While the playtest Necromancer is definitely necromantic, it definitely isn’t what I want to play, and isn’t how I want to play it. I’ve seen posts suggesting that the playtest necromancer “fulfills the fantasy” and even is akin to the Guild Wars necromancer in every way. Except, in the latter case, every way except the most important: the Guild Wars necromancer actually turned defeated enemies into corpses whereas there is no tacit connection between felling foes and rasing them as undead for the playtest Necromancer. Currently, thralls are….unsatisfying apparitions that emerge from the necromancer’s power and apparently have connection to dead creatures, but not necessarily recently and not sufficiently identified.
So there is a major disconnect between killing and raising. Yet, there is sufficient narrative and mechanical design space that has explored this before. Dreamscarred Press’ Akashic Veils product for first edition Pathfinder (interestingly enough the lead designer of which was….Michael Sayre) introduced the Black Templar that had a 3rd level ability called… create husk:
Starting at 3rd level, the black templar can transform his victims into shambling husks under his control. Whenever a black templar reduces an opponent to 0 or fewer hit points with his drain essence ability, he can take 1 point of essence burn to transform the defeated opponent into a zombie under his control. The zombie has a number of hit die equal to the base creature. The zombie may act immediately on the templar’s turn and moves and attacks as the templar directs. The darkened energy empowering the zombie fades quickly however, and after a number of hours equal to the templar’s class level plus his Constitution modifier the zombie becomes an inanimate corpse.
This is not in any way to suggest that PF2 would or could in any way encompass such an ability - the constraints of companions in PF2 are such that if, for example, you have two animal companions, you can only have one active at any one time and any other/s are “nearby, foraging” or similar. And I get it, minionmancy can be terrible for groups where endless minions not only bog the battlegrid but also soak up all of everyone’s precious time, and PF2 has made the concept anathema.
But the point is that, for a Necromancer akin to Guild Wars, or any dark fantasy involving slaying foes and raising them to fight their own friends, this playtest Necromancer completely fails. And that should at least be acknowledged, whether or not that is important to you.
Another odd thing about the playtest Necromancer is that folks have rightly pointed out, that, given this lack of connection between slaying and raising, the playtest Necromancer could just as easily be reflavored to just about any minion-esque hordemancer - apart from undead-conversant riders/traits that could be easily washed/rinsed, the essential chassis of creating “thralls” could just as easily be as plants, poles, sprites, spores, dire-floofs or constructs - there isn’t much except flavor going on. And when you remove that flavor, you can see extremly interesting similarities to yet another 3rd party first edition Pathfinder class - the Onmyoji published by Interjection Games, and written by Bradley Crouch. The main schtick of the onmyoji, apart from having a Shikigami familiar (poor playtest Necromancer, no buddy for you!) and an interesting array of both arcane and divine cantrips, was the placing of talismans on the battlefield that have….various…powers. And the talismans have no actions, and while having HP they can easily be destroyed and, in the case of the ofuda talismans, don’t….move. So…hauntingly… familiar:
Both ofuda and omamori talismans never allow saving throws. A talisman of any kind has hardness equal to the onmyōji's Wisdom modifier and hit points equal to three times the onmyōji's class level. Melee attacks made against an ofuda talisman are automatically successful, while melee attacks made against an omamori talisman are automatically successful if the subject of the talisman is willing to have its talisman struck; otherwise, the attack is made against an AC of the touch AC of the subject +2. Ranged attacks are made against an AC of 9 if the target is an ofuda talisman or an omamori talisman worn by a willing subject, or made against an AC of the touch AC of the subject +2 if the subject is unwilling.
Ofuda: Ofuda talismans were originally designed to ward entire households at once, keeping out evil spirits and bad luck, or promoting fortune and cheer within its boundaries. Taken out of its traditional home and made a tool for the adventuring onmyōji, ofuda talismans are the gold standard for area warding. When an ofuda talisman is placed on a solid surface in an unoccupied 5 foot square within reach, a standard action, it affects a 10foot radius centered on the talisman. Once placed, an ofuda becomes affixed to that surface and cannot be moved unless it is destroyed or its duration ends.
