Necromancer feedback and suggestions.

[Rowenstin]

After playing a couple low level sessions in a regular low level campaign and a variety of prepared combat scenarios with a necromancer at various levels (up to level 14) here are my impressions with the class, as an addition to the regular survey. I’m afraid I’m beating an undead horse with some of those, but here they are nonetheless:

The Thrall mechanic is interesting and offers some tradeoffs, with the presence of a thrall needed for many abilities by giving you a way to do a small amount of damage in return. Given that the focus spells are not better than the Amped cantrips Psychic use, I suspect the added strike is supposed to balance the inconvenience of the thrall requirement. However, there are some snags. First, the fact that a thrall attack increases your MAP directly discourages using spells with an attack roll. The occult list doesn’t have many cantrips that force a save: Haunting hymn, Daze and Void Warp. Haunting Hymn is really difficult to use in the same turn you create a thrall, Void Warp only targets living creatures and… we all love Daze, it’s not his fault. This means that at level 1 I felt almost mandatory to be a human and take Adapted Cantrip, (or ancient elf with Wizard or Witch multiclassing, but I went with human for story reasons) so I could shoot some good Electric Arcs if I wanted to properly contribute to the fights. At levels 2+ onwards if you plan to multiclass into Wizard or Witch this is not necessary, of course.
Second, in my group’s and my own opinion, the class really, really needs a way to do something with the thralls that’s not popping them with a focus spell or an ability. They do not feel like thralls. They are not really an undead army. They are certainly not the walking dead. The mechanics fit better a chloromancer that summons shrubs, except that even Timber Sentinel has more autonomy than thralls. No, clogging small maps is not “powerful”, it’s an artifact of module design and production.
Third, the thrall economy changes dramatically between levels 6 and 7. At level 6, when you’re out of focus points and want to use another focus spell, that spell costs 5 actions: Create thrall, consume thrall, create another, cast a 2 action spell. At level 7 is easy to have spare thralls, and do tricks like summon one in the right position to use Necrotic bomb and other in position to flank or strike. The difference in usefulness is brutal, and at level 7 is otherwise when casters start feeling ok so this mechanic compounds with the general misery of low level spellcasters.
Fourth, thralls are virtually useless against flying enemies. I don’t know if this is intentional and the class is supposed to use his regular spellcasting or weapon attacks.
My suggestions: Create thrall creates just one thrall, at all levels, but you can use it as a reaction when a creature dies (like Inevitable Return) or takes Vitality or Void damage. You get additional reactions to use on this or other necromantic abilities (as part of the class or as feats) at later levels. This incentivizes using spells that deal, you know, necromantic damage, especially persistent void damage. Perhaps allow Void Warp to target undead creatures too.
Second, create thrall does not get you a strike. That’s another one action ability, Command Thrall, which allows you to move a number of thralls equal to, say, your Int score up to 15 feet and make a Strike, with a bonus to hit and damage depending on the number of adjacent additional thralls. There you are, now you have a proper horde. It would be also great if thralls could also do actions that didn’t required a skill check, like fetching things or carry you in a palanquin. Now that would be stylish.
The rest of the spellcasting didn’t feel specially consequential; 2 slots per level with prepared spells is very little, and the usefulness and power of the focus spells are all over the place. In some of the mock fights I tried to use the weapon feats; I found them to be really traps, however I didn’t play at level 18+ when Bind heroic spirit is available.

[YuriP]

Thx. Most of your report enforces the problems that we already are expecting in most white room scenarios.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

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

[Rowenstin]

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

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

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

[Ectar]

Rowenstin wrote:

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Invictus Fatum]

Ectar wrote:

Rowenstin wrote:

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

[Martialmasters]

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Rowenstin wrote:

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not a "but still"

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

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

[The Raven Black]

Spell attack first and Create thrall, including Strike with MAP, second ?

[Invictus Fatum]

Martialmasters wrote:

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Rowenstin wrote:

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not a "but still"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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