| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am intrigued by the fact they don't get any feats to allow them to pick up an Undead Companion unlike Ranger and Druid with animal companions. This would be very thematic to have a sub-class that instead of granting a General Feat or a Necromancer Grave Spell let you start with an Undead Companion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a dedication feat chain that literally gives you an undead companion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I posted this on reddit regarding the Undead Master's companion as I wanted to highlight companions are actually going to be a struggle for the Necromancer as they already have a three action rotation; thrall into focus spell.
```
It's possible that commanding Undead Master's minion might compete unintentionally with create thrall. Consider, the Necromancer will want to create thrall and then tribute the thrall to cast a stronger spell, that doesn't leave a lot of room for commanding. Tbh, I'd argue that is likely going to be a trap and support should probably be built in as it is an expected fantasy.
```
If they want Undead Companions to be more workable something will need to be built into the Necromancer's kit for it I suspect.
I rather undead master feat chain not be part of the class for page space reason, but I would like perhaps a single feat that makes an undead companion work with your general thrall situation
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This "extra action" from mature companions that some classes have (not all classes have same mature companion ability) is restricted to Strike or Stride. They are pretty limited considering that companions have other abilities.
I don't know if all the companion investment worth considering that you have a already busy action economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The extra action is free movement, and that seems very worthwhile.
What about allowing ANY undead you control to count as a Thrall for purposes of spells and class abilities?
Mostly you wouldn't want to sacrifice Summons,Familiars,Companions or some of the creatures created in Rituals, but being able to use the Thrall basic attack would be nice, especially on the Familiar.
Allowing non-Thrall Undead to be used for necromancer focus spells without being destroyed would be an exciting reward for investing in them.
Why would investing in non-Thrall Undead warrant a reward?
Are those options poor ones in need of a boost for balance?
Being thematic is its own reward, isn't it?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the Undead Master archetype gives the same mature/incredible/specialized progression at 4/8/14 that the Druid gets for its animal companion, there's relatively little to be gained from building this into class feats, especially for a playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is one important thing to be gained: PFS acceptability.
Undead Masters have to be Evil, which yes, can be converted to Unholy, but that's still off limits for PFS players. Of course a book that features Necromancers would be the perfect spot to update the Undead Master to have less evil variants. This would allow other undead-themed builds to acquire an undead pet too w/o the 2xlevel cost.
I am intrigued by the fact they don't get any feats to allow them to pick up an Undead Companion unlike Ranger and Druid with animal companions. This would be very thematic to have a sub-class that instead of granting a General Feat or a Necromancer Grave Spell let you start with an Undead Companion.
I agree with others that Undead Master already fills this niche somewhat, but an idea for such a subclass might be an action compressor that allows you to cast Create Thrall and Command your companion as a single action? If that would be too powerful maybe casting it this way could omit the usual free attack from Create Thrall as a balancing factor. This would help alleviate the action economy friction of thralls and companions.
I am intrigued by the fact they don't get any feats to allow them to pick up an Undead Companion unlike Ranger and Druid with animal companions. This would be very thematic to have a sub-class that instead of granting a General Feat or a Necromancer Grave Spell let you start with an Undead Companion.I agree with others that Undead Master already fills this niche somewhat, but an idea for such a subclass might be an action compressor that allows you to cast Create Thrall and Command your companion as a single action? If that would be too powerful maybe casting it this way could omit the usual free attack from Create Thrall as a balancing factor. This would help alleviate the action economy friction of thralls and companions.
Come to think of it, maybe this theoretical action could allow for Create Thrall + Command Companion OR Sustain a Summon Spell, seeing as spells like Summon Undead are incredibly thematic for Necromancer, but tough to fit into their action economy.
I am intrigued by the fact they don't get any feats to allow them to pick up an Undead Companion unlike Ranger and Druid with animal companions. This would be very thematic to have a sub-class that instead of granting a General Feat or a Necromancer Grave Spell let you start with an Undead Companion.I agree with others that Undead Master already fills this niche somewhat, but an idea for such a subclass might be an action compressor that allows you to cast Create Thrall and Command your companion as a single action? If that would be too powerful maybe casting it this way could omit the usual free attack from Create Thrall as a balancing factor. This would help alleviate the action economy friction of thralls and companions.
My first instinct was this, too--give a create thrall/command minion combo manovure--but then realized that it makes the companion option strictly stronger than any other, since it functionally gives them a companion that freely acts every turn as long as they keep up their core mechanic of popping out thralls.
Even so, I think your idea of a somewhat more limited action compression might be good--the Necromancer's set up seems rather action intensive, so it'd be nice if they could occasionally free up a third action command once in a while between dropping thralls and throwing them at enemies.