What is even more all over again kinda weird, are the Omamori:
Omamori:Omamori talismans were originally designed for personal protection, and this translates well to the adventuring profession. When an omamori talisman is placed on a creature occupying a square within reach, a standard action, it affects just that creature. If the creature is not a willing recipient, then the onmyōji must make a melee touch attack. If successful, the talisman is affixed to the subject and cannot be removed unless it is destroyed or its duration ends.
which kinda feel like the playtest Runesmith’s rune placement, except, even weirder again, Interjection Games also published a Runesmith class that traced runes (and compound runes at later levels)…though a Runesmith/runecaster isn’t in itself that original, 4e DnD had one…
But I digress…
For me the playtest Necromancer firstly doesn’t even fulfill the most basic narrative trope that I would want to explore of the Necromancer - that I need to kill in order to raise; and secondly it is wifty-wafty in the narrative expression it doespresent, that is also not exactly new, and that even then, is much more suited to a more broad class that doesn’t necessarily even need to be necromantic.
Now I should admit that I love undead and necromancy aspects of fantasy, I was creating undead druid archetypes when the devs at Paizo were adamant that undead=evil, but thankfully that has gradually become more…elastic, and I’m all for it - Book of the Dead is a fantastic narrative thing for Golarion in my opinion, if not the game mechanics within for Pathfinder 2R. The skeleton ancestry feels half-baked. The options mostly feel underwhelming. And so, the playtest Necromancer is a great disappointment. Don’t get me wrong, I feel it is an exciting playtest class, just one that a) doesn’t make we want to play it, at least not as a Necromancer and b) feels like a retread of old ideas that should perversely belong to a different class entirely, perhaps one that can have a necromantic archetype.
And perhaps I should add that the first Necromancer I saw mechanically statted up as a Necromancer was in a White Dwarf ADnD adventure in the early 80’s (though the stats were somewhat haphazard as befit the times…). So there’s a history behind what I “see” and a depth to what I “want”, and this playtest Necromancer doesn’t cut it.
I don’t want ersatz “thralls” that I conjure out of thin air to act as stationary “attack points”, I don’t desire to try to line three opponents up to turn my conjured thin air “skeleton” into a bony blade and attempt to strike them in a piercing line, I’m not interested in turning my blob-bags into explodobombs every time I get to the end of my turn.
I’d like to draw power from death, to enervate and curse and riddle my enemies with chaotic choleric pustules or cover them in dread spiders that gradually drain their life force. Yes, there are similar spells and abilities even in the playtest, but the focus, as so far presented, has a “schtick” that I won’t enjoy. Thralls are completely unsatisfying. As a whole the playtest necromancer feels totally…well, completely necromantic to be sure - it definitely hits *most* of the death…notes….but I have to say I’m disappointed.
Which leads me to think that this really does have the mechanical chassis to be something more, but was chosen to be Necromantic because of “Impossible” reasons. This is the Impossible playtest, and for some reason, that undisclosed future publication will require a Runesmith and a Necromancer.
As for what I’d personally like, in case anyone is interested: more of a gish, in the same way that oldskool Dragon Warriors fabulous Warlock class were: Medium armor, actual martial competence - while I applaud the designer’s attempts at providing *some* support for gish-like prowess it appears to fail miserably, and ultimately, too late. In terms of “necromancy” I’d like some tacit undead rather than thralls, and more focus on dread powers and a connection between the necromancer and actually, you know, raising the dead. Baleful, draining auras that drain the living and fuel my powers. None of this might fit PF2’s paradigms, and some would find having to wait to kill enemies supremely unfulfilling (though you might keep them for at least a small time, like say…the next battle) and some folks will see a gish Necromancer as unfulfilling. We each have our own opinion and desires. This playtest Necromancer is not mine.
