Why I Dislike Necromancer as a GM

[Shadecap]

This might be a hot take, but I greatly dislike the Necromancer class and have a blanket ban going forward for tables that I GM.

I currently GM various adventure paths 5 nights a week, and with the exception of a few 3rd party products, I like keeping my games as close to RAW as I can for the purpose of consistency. During the playtest, 2 players started Necromancer characters, and I am not making them change their class, they will finish the AP with what they've started.

I didn't have many complaints during the playtest, I thought it was a bit of a nuisance to handle thralls coming on and off the board (Foundry VTT), but overall it felt fine at the various levels I experienced it.

On full release, both players started using their thralls as minesweepers, having them walk around squares 30 feet ahead of the party trying to trigger ambushes, haunts and traps. They use Thralls to open doors so as to ignore the need to check for traps. All I got left are Combat and Social encounters, everything else is trivial.

I feel like the Necromancer class, with Thralls as a free resource, is rules-as-written, irreparably broken. I don't think I should have to change how a class works to prevent it from trivializing whole sections of dungeons. At the very least, I don't think the class should be Common.

Are there other examples of class abilities that can do something like this outside of the Necromancer that I just haven't come across?

[Master Han Del of the Web]

Thralls cannot make skill checks. Locked doors, even trivially locked ones cannot be opened by them. Same with heavy or stuck doors that might require athletics checks. Set up traps on the doors to trigger after unlocking unless the PCs manage a high thievery check.

Thralls are not alive and are mindless. They probably would not trigger most haunts and traps that sense or target living creatures/thinking minds would ignore them.

Thralls are slow. Without feat investment using them as minesweepers would be time consuming. A nercomancer would be moving at below half speed because they need to spend time to command the thrall forward periodically and standard movement for thralls is 15ft. Put a time pressure on your players.

Thralls are not ever-lasting. You'd be well within your rights to say a thrall coming into an encounter has a reduced lifespan since it was summoned before the fight.

Thralls have 1 HP. Are of effect traps, nested effects, multi-pronged ambushes... all of these could take out the thralls and threaten the PCs or lure them into a false sense of security.

Necromancers aren't uncommon. You are justified in having suitably intelligent enemies identify thralls and react much more tactically.

Let your players have their victories here by being able to bypass or work around problems with their thrall supply but nothing about the advantages they give is insurmountable or 'irreparably broken'.

[Blave]

You could just tell them not to do this...?

It's also not foolproof. Haunts might recognize thralls as something familiar and simply not activate. Traps could only trigger from living creatures, doors can be locked or simply stuck, requiring a DC 10 athletics check to open.

There's probabaly more ways to handle these things that are better than an outright ban of a whole class.

[graystone]

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Necromancers aren't uncommon. You are justified in having suitably intelligent enemies identify thralls and react much more tactically.

My necromancer would be THRILLED to have intelligent enemies take an action out at the start of combat to roll Recall Knowledge on my Thrall. ;)

[PossibleCabbage]

It seems like "your tactic is annoying the GM" is a thing we can just have a reasonable conversation about as adults. If you're sending thralls ahead in the hallway to trigger any traps (a tactic that also works with the Kineticist's familiar feats) you either "don't use traps like that anymore" or you seed in a few traps that are better to never trigger at all, since the disposable thrall triggering the trap puts the party at risk.

[Dunwright]

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Thralls cannot make skill checks. Locked doors, even trivially locked ones cannot be opened by them. Same with heavy or stuck doors that might require athletics checks. Set up traps on the doors to trigger after unlocking unless the PCs manage a high thievery check.

Thralls are not alive and are mindless. They probably would not trigger most haunts and traps that sense or target living creatures/thinking minds would ignore them.

Thralls are slow. Without feat investment using them as minesweepers would be time consuming. A nercomancer would be moving at below half speed because they need to spend time to command the thrall forward periodically and standard movement for thralls is 15ft. Put a time pressure on your players.

Thralls are not ever-lasting. You'd be well within your rights to say a thrall coming into an encounter has a reduced lifespan since it was summoned before the fight.

Thralls have 1 HP. Are of effect traps, nested effects, multi-pronged ambushes... all of these could take out the thralls and threaten the PCs or lure them into a false sense of security.

Necromancers aren't uncommon. You are justified in having suitably intelligent enemies identify thralls and react much more tactically.

Let your players have their victories here by being able to bypass or work around problems with their thrall supply but nothing about the advantages they give is insurmountable or 'irreparably broken'.

Some of these are relevant points, some of these are not. For the purposes of "minesweeping" it doesn't matter that thralls are slow, have low health and are short-lived- the whole point of using them for this is that they're expendable, and new thralls can be endlessly summoned as a one-action cantrip. Their 15 feet speed hardly even matters for this purpose, you can spend the same action you'd use to command one making 2-3 new ones up to 30 feet away from you, or use 2 actions to create 1-2 in that range and immediately command one to move an additional 15 feet. The slow speed is relevant in combat or if you wanted to try to march with an army surrounding you but it really isn't an impediment to using them as trap bait. The points about them being mindless and unable to take skill checks or or other complex actions are valid and do present some important limits to what kinds of traps or hazards a thrall can actually help you with.

