When I read reach of the dead, it first struck me as a neat feature with some interesting uses, but I skipped over it in favor of another feat.
Now however, I've taken the time to re-read it, and it gave me pause.
The feat states :
You channel your necrotic magic through a thrall, expending it in the process. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has range, you cast that spell from one of your thralls within 60 feet. That thrall becomes the point of origin for your spell; calculate range and cover from its space instead of yours. The thrall is then destroyed.
The important part is the last sentence. 'The thrall is THEN destroyed'. After you Cast a Spell.
That seems relatively unimportant, but...Grave Spells have a relatively limited range. Blood Infusion, Bone Spear, Necrotic Bomb, Bony Barrage...30 foot range.
With this however, RAW, you can simply cast the grave spell, and target the thrall you're using. The thrall is blown up by the Grave Spell, and nothing happens. The feat does not require the thrall be there once the spell has finished casting, only that it be destroyed after all.
So, unless I'm seriously mistaken, Reach of the Dead effectively allows you to double the range of many Grave Spells at no cost (beyond, of course, a feat and using your spellshape for that spell). Notable exception is, of course, grave spells like Song of the Soul, that have an ongoing effect. Would that work, or did I read something wrong ?
Yes, you can use Reach of the Dead to to only expend the same thrall for Reach of the Dead and other grave spell purposes if you're at or within 60'. Or you can use two thralls, using the first up to 60' away as a "relay" and origin to reach the second further than 60' away.
While this may seem like simply "free action Reach Spell, plus other benefits," you can't put a thrall 60' away for no cost - the range of Create Thrall is 30. At best you use Create Thrall with the included command a thrall action to sacrifice a thrall you would have otherwise made to tell it to stride 15-20 away. Still not 60, and you did lose a thrall to make this happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reach of the Dead effectively allows you to double the range of many Grave Spells at no cost (beyond, of course, a feat and using your spellshape for that spell).
That is an enormous caveat to just slip in there as an aside.
That is the same cost that Reach Spell has. One feat, and using a Spellshape action. And Reach Spell has a similar effect - it effectively doubles the range of your 30 foot spells.
So if Reach Spell is fine to do exactly what it says on the tin, then so is Reach of the Dead.
Reach of the Dead effectively allows you to double the range of many Grave Spells at no cost (beyond, of course, a feat and using your spellshape for that spell).That is an enormous caveat to just slip in there as an aside.
That is the same cost that Reach Spell has. One feat, and using a Spellshape action. And Reach Spell has a similar effect - it effectively doubles the range of your 30 foot spells.
So if Reach Spell is fine to do exactly what it says on the tin, then so is Reach of the Dead.
Well, Reach of the Dead is a free action, even if we exlude the benefit of the 60ft instead of 30ft of it (since Summon Thrall is 30ft), even if we exlude that you can use preexisting Thralls, in it's most basic iteration of Summon Thrall->reach of the Dead->Spell, you still get 1-2 extra Thralls and 0-1 Extra Attacks out of it compared to Reach.
---
It's an absolutely amazing feat even without trying to justify double-dipping on a Thrall.
(Which again, to my reading you aren't, the Thrall dies when you calculate the reach/range and THEN the spell resolves)
My thoughts exactly. I do believe RAW double dipping on a Thrall is allowed. 'The thrall is then destroyed' is the last sentence and comes after the 'Cast a Spell' bit. Though an argument can be made because it is spellshape and Cast a Spell is the next action, the issue I have with that is that it specifically says 'you can cast that spell from one of your thralls', if it is destroyed before you cast the spell, then it simply doesn't work.
Also, now that I'm actually looking at the possibilities, this is incredibly flexible for an extremely wide variety of purposes. You can use it to chain create thralls up to 90 feet away (60 foot range to target a thrall, 30 foot range to make more), and ordering a thrall has no range limit. Is it useful in combat ? Probably not, but it could have some fun and unexpected uses during exploration. That's not mentioning the fact that with two casts or some pre battle preparations, you can extend the range of multiple spells by 60 feet for a free action.