I do wonder if the strictures of Pathfinder 2R’s balance and elegant design are to me, a straitjacket that stifles truly engaging or inspiring class design, or if conversely, I wish for too much from the system (or something just thematically different - I hear that the kineticist is inspired, but I have no interest in it at all) - I imagine it is a little of column A and little of column B. But I haven’t liked any of the six classes in these past three playtests. And I would have liked to play a Necromancer in PF2R.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the playtest Necromancer is definitely necromantic, it definitely isn’t what I want to play, and isn’t how I want to play it. I’ve seen posts suggesting that the playtest necromancer “fulfills the fantasy” and even is akin to the Guild Wars necromancer in every way. Except, in the latter case, every way except the most important: the Guild Wars necromancer actually turned defeated enemies into corpses whereas there is no tacit connection between felling foes and rasing them as undead for the playtest Necromancer.
I hear what you're saying, but Necromancers very much can turn their defeated enemies into thralls. Your general point is valid, but regarding turning enemies into corpses to fuel their power, that is definitely already a thing they do. As of level 3 anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the point is that, for a Necromancer akin to Guild Wars, or any dark fantasy involving slaying foes and raising them to fight their own friends, this playtest Necromancer completely fails. And that should at least be acknowledged, whether or not that is important to you.
Is this not what Inevitable Return does? The ability could (and should imo) definitely be expanded, but it is there and I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned at all in this post.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having to kill stiff before you can use your class abilities sounds terrible. It results in near-permanent minions, of which you should never have more than one under the game's design. Or if they are semi-permanent and only last for a few hours or until the next day, you're basically dead weight at the beginning of the day. Good luck on that dragon hunt where the dragon is your only foe all day. What are you going to do? Kill a few peasants along the way?
Someone on reddit even argued that since PF2 doesn't support a Necromancer with a dozen undead minions, the class shouldn't be made for PF2 at all, which seems like a ridiculous notion.
I really don't understand the whole flavor debate. The PF2 Necromancer is different from the most common depiction of necromancers in media. So what? The PF2 wizard is also vastly different from Gandalf or Harry Potter. Things can share a name and similar theme without being identical in execution. The current thrall system has a few rough edges but for me it's a perfectly valid version if what a Necromancer can be.
@Sibelius Eos Owm/kwodo: yes Inevitable Return does utilise a slain enemy. To make a thrall. That you can already create a totally different way elsewise, but to create the same unsatisfying thing. And not until 3rd level.
@Sibelius - your POST in the Necromancer name thread is well reasoned (and I especially like the Groundless Speculation spoiler!), and I agree that a certain kind of Necromancer just wont fit in PF2’s paradigm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Blave: I totally get your points, and I alluded to them in my OP - there are definitely downsides, but that could definitely be creatively approached.
But I don’t disagree that this playtest Necromancer is a Necromancer it’s just that…well let me put it this way. I always thought the band KISS were…weird, but I couldn’t put my finger on why. Then, it hit me - if you close your eyes, the fact that they wear demonic/wild costumes has almost entirely nothing to do with their music. All that facepaint and leering and heels and spikes and armor only to sing “I was made for loving you”. Absent the theatrics, it’s entirely staid rock. And that’s how I fee about this Necromancer. It wants to dress in all the right get up, wield a scythe, shoot bony projectiles etc, but it’s not really singing an interesting tune.
So, yes, it’s “valid”. But sadly, I wouldn’t want to play it. And I love necromancy as a narrative trope. And the thrall mechanic is interesting, as has been seen previously - it just doesn’t necessarily need to be necromantic…
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me the playtest Necromancer firstly doesn’t even fulfill the most basic narrative trope that I would want to explore of the Necromancer - that I need to kill in order to raise;
While there are some bits of the OP's criticism that I can agree with, chiefly that there are bits to the Necromancer that I don't think are the best fit for their theme (chiefly, Occult as their tradition), I would very much like to push back against this particular point.
Let's just imagine, as a thought experiment, that as a Necromancer, you can only create thralls after killing creatures, and the thralls are proportionate in number to the creatures you kill. This means that for much of an encounter, you would have no undead minions to speak of, and if you're fighting one of those lone boss encounters, the only time you'd be able to raise a thrall would be after the fight is over (or perhaps after one of your allies has died, which is probably not something you'd want to enable). If you want to counter this with the provision that the Necromancer can accumulate slain creatures before the encounter starts... isn't that what create thrall is meant to represent?
