies won't need to become difficult terrain , they will bring the piles of junk with them.
Seriously, just tarps filled with whatever we loot from the dungeon (which will be everything) dropped when they are destroyed, should be plenty to clog up the battle field.
These are the kind of things I think of when you give me access to disposable servants
Fun for me, but could be a problem for the table.
There are simple interact actions, like listed in Skillful Tail and similar feats: "You can perform simple Interact actions with your tail, such as opening an unlocked door. Your tail can’t perform actions that require fingers or significant manual dexterity, including any action that would require a check to accomplish, and you can’t use it to hold items."The problem with Interact is that it allows to hold. This already open a large possibility to do many unexpected things with them. One solution could be restrict then to be able to hold items but some player will start to complain about why they can hold if they can interact and how long Interact goes? How many hands they can have? Does the thralls be able to operate complex mechanisms? Are they able to activate itens that they are holding like bombs? No? Why not?...Because activate is not a simple Interact Action. Activates sometimes require Interact actions as part of this, but that doesn't make Activate an interact, merely that it contains an interact within itself. To clarify, perhaps limiting this to the basic interact actions from Player Core would be a reasonable enough limitation.
Thank you, that's exactly how I thought it was written, but couldn't think of where to look it up. Though in this specific case I'd probably leave off the bit about not being able to hold it. I'll explain more in a bit.
Just as a reference point, many Alchemists will take and deal with managing a familiar just so the lil helper can hold and hand you items with their actions.
All my Alch PCs do this. There is nothing more valuable than saving actions, and any PC that plans on using items can get great value from something else doing that on their behalf.
Is this even saving an action though, since the Thrall has no actions of its own? The thrall would only be able to hand you the item if you spent an action to give them an action. Though I did come up with the bit about making this a free action in some cases, so THAT would be action savings, but honestly I'm kind of okay with this being able to enable that. Be different if they could strike or make a skill check, but at higher levels even that seems reasonable enough.
Again, I fully believe you all that there's ways that it could be broken, but this doesn't seem to meet that particular threshold. They're not even effectively holding it for you (as in, it counts as your character holding the item). Or more accurately, they can't wield or brandish an item for you. This is more akin to stowing the item in an additional location, one that has a distressing tendency to go boom and drop whatever it is holding if something so much as raises their voice at it.
**
Bottom line, this spell isn't really in the game so I don't want to start an actual argument over the specific wording or mechanics of an ability that does not exist. But in a way it does bring up how limited the thralls are to act on the necromancer's behalf, to the point that some of the expected class fantasy isn't really there. However we get it, I do think being able to force your thralls to perform simple interact actions and movements is something you should able to do, and largely at will. I'm not married to the need for it to hold an item for you, but I'll probably bring it up when I submit my playtest feedback.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Provided we don't give thralls the valet ability, I'm not clear how the ability to hold items grants a meaningful advantage over just keeping it on your person. Perhaps something like a torch could be given to a thrall provided you don't mind it being dropped when the thrall is destroyed.
Perhaps this is the limits of my creativity showing, but the strongest use I've thought of for a thrall with the ability to perform simple interact actions is to send pop them up on the other side of gaps/bars where they can potentially collect items held just out of reach, rather like a telekinetic hand that can't float.
While that strikes me as useful for a Zelda-inspired dungeon, perhaps, the rest of the thrall's natural limitations seem to adequately prevent the seriousness of any plans like having thralls carry heavy things into, or even out of the dungeon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However this mechanic winds up looking in the end, it needs to account for how a GM has to deal with it as well, not just how it feels to the Necro player.
Which it does. The thralls are minimally invasive and the management is all player side. As a GM I don't really have to worry about anything, they're pretty excellent in that regard.
*snip*With Thralls like this, I'm never walking anywhere, my butt will rarely leave my palanquin.
They will be bringing my a dinning room table with me most places, so my party can take cover behind it.
They will dig tunnels, deliver explosives/accelerants and set them off,break down walls,strip dungeons of treasure,gather wood for bonfires,drop stones on my enemies, redirect rivers,etc.Their bodies won't need to become difficult terrain , they will bring the piles of junk with them.
Seriously, just tarps filled with whatever we loot from the dungeon (which will be everything) dropped when they are destroyed, should be plenty to clog up the battle field.These are the kind of things I think of when you give me access to disposable servants
Fun for me, but could be a problem for the table.
Except very little of the above would be possible considering I've only been discussing Interacts and Strides as part of a grave cantrip (or other single-action effect).