What I don't think the ability requires is for the Necromancer player to recalculate the point of origin, range, and cover of the casting of the spell after the Thrall is destroyed. What, exactly, is the effect of the ability if that is required?
Hmm... interesting.
I'm still not sure that I am understanding the two conflicting readings here. Something about not being able to destroy the same Thrall as part of the cost of two different abilities.
But sacrificing a creature to pay costs for abilities is a Magic: The Gathering concept. Not a Pathfinder2e concept.
From what I am seeing in the various Grave Spells, destroying the Thrall is part of the effect. Not a cost that you pay. For example, Dead Weight: The effect is to impose off-guard or Slowed to a target and to destroy the Thrall. The cost is 1 focus point and the actions to cast the spell.
So I don't quite understand the idea of 'double dipping' regarding destroying the same Thrall as part of the effect of two different abilities. I'm still paying all of the costs of both of those abilities.
I agree with statement of the problem, and agree that you're probably not suposed to get the freebie and wouldn't allow it. But I don't think it's a compelled reading, and I also don't think it will actually matter or be easy to do this exploit even if you accept it as possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the operative sentence is the second one.
You channel your necrotic magic through a thrall, expending it in the process. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has range, you cast that spell one of your thralls within 60 feet. That thrall becomes the point of origin for your spell; calculate range and cover from its space instead of yours. The thrall is then destroyed.
The way I read RotD is that it works similar to Project Image. Instead of the spell coming from you, it comes from the Thrall. Necrotic Bomb, as an example, requires you to target "one of your thralls" within 30 feet. RotD means that you have to target one of your thralls that is within 30 feet of the RotD thrall.
TLDR; The thrall that is the target of RotD is not a valid thrall target for casting the spell.
Note the feat also says you're "expending it (the thrall", as in using it up. So it's getting spent to enable to the ability, so unavailable to expend for another ability (whether or not there's some timing overlap one might attempt to abuse). The RAI is clear in the plain language Paizo prefers and it requires irregular rigor to interpret RAW as allowing double-expenditure, so I know which way I'll be adjudicating this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I take exception to the mischaracterization of "irregular rigor".
'expending' isn't a defined game term. The term shows up in the flavor text line. If destroying the thrall is a cost that is supposed to be paid up front before the effect can happen, then it should be more clear about that. Currently the part of the effect that destroys the Thrall is the last thing that happens and is explicitly after the subsequent spell is cast (the sentence saying that you cast the spell from the Thrall's position is first, and the sentence saying the Thrall is destroyed has the word "then" in it).
I take exception to the mischaracterization of "irregular rigor".
'expending' isn't a defined game term. The term shows up in the flavor text line. If destroying the thrall is a cost that is supposed to be paid up front before the effect can happen, then it should be more clear about that. Currently the part of the effect that destroys the Thrall is the last thing that happens and is explicitly after the subsequent spell is cast (the sentence saying that you cast the spell from the Thrall's position is first, and the sentence saying the Thrall is destroyed has the word "then" in it).
Irregular is a matter of opinion, so obviously some of us do not think it's a mischaracterization. Your next paragraph demonstrates this rigor. Did you not, upon first reading, immediately think that the Necromancer pays one Thrall for the Spellshape effect? That's the everyday English Paizo emphasizes.
Yes, "expending" is not a defined game term, hence we should use the everyday definition which would entail that one's expending the thrall for the sake of the Spellshape. Right? Note that "flavor text" is also not a defined game term, and one Paizo has resisted in PF2 (alongside "fluff", etc.). As in that portion matters too.
And I agree with shroudb that the thrall is destroyed at the end of the Spellshape action, meaning yes, some of the spell's choices usually made during casting occur then instead. Though yeah, that's odd, at the table that plays out as one package.