To me, the Necromancer as implemented in the playtest is already one of the most setup-dependent classes in the game, if not the most. The entire point to the class seems to be that they can't access their full power immediately, but instead ramp up their presence and control over the battlefield with their thralls, which act as a resource for their big-ticket effects. Already, that's more moving parts to consider and more hoops to jump through than the average class to access the height of their powers, such that I don't think it would really work to add the requirement of killing enemies on top of that. Being able to reactively raise a fallen enemy as a thrall is enough in my opinion, and if I were to build on that, I'd go with implementing feats that let you Create additional Thralls from corpses on the battlefield when you cast the cantrip, or explode corpses for AoE damage.
As for thralls feeling unsatisfying: they are indeed a complete departure from the typical minion template, and it does feel weird for the minion-mancer class to not rely on minions, but I also feel like that makes sense mechanically, because minions have a lot of baggage to them that makes them a nightmare to manage when you've got a ton of them on the battle map. When each minion is a bag of HP and actions that you add to the fight, you can only go so far, I think, and stripping that away means you get more in the budget for greater quantities of minions and more things to do with them. To me, this is less a problem with the Necromancer, and more a demonstration of the inherent problems with minions as implemented in the game, as I think they're largely doomed to dissatisfy in a balanced environment.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Blave: I totally get your points, and I alluded to them in my OP - there are definitely downsides, but that could definitely be creatively approached.
But I don’t disagree that this playtest Necromancer is a Necromancer it’s just that…well let me put it this way. I always thought the band KISS were…weird, but I couldn’t put my finger on why. Then, it hit me - if you close your eyes, the fact that they wear demonic/wild costumes has almost entirely nothing to do with their music. All that facepaint and leering and heels and spikes and armor only to sing “I was made for loving you”. Absent the theatrics, it’s entirely staid rock. And that’s how I fee about this Necromancer. It wants to dress in all the right get up, wield a scythe, shoot bony projectiles etc, but it’s not really singing an interesting tune.
So, yes, it’s “valid”. But sadly, I wouldn’t want to play it. And I love necromancy as a narrative trope. And the thrall mechanic is interesting, as has been seen previously - it just doesn’t necessarily need to be necromantic…
But paizo need to decide on a class's flavor at some point.
I could easily reflavor most of the kineticist to use necrotic instead of elemental stuff. If the Runesmith used magically charged needles to embed in allies and foes instead of inscribed runes, the class would suddenly be a battle acupuncturist. An alchemist throwing shrunken heads instead of Vials would be a witch doctor. And so on and so forth.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Blave. It's just unrealistic to try to make a class that fulfills in mechanics all lore aspects that everyone wants for a class. The designer needs to focus the aspect it most wants that a class have and the the rules allows to keep it in balance, playful and fun.
This current necromancer is a pretty good advance in the concept of put as many undead thralls in battle that many players would like to play in a PF2e TTRPG a critic that many people have about the system. Of course that wont fit every aspect of how this is done for everyone but the playtest is here to anyone to test, complain and suggest changes to make the class to work better for what they want or to just ignore it because its main concept/mechanics is unfun for them.
Just the fact that the necromancer is not just a wizard school having their own unique mechanics already makes this necromancer incredible to me.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Blave. It's just unrealistic to try to make a class that fulfills in mechanics all lore aspects that everyone wants for a class.
More than that, it's kind of a late stage for that anyways.
To date none of these "this class shouldn't exist" threads (and we get a handful of them for every playtest) have ever led to Paizo writing off a class or something being redesigned from the ground up.
I do wonder if the strictures of Pathfinder 2R’s balance and elegant design are to me, a straitjacket that stifles truly engaging or inspiring class design, or if conversely, I wish for too much from the system (or something just thematically different - I hear that the kineticist is inspired, but I have no interest in it at all) - I imagine it is a little of column A and little of column B.