This "extra action" from mature companions that some classes have (not all classes have same mature companion ability) is restricted to Strike or Stride. They are pretty limited considering that companions have other abilities.
I don't know if all the companion investment worth considering that you have a already busy action economy.
All your actions have very little range. If you pick a Horse, ar 4th level you have a free 40 foot Stride every turn. That you can further enhance with feats/items.
2 feats for a free Stride on a class with very little range and greatly constrained action economy is very much worth it, even if you never command the animal at all.
To get additional movement with a mount OK but you have to remember that in a long play in order to make your creature to live long enough you need to pay the tax of get other feats to keep it improving and not being killed by some random AoE in high levels.
There's a lot of discussion about the effectiveness of companions in this game due the feats cost. Add the fact that your class requires a lot of actions just makes it worse.
I don't think a companion rally works that well with the basic class mechanics (though I understand why you'd want it for flavor). Like normally companions need one action from the character to gain one action, which works for some classes better than others depending on your action needs.
The normal rotation for a necromancer in a given round is "create thrall"+ "Cast spell". You could replace the "create thrall" choice with "command companion" but your spell slots are extremely limited and most of your focus spells either need a thrall to power them or create a special kind of thrall.
I can't see "Command Companion + Cantrip" being a very satisfying rotation.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Thrall mechanic is what's preventing meaningful created undead, well, I know which I want, so thrall mechanics go bye.I don't think a companion rally works that well with the basic class mechanics (though I understand why you'd want it for flavor). Like normally companions need one action from the character to gain one action, which works for some classes better than others depending on your action needs.
The normal rotation for a necromancer in a given round is "create thrall"+ "Cast spell". You could replace the "create thrall" choice with "command companion" but your spell slots are extremely limited and most of your focus spells either need a thrall to power them or create a special kind of thrall.
I can't see "Command Companion + Cantrip" being a very satisfying rotation.
We know. Please realize that that isn't going to happen. The thralls are the core mechanic they're playtesting, they're as likely to throw it out as they would Elemental Blast on the Kineticist or Rage on the Barbarian.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Thrall mechanic is what's preventing meaningful created undead, well, I know which I want, so thrall mechanics go bye.I don't think a companion rally works that well with the basic class mechanics (though I understand why you'd want it for flavor). Like normally companions need one action from the character to gain one action, which works for some classes better than others depending on your action needs.
The normal rotation for a necromancer in a given round is "create thrall"+ "Cast spell". You could replace the "create thrall" choice with "command companion" but your spell slots are extremely limited and most of your focus spells either need a thrall to power them or create a special kind of thrall.
I can't see "Command Companion + Cantrip" being a very satisfying rotation.
Archetype should help here.
Or maybe a completely different class. Summoner springs to mind.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes if the idea is to have a strong undead "summon", summoner currently fit it better.
If the idea is to control 1 or 2 undeads summons probably a witch with reanimator archetype feats the fantasy that you need (the undead summoned isn´t so strong as a Eidolon but it still a good 3rd-action to do many things. If you want you can sustain 2 of them for some time using Cackle (or 3 when you get Effortless Concentration).
And if your idea is to have many minor undeads is where this new necromancer class makes its place.
The game doesn't explore the idea of convert corpses too much outside of rituals. And this have the good reason that if summon/create undeads requires corpses theses classes would end in clear disadvantage when these "resources" was unavailable or we would risk to have a "sack of rats" meme with the players getting and carrying all kind of corpses inside a Bag of Holdings Spacious Pouch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We know. Please realize that that isn't going to happen. The thralls are the core mechanic they're playtesting, they're as likely to throw it out as they would Elemental Blast on the Kineticist or Rage on the Barbarian.If the Thrall mechanic is what's preventing meaningful created undead, well, I know which I want, so thrall mechanics go bye.I don't think a companion rally works that well with the basic class mechanics (though I understand why you'd want it for flavor). Like normally companions need one action from the character to gain one action, which works for some classes better than others depending on your action needs.
The normal rotation for a necromancer in a given round is "create thrall"+ "Cast spell". You could replace the "create thrall" choice with "command companion" but your spell slots are extremely limited and most of your focus spells either need a thrall to power them or create a special kind of thrall.
I can't see "Command Companion + Cantrip" being a very satisfying rotation.
Is this a playtest or not? They might change it. Yes it is clearly at the center of the class. But whether or not the presented mechanics for the Necromancer feels enough like a necromancer is a valid thing to discuss. That will be important to class acceptance at many tables.