- Your thralls could carry your palanquin or your table, but that would have to be your one chosen exploration activity (Repeat a Spell), and may even cause fatigue at GM discretion. Plus, even this might require some GM allowance as Repeat a Spell is supposed to allow a single spell, so you 1-minute duration thralls wouldn't last long enough to be controlled continuously.- Digging tunnels essentially always requires an Athletics check, so would not be covered by "Interact action not requiring a check." Plus, you would still have to be within 30' of a thrall to control it using the stuff in this thread, which seems a reasonable limit against the remote explosives shenanigans.
- Massive projects like reshaping rivers fall under a similar category to digging, but even so you're essentially just talking about a couple free unskilled, severely limited hirelings. That's not that crazy.
- No matter how much "junk" a Small or Medium creature is carrying, it is completely GM adjudication of whether a felled creature or pile of junk leaves difficult terrain, and it is typically considered not to.
I don't see how this actually causes any more problem for a table than any problem player would by trying to do things outside the actual mechanics of their abilities.
*snip*With Thralls like this, I'm never walking anywhere, my butt will rarely leave my palanquin.
They will be bringing my a dinning room table with me most places, so my party can take cover behind it.
They will dig tunnels, deliver explosives/accelerants and set them off,break down walls,strip dungeons of treasure,gather wood for bonfires,drop stones on my enemies, redirect rivers,etc.Their bodies won't need to become difficult terrain , they will bring the piles of junk with them.
Seriously, just tarps filled with whatever we loot from the dungeon (which will be everything) dropped when they are destroyed, should be plenty to clog up the battle field.These are the kind of things I think of when you give me access to disposable servants
Fun for me, but could be a problem for the table.Except very little of the above would be possible considering I've only been discussing Interacts and Strides as part of a grave cantrip (or other single-action effect).
- Your thralls could carry your palanquin or your table, but that would have to be your one chosen exploration activity (Repeat a Spell), and may even cause fatigue at GM discretion. Plus, even this might require some GM allowance as Repeat a Spell is supposed to allow a single spell, so you 1-minute duration thralls wouldn't last long enough to be controlled continuously.
- Digging tunnels essentially always requires an Athletics check, so would not be covered by "Interact action not requiring a check." Plus, you would still have to be within 30' of a thrall to control it using the stuff in this thread, which seems a reasonable limit against the remote explosives shenanigans.
- Massive projects like reshaping rivers fall under a similar category to digging, but even so you're essentially just talking about a couple free unskilled, severely limited hirelings. That's not that crazy.
- No matter how much "junk" a Small or Medium creature is carrying, it is...
Well I guess it's my turn to be let down in the fulfillment of class fantasy department.
The idea that I could create and control multiple beings that move up to 10 bulk but that wouldn't significantly affect what I could accomplish, is immersion breaking.
The idea that the body of a Small sized Thrall could create a square of Difficult Terrain, but the 10 bulk of its carrying has no effect makes zero sense.
So if "Interact action not requiring a check" does not at least have include carrying a palanquin in exploration mode,digging holes in exploration mode,or junking up the terrain, then it's not a problem, but it's also not impactful.
I'm better off grabbing the old Nobel background and flavoring the retainers as undead servants.
What impactful thing CAN "Interact action not requiring a check" do?
It’s not supposed to. That’s the point n8_fi has been arguing. Well, they’d be able to set off traps and trigger reactions, and that’s not nothing, but a lot of what you’re saying wouldn’t really be enabled by this.
And yeah, you be better off with a bunch of skeleton retainers (if that’s allowed). The difference being retainers have actions of their own. Thralls don’t.
I think what you’re trying to create is a minion heavy character. Maybe using a troop’s statistics so they’d all have to make the same action and move as a group. That I could see doing what you’re talking about, but thralls won’t get you there.
It can also be immersion breaking to tell a kineticist "you can summon any normal metal, mineral, or wood unless it's one you could sell for a certain price" but certain aspects of the game depend on such breaks in the imagined reality to prevent the game balance or narrative from being disrupted.
This is a normal thing that happens in most speculative fiction, it's just when it happens in a story, the author just has to not draw your attention to the fact that the main character could just keep generating enough gold to fund a small nation and have them conveniently ignore this implied ability. A ttrpg doesn't get away so easily. If players can exploit an ability, sooner or later somebody will, and if it's too easy or common, it disrupts any game the ability is placed in.