It sounds like neither, tbh. You have some very specific design choices you prefer and Paizo has chosen to do things in a different way. I don't see why that has to be some innate failure of the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IT might be odd but it isn't a bad class design. The only thing it needs is the Undead Companion feat chain and I think it be perfect honestly, or a sub-class which grants a undead companion rather then just a feat chance!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IT might be odd but it isn't a bad class design. The only thing it needs is the Undead Companion feat chain and I think it be perfect honestly, or a sub-class which grants a undead companion rather then just a feat chance!
honestly if only for page space i would rather undead companions stay in the undead master archetype, it doesnt have any wasted feats so the only real benifit toprinting those feats again in necromancer would be for people who want to grab an undead companion and also grab another archetype
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like with undead Master right there, it's a waste of time to just transpose that to this class
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adventuring with a party vs. being a villain/monster/NPC is always going to create some different outcomes. A necromancer PC who is going to be doing quests and social side-quests and dungeon crawls alongside 3+ other characters of equal importance is not going to work the same as a necromancer NPC gathering dozens of corpses to sustain their lifestyle or tens of thousands of twisted souls to build their empire. There are ways to build games and campaigns that support it, but it's a different scale and immediacy than PFS usually plays.
NPC necromancers are like playing Pikmin or a rogue-lite, where your power heavily fluctuates based on how your last encounter went, even if your power baseline rises as you gain skills even if every minion is destroyed sometimes.
I do wonder if the strictures of Pathfinder 2R’s balance and elegant design are to me, a straitjacket that stifles truly engaging or inspiring class design, or if conversely, I wish for too much from the system (or something just thematically different - I hear that the kineticist is inspired, but I have no interest in it at all) - I imagine it is a little of column A and little of column B.
It sounds like neither, tbh. You have some very specific design choices you prefer and Paizo has chosen to do things in a different way. I don't see why that has to be some innate failure of the system.
Well, once or twice, I might agree with you. But there were plenty of classes designed for PF1 both by Paizo and 3rd party publishers that I found inspired or interesting, but PF2, not so much. It seems tight and constrained. I live in hope.
Im a little bit shocked at how much of a sticking point this is for people, so I want to gently say: the idea of making me physically track corpses to use Create Thrall sounds really unfun to the average table.
I’m personally not surprised, given how popular the concept is, and perhaps the passion for the concept engenders such strong feelings - one way or the other. I don’t wish to track corpses either. That sounds boring. But it shouldn’t take a genius to locate a fallen foe in a pitched battle, especially if you just killed them.
I take other posters points about the setup being inordinately problematic if you have to kill your resources-to-be first and have already mentioned the problem with minionmancy in PF2 (let alone PF1!). But I’d personally be happy waiting raising a dead foe as a honest-to-bloodness minion. Especially if I have other abilities too.
I guess I feel there was a lost opportunity two ways: firstly a Necromancer that wasn’t engaged with not-quite minions and secondly a battlefield controller with placeable “chits” that wasn’t necessarily necromantic.
And I’m not looking for the devs to *do* anything. I’m just providing feedback.
I bought into the pitch of "oh ok, thralls are weak undead I can summon whenever I want" instantly. There are multiple Necromancer spells, abilities, and dedication feats I can take that are increasingly specific about using real corpses.
And I just as instantly recoiled from weak thralls that don’t really have much substance. And yes, you are absolutely right that there are these other options, but the “sticking point” for me isn’t the flavor of the Necromancer but the flavor and the power of the thralls. It turns me off the class to the point that I wouldn’t want to play it.
If you don't feel like a Necromancer, bring the corpses yourself. Maybe even roleplay a little, you can personally name every zombie you raise.
