A detailed analysis and critique of the Necromancer

[ThrabenU]

Hey folks!

I love the Necromancer playtest, and as such, I made a video detailing my critiques of the Necromancer as it stands as of the Impossible Playtest. If you are in for an hour long analysis of the Necromancer's balance (and especially focus spells!), check it out!

https://youtu.be/2A06nivYeQg

[Blave]

I will probably watch that when I have the opportunity, but I'm not sure a video has much value as feedback for a playtest. You might want to condense your findings in text form and post them here if you're serious about giving feedback.

[Claxon]

I honestly hate when things that could have been text are instead turned into a video, but maybe I'm just old.

Especially for lengthy detailed things.

I cut portions of text to respond to. I can think and make a detailed response myself.

With a video....none of that is happening.

I only like video where a visual of something can be incredibly helpful in ways that words cannot describe. Like the assembly or disassembly of something.

Also (and not saying this was OP's intention) but a ton of people post youtube videos trying to get internet famous/clout and get "youtube monney" and I'm not interested in participating in that.

[YuriP]

I saw parts of the video (especially the conclusion), it was well made with cuts from the PDF to explain his points. That said I agree that's a bit difficult to most of us to discus an one hour video here.

[AestheticDialectic]

Claxon wrote:

I honestly hate when things that could have been text are instead turned into a video, but maybe I'm just old.

Especially for lengthy detailed things.

I cut portions of text to respond to. I can think and make a detailed response myself.

With a video....none of that is happening.

I only like video where a visual of something can be incredibly helpful in ways that words cannot describe. Like the assembly or disassembly of something.

Also (and not saying this was OP's intention) but a ton of people post youtube videos trying to get internet famous/clout and get "youtube monney" and I'm not interested in participating in that.

They're a YouTuber, it's what they do. ThrabenU is a Magic: The Gathering YouTuber who primarily makes content playing the legacy format and this is their second channel they recently made dedicated to Pathfinder. Far as I'm concerned they already have "clout" and this is a courtesy to let some of us know this content exists, and I for one am glad because I like ThrabenU

[Justnobodyfqwl]

I'm still making my way through the video, but I can 100% confirm that ThrabenU wastes less time in their content than the average post on this forum does. They use every minute well, and they clearly reflect the MTG player mindset of being willing to really crack into the nitty gritty of a system to try to understand WHY things are the way that we are. I can't think of anyone talking about PF2E that respects my time MORE than ThrabenU

[Luke Styer]

I was disappointed that this isn’t a text post I can interact with now because I’m not where I can fire up a video, but I am always happy to find a new PF2e YouTube channel.

[Squiggit]

I like how no one, even the people who mentioned liking the video, have said a single specific thing about the actual content the OP wanted to share (yes I know I'm being part of the problem here).

[R3st8]

Squiggit wrote:

I like how no one, even the people who mentioned liking the video, have said a single specific thing about the actual content the OP wanted to share (yes I know I'm being part of the problem here).

OK I will be addressing it. I don't agree with his opinion on moving the thralls because he is approaching it from a gamist perspective. He fails to understand that the problem with not being able to move the thralls is not about efficiency; it's that they feel like statues or trees rather than real undead. There is a significant difference between saying, "It's not worth it to move the thralls," and "I literally cannot move the thralls." To be honest, it feels almost insulting that he suggests we aren't thinking when, in reality, he is the one who is hyper-focusing on action economy and feats while missing the point.

[Hamitup]

R3st8 wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I like how no one, even the people who mentioned liking the video, have said a single specific thing about the actual content the OP wanted to share (yes I know I'm being part of the problem here).

OK I will be addressing it. I don't agree with his opinion on moving the thralls because he is approaching it from a gamist perspective. He fails to understand that the problem with not being able to move the thralls is not about efficiency; it's that they feel like statues or trees rather than real undead. There is a significant difference between saying, "It's not worth it to move the thralls," and "I literally cannot move the thralls." To be honest, it feels almost insulting that he suggests we aren't thinking when, in reality, he is the one who is hyper-focusing on action economy and feats while missing the point.

I mostly agree with the way OP talks about thralls moving, but think he was a bit hasty in his dismissal and it leaves design space unused. I think if you just had the option to move existing thralls instead summoning new ones, there would be complaining that it was a trap for waist of an actions. To me thrall movement could work if it was tied to something else and small. Something like letting some thralls step when you preform certain actions could help them feel like the aren't statues, but also not slow things down with figuring out the movement for all of them. It could also help with adjusting a thrall before casting a grave spell.

[Tremaine]

I think OP missed the point on moving thralls, so to answer his question: I would give up every feat and focus spell in the playtest to have created and controlled undead as a necromancer, every feat after they can move would be something to make them better.

[Hamitup]

Tremaine wrote:

I think OP missed the point on moving thralls, so to answer his question: I would give up every feat and focus spell in the playtest to have created and controlled undead as a necromancer, every feat after they can move would be something to make them better.

Would that not just be an undead summoner?

[Tremaine]

Hamitup wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

I think OP missed the point on moving thralls, so to answer his question: I would give up every feat and focus spell in the playtest to have created and controlled undead as a necromancer, every feat after they can move would be something to make them better.

Would that not just be an undead summoner?

Because they don't animate and control undead, they are a skin over a universal chassis. Which from a game balance perspective makes sense, but does not do what the necromancer fantasy I enjoy does

[Hamitup]

Tremaine wrote:

Because they don't animate and control undead, they are a skin over a universal chassis. Which from a game balance perspective makes sense, but does not do what the necromancer fantasy I enjoy does

I think I mentioned this in another thread you were in, but it sounds like you want the spell duplicate foe at a lower level with some adjustments. Something that targets a dead body and lets you control some facsimile of what they once were.

[Tremaine]

Hamitup wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

Because they don't animate and control undead, they are a skin over a universal chassis. Which from a game balance perspective makes sense, but does not do what the necromancer fantasy I enjoy does

I think I mentioned this in another thread you were in, but it sounds like you want the spell duplicate foe at a lower level with some adjustments. Something that targets a dead body and lets you control some facsimile of what they once were.

That could work.

[R3st8]

Hamitup wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

Because they don't animate and control undead, they are a skin over a universal chassis. Which from a game balance perspective makes sense, but does not do what the necromancer fantasy I enjoy does

I think I mentioned this in another thread you were in, but it sounds like you want the spell duplicate foe at a lower level with some adjustments. Something that targets a dead body and lets you control some facsimile of what they once were.

I guess that is the closest you could get to old-style necromancy, but I suppose we will never again experience the feeling of viewing enemy bodies as a form of equipment drop. You would kill enemies to obtain stronger undead and use them to repeat the cycle indefinitely, as long as you don't exceed the HD limit.

[Hamitup]

I think there are a few spells that might work if you could target a corpse with them, but they are all about rank 6 or higher. I also think Paizo would be hesitant to give them at a much lower level and to potentially let the party walk around with multiple bags of hit points tied to one character. Even the beast master is limited to the number of companions at one time.