The ability to have thralls do simple things is not really like that, but that's also the reason why the thrall's limitations are so sharp. Being able to create a dozen 'creatures' at will from level 1 would be hideously disruptive to the game world if they could just do anything a normal creature could do without limitation. Such a creature would necessarily be very limited in its spamability, but thralls are intended to be a resource you can summon as often as you want, so necessarily their total uses have a cap on them.
If it helps, you assume that a thrall would automatically have the ability to carry up to 10 bulk like a normal, average strength human. There's no reason to believe even if thralls were capable of holding things that their bulk limit would be as high as a standard creature. Thralls are weak enough to die as soon as any kind of damage could possibly come their way. It's not unreasonable to say likewise that thralls are so fragile that carrying more than 1 bulk each, or an amount of bulk that scales with level (like the telekinetic hand).
Abilities like this don't exist in real life, so our immersion is always going to be coloured by our expectations and the narrated mechanics of how the ability works, not on anything realistic. If an ability is breaking our immersion, we have several levers to pull, not the least of which being changing our expectations and changing the narrative of how it works. Neither of these are set in stone.
In my opinion, giving thralls Interact actions isn't meant to be impactful, it's meant to be flavourful so you can act like a necromancer from an RP perspective without being incredibly exploitable. The impactful things thralls can do in a combat is already outlined by the playtest. I'm not adverse to seeing them have a little more opportunity for impact out of combat, but even if it seems like the open freedom to do anything fosters creativity, sooner or later it degenerates to things that are good enough to trivialize aspects of play, and things that don't make much of a difference anyway.
(incidentally, I kind of feel like some kinds of earthworks could be in the realm of possibility for moving thralls. Only thing to remember is that thralls are much less competent workers than hirelings, and so would have much sharper limits on what they could accomplish even while standing within 30' of you repeatedly snapping them into existence as they fade from minute to minute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm better off grabbing the old Nobel background and flavoring the retainers as undead servants.
Incidentally, there are no retainers that I know of in the game. You might be thinking of a different game but I don't know of any way to get retainers other than picking up some hirelings for between 1 and 5 silver per day, or possibly reflavouring an eidolon or non-animal companion...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can also be immersion breaking to tell a kineticist "you can summon any normal metal, mineral, or wood unless it's one you could sell for a certain price" but certain aspects of the game depend on such breaks in the imagined reality to prevent the game balance or narrative from being disrupted.
While I agree in principle, I think sometimes the results are too conservative.
Like per your Kineticist example. Flash Forge lets a ferrokineticist conjure simple metallic items at will. Two actions. Level 0. Common only (no access note). 1 bulk limit. Only weapons or adventuring gear. Item vanishes after 10 minutes. Also you have to make a flat check every time you use it or it's destroyed.
... That's a lot of caveats for an ability that's already more flavorful than powerful out the gate... and honestly goes beyond simply being for balance's sake and actively makes the character feel kind of worse given the emphasis on how shoddy the items are.
IMO it's just a question about how to explain the things.
Thaumarturge use trinkets that act like silver or cold iron to exploit such weaknesses but that aren't in fact silver or cold iron, they don't have their price, mas when well used by thaumaturge could exploit a weakness.
These restrictions exists due many reason. To avoid things like happened to meiIn the first time that my players found a fiend and RK that his regeneration was disable by silver then thay ask me if they could not use silver coins to exploit it! (I said yes but that it would be an improvised weapon that deal 1 point of damage).
So the designers tries to avoid these unexpected interaction is normal because the players creativity is almost limitless. But some times these limitations breaks the immersion but in most cases where's the immersion is broken it is because the thing simply wasn't "well explained" enough (something that a GM doesn't have to do but if it can we can create any simple excuse do explain how it doesn't work like the player wanted).
This is the case of thralls IMO. Once that the game doesn't just said "thralls are too stupid to Interact with things" the people will put in question "oh but why my thralls cannot Interact, they can Strike but cannot Interact. This dumb" when probably the idea is to make thrall to work like any zombie that can only bite, scratch or bang the things without any motor coordination and reasoning to do nothing more complex than that and that's strong due they numbers than due their capabilities.
However this mechanic winds up looking in the end, it needs to account for how a GM has to deal with it as well, not just how it feels to the Necro player.Which it does. The thralls are minimally invasive and the management is all player side. As a GM I don't really have to worry about anything, they're pretty excellent in that regard.
Except for resolving them, clearing them, working around them, and checking that the player actually understands how they work and is doing it correctly.
There is no world in which having to maneuver around 12 of these things every fight is not invasive.