Touché. That does sound…boring. :p
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do wonder if the strictures of Pathfinder 2R’s balance and elegant design are to me, a straitjacket that stifles truly engaging or inspiring class design, or if conversely, I wish for too much from the system (or something just thematically different - I hear that the kineticist is inspired, but I have no interest in it at all) - I imagine it is a little of column A and little of column B.It sounds like neither, tbh. You have some very specific design choices you prefer and Paizo has chosen to do things in a different way. I don't see why that has to be some innate failure of the system.Well, once or twice, I might agree with you. But there were plenty of classes designed for PF1 both by Paizo and 3rd party publishers that I found inspired or interesting, but PF2, not so much. It seems tight and constrained. I live in hope.
It's tight and constrained with a purpose is the main thing.
The moment they are no longer this way is when this system starts to come apart.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think one of the issue with the flavor of this class is that despite being a "necromancer", it actually doesn't interact with necromantic option beyond those that are specific to the class. All the feats only ever interact with the thralls, and never with things like summoned undead minion, undead companion or familiar. Necromancer, as it stand, don't have any more mechanical insentive to use the "summon undead" spell than a bard, which is a bit of a flavor miss for me.
The isolation of the class mean that it could be reflavored in anything, an oozemancer, a totem-mancer, a floating-magical-star-mancer, and the mechanic could stay the exact same while reflavoring only the "visual" of it and it would still make sense. Making the class less isolated, by making it interact with the other, non necromancer specific, undead options would go a long way to strenghten the theme.
It could be as easy as changing a few of the feats and cantrip to say "selected thrall or undead minion you control" instead of just "selected thrall". It wouldn't work for all feats or focus spells, but it would for a good amount of them, like Reach of the Dead, Necrotic Bomb, or even the Consume Thrall class ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have expected the Necromancer to focus on more undead types other than skeletons, zombies and ghosts...
If anything, please add draugrs, mummies, morghs, wights, wraiths and specters.
Personally, I think one of the issue with the flavor of this class is that despite being a "necromancer", it actually doesn't interact with necromantic option beyond those that are specific to the class. All the feats only ever interact with the thralls, and never with things like summoned undead minion, undead companion or familiar. Necromancer, as it stand, don't have any more mechanical insentive to use the "summon undead" spell than a bard, which is a bit of a flavor miss for me.
I mean, the Summoner doesn't really incentivize the class to summon anything either but that's what we got.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the Summoner doesn't really incentivize the class to summon anything either but that's what we got.
The summoner do get a few feats that incentive using summon spells, which is more than I can presentely say for the necromancer and undead options as of now.
But also, I think you're right, it's true that the summoner don't actually insentivise summon that much. But I'm of the opinion that this is somewhat of a flavor fail, and that if summoner is to be remastered, it should be touched up a little to make it better at summonning (well, I'm of the opinion that summons spells in general should be modified a bit to not hog the top level slot and jump in utility so much depending on your level, but I think that battle is lost).
So I'd like if the necromancer class was a bit more in tune with necromancy, instead of being solely focussed on it's special mechanic to the exclusion of everything else. Most of the chassis and power can come from thralls, no problem with that, but it shouldn't be so entirely closed to every other form of necromancy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the Summoner doesn't really incentivize the class to summon anything either but that's what we got.The summoner do get a few feats that incentive using summon spells, which is more than I can presentely say for the necromancer and undead options as of now.
But also, I think you're right, it's true that the summoner don't actually insentivise summon that much. But I'm of the opinion that this is somewhat of a flavor fail, and that if summoner is to be remastered, it should be touched up a little to make it better at summonning (well, I'm of the opinion that summons spells in general should be modified a bit to not hog the top level slot and jump in utility so much depending on your level, but I think that battle is lost).
So I'd like if the necromancer class was a bit more in tune with necromancy, instead of being solely focussed on it's special mechanic to the exclusion of everything else. Most of the chassis and power can come from thralls, no problem with that, but it shouldn't be so entirely closed to every other form of necromancy.
But you can just take reanimator or undead master and add those options in? What benefits is gained by printing them again outside of vibes?
But you can just take reanimator or undead master and add those options in? What benefits is gained by printing them again outside of vibes?
To make the class more connected to the rest of the system instead of being an odd duck that doesn't interact with anything other than it's own special rules?