Also, it's a free action. Cashing it in without some expenditure goes against gaming principles, as compared to Reach Spell which also has less reach (and can't work on 3-action spells).
again, the sentence that destroys it is:
That thrall becomes the point of origin for your spell; calculate range and cover from its space instead of yours. The thrall is then destroyed.As soon as you use it for point of origin, then it's destroyed, that's what I'm reading here. Not as soon as the spell finishes.
The sentence that destroys the Thrall is that second one, yes. But not what you are trying to point to. "The thrall is then destroyed." That is what destroys the thrall.
If you are looking at the previous sentence for context, then why are you also not looking at the sentence previous to that:
If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has range, you cast that spell from one of your thralls within 60 feet.
Casting the spell happens before the thrall is destroyed.
Did you not, upon first reading, immediately think that the Necromancer pays one Thrall for the Spellshape effect? That's the everyday English Paizo emphasizes.
No, I didn't. I initially read that, and still read that, as that the thrall is destroyed as an after-effect of the spellshape. After the free action spellshape and the spell it modifies resolves, then the thrall is destroyed. Narratively, it is hard to think of the already destroyed thrall as being the origin point of anything. What, exactly, does that look like?
Let's try another set of example plain English sentences then, shall we. Just to show how ambiguous and error prone English can be.
I order a pizza from Papa Murphy's. I pay for the pizza and pick it up from that location. The pizza is then baked.
Does the pizza get baked before it is purchased or picked up or made?
Plain English. -_-
Did you not, upon first reading, immediately think that the Necromancer pays one Thrall for the Spellshape effect? That's the everyday English Paizo emphasizes.
I parsed the meaning as Finoan did on all my readings. You can't cast from something that doesn't exist; it would have to read 'If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has range, you cast that spell from one of your thralls [location] within 60 feet' or something similar. If it's meant to destroy before casting, then it failed fundamentally to convey that fact in both every day english and PF2 parlance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a former teacher of English teachers, I understand English's ambiguity, which is why I'd prefer to avoid applying rigor where no rigor's intended (as per Paizo's stated and reaffirmed MO). I'd rather look at game principles, where this feat outperforms Reach Spell and follows Necromancer's thrall-destruction norms. Trying to milk an extra thrall's value out of it strikes me as shenanigans.
"If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has range, you cast that spell from one of your thralls within 60 feet.
Casting the spell happens before the thrall is destroyed."
In highlighting the "you cast" portion, you're neglecting the "next action" which indicates when that casting takes place: Next. As in the description's walking you through the steps of the Spellshape action at the end of which is the thrall's destruction and your next action will be the casting using the parameters you've chosen from that thrall's (former) position. The thrall's destruction segues directly into the spellcasting which narratively launches from that thrall as its destroyed (like many Necromancer effects that erupt from thralls).
I'm not saying I couldn't parse the sentence the way you do, that's easy enough. I'm saying I'm disagreeing with choosing to do so when the alternative meshes better with PF2 norms.
In highlighting the "you cast" portion, you're neglecting the "next action" which indicates when that casting takes place
I'm not though as the next action is indicated as you "Cast a Spell" and it indicates "you cast that spell from one of your thralls". IMO, it's you that's ignoring the explicit action of "cast that spell from one of your thralls": I can't see a way that it's parce so that you can have it cast from a thrall that is no longer there as it makes part of the sentence null and void.
As in the description's walking you through the steps of the Spellshape action at the end of which is the thrall's destruction and your next action will be the casting using the parameters you've chosen from that thrall's (former) position.
The bolded just never happens in the rule text. Nowhere does it say (former) position [nor implied IMO]; that's just what you've added to the sentence to make it read as you think it should as opposed to what it literally says. Until/unless an errata comes out adding "(former) position", i don't see another way to read it that isn't reading more into it that is there currently. You shouldn't have to read between the lines and add text not there to make it work as intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just found this too. How about this for explicit:
From Spellshape
Any additional effects added by a spellshape action are part of the spell's effect, not of the spellshape action itself.