Personally I think it is an interesting mechanic that needs testing. I think the concept is workable. But I also think it needs more to be able to do more classic necromancer things as well.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this a playtest or not? They might change it.
Maybe if there was significant resistance to it. As is? And even if it was, would it be in a direction that only 1 or 2 people seem to want? IMO, the odds of that seem insignificantly small of that happening.
I feel like most of the issue people have with the flavor of the class could be easily fixed without either completely overhauling the thrall mechanic or buffing it's power too much. Something as easy as giving an aditional action that allow the necromancer to move it's thrall would go a long way making them feel like more than just "totems". Altho to make this action worth using at all, there would need to be some manner of upside over just creating more thrall where you want to send them, but it could be as simple as allowing you move "x+1" thrall, where "x" is the number of thrall you can raise in a single action.
As for the actual subject of this thread, I do think an easy way to get an undead companion is kinda needed for the flavor of the class. If the undead companion isn't already "baked in" the class as it is for the druid, then they need to reprint and update the undead master archetype, and to probably remove the "only evil/unholy" restriction. Having a main monster following you is just too big of a necromancer fantasy to completely ignore I feel like.
Also, I think the idea The Ronyon gave, about allowing the necromancer to count any undead minion as thrall is really worth exploring, and it would go a long way to make the necromancer feel like an actual necromancer. If only their own special class ressource count as "undead under their control" for all of their abilties, it create a rupture in the way the world work. In world, thralls raised in a hurry, the special zombie the necromancer have been tinkering, and those creature they summoned through summon undead are all undead under the necromancer power, so they all should be possible recipient of that power. Even if gameplay-wise it's an edge case as it's far more efficient to use up the thrall that cost no ressource instead of your costly summons or unique undead companion, simply openning up this possibility can do a lot for the versimilitude of the game and the fantasy of the class.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the undead companion isn't already "baked in" the class as it is for the druid, then they need to reprint and update the undead master archetype, and to probably remove the "only evil/unholy" restriction.
I don't think it needs reprinting unless there is a change in multiple things in the archetype. If it's just removing the alignment restriction, they could just note that instead of reprinting the whole thing. I'd rather not lose a page or 2 of other interesting things just to see it reprinted with Evil removed from the archetype.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just let the Thralsl move and attack via a cantrip and problems be solved I think.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just let the Thralsl move and attack via a cantrip and problems be solved I think.
That gives a fair amount of additional mechanical power is the problem. Suddenly one character has 5+ mobile units that can flank and you can choose which one attacks.
I believe that's why they simply didn't give them this option.
That gives a fair amount of additional mechanical power is the problem. Suddenly one character has 5+ mobile units that can flank and you can choose which one attacks.
I believe that's why they simply didn't give them this option.
I mean, the necromancer already have a single action "create a body and make it attack" right from level 1, which is better than making one already created body move and then attack, because it leave you with one more body at the end of this action (and it isn't restricted by possible terrain effect). The necromancer already have a number of unit that can flank and attack, and the possibility of moving one of these unit from one point to another is inherently less powerfull than the innate ability to simply endlessly create more of them exactly where you want them to appear.
The only real upside for moving thralls would be to reach beyond that 30 feet range, and that can easily be tuned by making the necromancer control range dependant. Of course, they would need to limit the number of thrall you can move at once, since moving all your thralls in a single action would be far too powerfull, but I do think this is an action that wouldn't add much power to the necromancer but make them feel much more flavorfull.
Personally, I think a cantrip like:
1 action
Up to 2 thrall you control within 20 feet of you can move up to 15 feet each. Then, one of the thrall you moved can make an attack for the same DC and damage as create thrall, this strike use and count toward your mutiple attack penalty. You can move up to 3 thralls if you have expert necromancy, to 4 if you have master, or to 5 if you have legendary.
would be worth testing, as I don't think that it would increase the power of the necromancer much, but make the thralls feels much more like actual summoned creates, and not just "totems". it would be a rather cheap way to "fix" the perceived flavor issue of the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I think about it some more, I think the main issue the devs are warry for with moving the thralls is less about "in combat" balance, and more about exploration. If the necromancer can freely create thralls, and then freely move them, a necromancer could have a pair of "always summoned" thrall that move with the group, the necromancer would have to stop to ressumon them every minute, and to slow down to take time to command it's thralls, but it would be "technically possible". So even if in combat, the action of moving your already summoned thrall wouldn't be that broken, it could be if it allow you to always start all of your battle with a pair of presummoned thrall.
So while I still think that some normal way to move the thralls are needed, I get now why they are warry. They would probably have to make that way really innefficient action wise, or include some other trick in order to make sure that people don't try to "game" the system by having thralls always summoned in exploration.