Beside, "vibe" is a quality in itself. A class that all about summoning, controlling and exploiting undeath but doesn't actually interact with any undeath option outside it's own chasis feel fake. It's as if the "undead" theme was just a paintjob and could be swapped with literally anything else without changing the class at all. Giving them features (be they feats or class ability) that actually interact with the rest of the game undead option ground the class theme much more.
Look at the druid for exemple, the primal spells and their focus spells give them a "nature" feel, sure, but it doesn't stop here. They have feats that allow them to talk to any animals or plant, not just their special companion or the one they summons. That allow them to ignore any strong wind, or to swim in any body of water, to ignore any plant based difficult terrain, etc etc. Their "one with nature" feel don't just stop at their own ability, it's connected to the rest of the game system. Likewise for alchemist, what they do is directly connected to the alchemical item anyone can get, it's not limited to special decoction only them can brew.
Beside, it's not as if these change need to be a big power jump. Between affecting the class special ability that they always have access to, or some more niche thing that they must specifically "buy into", like undead summons or an undead companion, the latter will always be more conditional and require more investment to work, so it balance itself out. But even just having the class synergize, even a tiny bit, to these option would go a long way to make the fantasy more "real", and feel less isolated and disconnected from the actual world.
EDIT : On reread, I feel like you have misread me, I'm not advocating for adding undead companion feat tree to the necromancer here (I think it would be nice, but it's not necessarily needed, as long as there are available enought archetype). What I'm saying is that the necromancer feats and feature need to account for undead companion or summon instead of just being only about thralls, thralls, thralls. A lot of these feature could easily be written as "target thrall or undead minion you control" instead of just thrall, and it would make the class feel more flavorfull, more connected to the rest of the system, for a very low power boost (as setting up before using the incredibly easy to create thrall is inherently easier than undead summons or undead companion). Likewise, it could easily have a handfull of feats that doesn't interact with thralls but with other undead themed part of the game (like a feat giving them better access to the summon undead spell, or to the harm spell), like the summoner feats that interact with summons spell instead of their eidolons.
|
On first think through, I really like the idea of using Necromancer focus spells on a thrall or an undead minion you control.
Maybe need to restrict it to non-pet (ie: familiar) minions?
Mostly thinking that to prevent Independent shenanigans.
On the other other hand, a 1/week ability to use a Necromancer focus spell without having to spend one action creating a thrall or a minion first is both flavorful and not overly strong, imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A better version of the shambling horror focus spell would fix a lot of those feel problems. A focus spell that's basically summon undead except it has to target a corpse. Unlikely, even if they lowered the level of the summon to not be top tier spell, it would then fall right into the useless bin for a lot of players.
Then perhaps a dance macabre type spell that does quicken to those with void healing and slow to those without would help to feel like your interacting with void powers in a more general sense.
Things could be added to get those more general necro vibes, but might be real tough making them good.
A better version of the shambling horror focus spell would fix a lot of those feel problems. A focus spell that's basically summon undead except it has to target a corpse. Unlikely, even if they lowered the level of the summon to not be top tier spell, it would then fall right into the useless bin for a lot of players.
Honestly, given how "not meta" summon spells are (for good reason), I feel like having a feat that turn them into focus spell (and thus allow you to cast them at max heigtenning without having to lose your other top level slot) would be far from broken.
Druids already have a subclass that take two spells (pest and animal form), smash them together and turn them into a focus spell (with even added upside), with the possibility of adding even more spell to the pile and adding even more upside to them through other feats, so turning normal spells into focus spell isn't broken by itself, it depend on the specific spell. And summon spells have enough restriction I feel to make them fine as focus.
Do note that I say that in the necromancer thread, but I'm not talking solely for them. Summoners, sloth wizard, and druid all deserve a way to get such upside I think, even if it cost them a couple of feats to get to it. Because right now, summon really doesn't feel worth using.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm saying is that the necromancer feats and feature need to account for undead companion or summon instead of just being only about thralls, thralls, thralls.