Destroying the Thrall as a result of Reach of the Dead is an additional effect of the spellshape. So destroying the thrall is part of the modified spell's effects and not part of the spellshape action itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, obviously, you have a different reading, which is why it is completely absurd for you to claim that "it's explicitly stated when the Thrall is destroyed" when obviously there are two completely different readings of when it is destroyed.
Well, I do see it as pretty explicit.
This sentence here that you are talking about: "That thrall becomes the point of origin for your spell; calculate range and cover from its space instead of yours." That is just defining mechanically what 'you cast that spell from one of your thralls' means. If we could assume that everyone in the world knows what that means, then the text is completely redundant and can be removed.
So if it was made a general rule, then the ability could be shortened without loss by removing that sentence, leaving:
"If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has range, you cast that spell from one of your thralls within 60 feet. The thrall is then destroyed."
Which looks plenty explicit. You cast the spell. Then the thrall is destroyed.
So yeah. I really don't understand how you come to the conclusion that somehow you only do the targeting of the spell during the spellshape action. That somehow you target the spell, then destroy the thrall, and after all of that then you finally cast the spell. That sounds like some chronomancy nonsense.
I just found this too. How about this for explicit:
From Spellshape
Any additional effects added by a spellshape action are part of the spell's effect, not of the spellshape action itself.Destroying the Thrall as a result of Reach of the Dead is an additional effect of the spellshape. So destroying the thrall is part of the modified spell's effects and not part of the spellshape action itself.
Good find, and I think this supports Paizo has to clarify this feat, namely whether the destruction of the thrall represents "expending" it as stated, and thus a necessary aspect of the Spellshape. And/or is it an "additional effect added"? That means added to the spell, right? But nothing says the destruction of the thrall's being added to anything; it seems like its own event as part of the Spellshape action.
Which is to reiterate that I still think they're walking us through the steps of the Spellshape action, with the thrall being a cost (as per normal Necromancer methods) before the actual casting. And yes, I accept this leads to the thrall not being there when the spell's cast from it, hence my imagery of the spell erupting from its corpse/bones/essence/blood, whatnot. This awkward pseudo-simultaneity occurs sometimes in PF2's action system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an interesting discussion.
It certainly reads as though the thrall must be destroyed after you use the Cast a Spell activity. The thrall cannot be destroyed before that because, if it is, it is no longer there to "cast that spell from."
While nothing RAW explicitly indicates otherwise, I do believe that using the same thrall as the target of, say, Bony Barrage to get two sacrifice-a-thrall effects for the low, low price of 1 thrall is TGTBT. It sounds like a a two-for-one exploit shenanigans.
It needs an errata to clearly state, one way or the other, if the thrall used for RotD can also be the target of the spell that is cast. A simple, "That thrall [can/cannot] be the target of the spell," would suffice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an interesting discussion.
It certainly reads as though the thrall must be destroyed after you use the Cast a Spell activity. The thrall cannot be destroyed before that because, if it is, it is no longer there to "cast that spell from."
While nothing RAW explicitly indicates otherwise, I do believe that using the same thrall as the target of, say, Bony Barrage to get two sacrifice-a-thrall effects for the low, low price of 1 thrall is TGTBT. It sounds like a a two-for-one exploit shenanigans.
It needs an errata to clearly state, one way or the other, if the thrall used for RotD can also be the target of the spell that is cast. A simple, "That thrall [can/cannot] be the target of the spell," would suffice.
That would indeed solve the problem neatly...except that it would remove interactions with things like Song of the Soul, where you don't double dip. Yes, you would lose the fast healing from the thrall being destroyed, but you also wouldn't be able to use this as an emergency longer range heal.
A niche interaction, admittedly, but worth pointing out.
Ultimately, I think clarifying when the thrall is supposed to be destroyed is the best way forward for this. Something like 'The thrall is then destroyed, and the spell cast from its remains.' Thematic as well.