Well, one thing to remember is that this is a playtest and it's going to be focused on the new mechanics to make sure they are working as hoped/expected. This means that the focus is going to be "thralls, thralls, thralls". "undead companion or summon" are known elements that don't need playtested: They can look to reanimator, undead master, summoner and druid feats for such feats and know how the same or similar feats would work for the Necromancer.
I'd just say to express in the Playtest Survey what you're like to see in the complete class.
I'd just say to express in the Playtest Survey what you're like to see in the complete class.
I don't really get what is your point here, aren't these forum made specifically for people to tell what they think about the iteration of the class that's being playtested?
Sure, interaction with already released element of the game need less playtesting, but it still need some of it if they want to use these elements in uncommon ways. And these forum are made for us to talk about how we feel about the current iteration of the class, so i'm reporting (and I'm not the only one), that from my perspective, the necromancer don't interact enough with necromancy in general, instead focussing solely on it's own special feature. So I'm expressing that I would like more feature, no matter the form they take, that allow for this class to make better use of the already released necromancy option.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really get what is your point here
You made a point that the playtest was focused on "thralls, thralls, thralls" and I was just saying that playtesting was for new rules/material and not really on things already in the rules. As such, it makes 100% that it's mostly "thralls, thralls, thralls". I'm not telling you not to express what you think about the playtest, but to say that it's an unrealistic expectation to see things that aren't "thralls, thralls, thralls" in it. I'm sure the Runesmith will have feats that aren't "runes, runes, runes" but those don't need playtested either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just say to express in the Playtest Survey what you're like to see in the complete class.I don't really get what is your point here, aren't these forum made specifically for people to tell what they think about the iteration of the class that's being playtested?
Sure, interaction with already released element of the game need less playtesting, but it still need some of it if they want to use these elements in uncommon ways. And these forum are made for us to talk about how we feel about the current iteration of the class, so i'm reporting (and I'm not the only one), that from my perspective, the necromancer don't interact enough with necromancy in general, instead focussing solely on it's own special feature. So I'm expressing that I would like more feature, no matter the form they take, that allow for this class to make better use of the already released necromancy option.
It's more that say, for example, Animist didn't have a Familiar option in the Playtest, but does in the final release - because Paizo already knows how Familiars interact with wide swathes of the system, and there was no need to gather data that could take away from the other aspects they really are looking for input on.
Thus, the same is true here with Thralls and any hypothetical undead familiar/companion feats in the final release..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playtest survey is extremely important.
Arguably most important, as it seems like they sift through every comment in the survey. While I'm sure there's input from the forums, it'd be imbalanced to give them equal weight since there's a lot of repetition from a small segment of their customer base.
Though I haven’t taken the current playtest’s survey yet, I’ve found previous playtest surveys to both both hopelessly skewed, and completely leading, in that they seem to be hyperfocused on, unsurprisingly, what they obviously want data on, without leaving much room for interpretation; while also seeming to lead the survey taker into confirming certain points without there being sufficient consideration of outlier points of view. Compounded by being incredibly short/brief. I don’t think the surveys are very well utilised as an information or data gathering tool. More work needed.
Honestly, given how "not meta" summon spells are (for good reason), I feel like having a feat that turn them into focus spell (and thus allow you to cast them at max heigtenning without having to lose your other top level slot) would be far from broken.Druids already have a subclass that take two spells (pest and animal form), smash them together and turn them into a focus spell (with even added upside), with the possibility of adding even more spell to the pile and adding even more upside to them through other feats, so turning normal spells into focus spell isn't broken by itself, it depend on the specific spell. And summon spells have enough restriction I feel to make them fine as focus.
Do note that I say that in the necromancer thread, but I'm not talking solely for them. Summoners, sloth wizard, and druid all deserve a way to get such upside I think, even if it cost them a couple of feats to get to it. Because right now, summon really doesn't feel worth using.
Indeed, but I don't think they would do so. Having used the create undead ritual with reanimator and having used summons with my summoner I'm sure they could figure out a way but it would likely be unsatisfying. I just don't think the desire is there, it would have to somehow shut off a large portion of your other functionality like with druid just so others don't poach it.