Ultimately the class that revolves around being able to constantly and effortlessly create undead fodder is going to excel at solving problems that can be solved by throwing fodder ahead of you, which describes some but certainly not all of the dangers that you might encounter in a dungeon. I don't think this is necessarily such a big deal or a game breaker personally but it is kind of an inherent feature of the class. Personally I think if you find your dungeons have been trivialized by letting somebody send a thrall to walk ahead of them it probably wasn't a very complex dungeon to begin with. The same problems could also probably be solved with some ten foot poles, ropes, some nice throwable rocks, etc. I mean what, were they just walking headfirst into traps and facetanking them before?

[QuidEst]

I think the logical conclusion to this is that thralls are also auto-failing stealth and giving enemies more heads-up by moving slowly thirty feet ahead of the party.

If it were me, I'd give the party a heads-up that there will be some trade-offs to Necromancer minesweeper tactics. I'd probably have something like "enemies get an exploration activity, so they can have a shield raised, give their group a small initiative bonus, or otherwise set up".

They also will often not trigger haunts, and magical traps will depend.

Showing traps absolutely obliterating one-hitpoint auto-failing thralls can be fun and make the Necromancer feel good.

But hey, up to you!

[Squark]

Repeating the figment spell for a crude fanfare or doodle every 6 seconds fatigues the caster. Continual Creation of Thralls should absolutely do the same, which severely limits their minesweeping ability.

[graystone]

Squark wrote:

[Url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2628&Redirected=1[/url] Repeating the figment spell every for a crude fanfare every 6 seconds fatigues players. Continual Creation of Thralls should absolutely do the same, which severely limits their minesweeping ability.

2 things: #1 create thrall only costs a single action so you could cast it 1/round all day and not be fatigued. #2 You wouldn't create every round. You could create thrall 1 round and then move that thrall with Command a Thrall 1/round for the next 9 rounds, rinse and repeat with no issues.

In Improvising New Activities, it goes into what fatigues you: it's when you use "strenuous activities where the PCs are using the equivalent of 2 actions every 6 seconds" such as a 2 action cantrip like a figment cantrip. It explains that 1 action per 6 seconds isn't fatiguing: "For example, if the PC are Swimming as they explore, consider that travel speeds are based on the equivalent of 1 action per 6 seconds, and that other exploration activities the PCs can keep up without getting tired are generally based on alternating between 2 actions per 12 seconds, averaging to 1 action per 6 seconds."

Secondly, most rounds you wouldn't be casting a spell, so 'Repeating a spell that requires making complex decisions' causing fatigue wouldn't really apply [it's 1 spell per 10 rounds not every other round].

[Unicore]

It is fair to not like classes as a GM, and to be up front with players about why. In my games, a Necromancer is going to run into a lot of social backlash making minions, even in dungeons around most NPCs and I am clear about that and how frowned upon Necromancy is in my games.

I do agree the class should have been uncommon. The idea that Necromancers are common in world (and not just as enemies) feels like a fairly heavy lore change to me that might not have been well thought out. But a lot of people really like the class, so I get the feeling our dislike of the class is not the majority opinion.

[graystone]

Unicore wrote:

It is fair to not like classes as a GM, and to be up front with players about why. In my games, a Necromancer is going to run into a lot of social backlash making minions, even in dungeons around most NPCs and I am clear about that and how frowned upon Necromancy is in my games.

Well, it kind of depends how you depict them. For instance, sanguimancers can have thralls that are "constructs of hardened blood"; I'm making an android and they have clear blood, so my thrall look like water constructs that aren't going to scream 'UNDEAD'. Go necromantic nanites! I have another idea for a necromancer Reflection Time Traveler that draws other versions of herself out of time as thralls. I'll grant you, a trail of skeletons or zombies makes a stronger statement of necromancy.

[Finoan]

graystone wrote:

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Necromancers aren't uncommon. You are justified in having suitably intelligent enemies identify thralls and react much more tactically.

My necromancer would be THRILLED to have intelligent enemies take an action out at the start of combat to roll Recall Knowledge on my Thrall. ;)

Not so much of a benefit to the Necromancer if the enemies are spending that action before the battle starts when a Thrall wanders into the room and mindlessly stands around.

[graystone]

Finoan wrote:

graystone wrote:

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Necromancers aren't uncommon. You are justified in having suitably intelligent enemies identify thralls and react much more tactically.

My necromancer would be THRILLED to have intelligent enemies take an action out at the start of combat to roll Recall Knowledge on my Thrall. ;)

Not so much of a benefit to the Necromancer if the enemies are spending that action before the battle starts when a Thrall wanders into the room and mindlessly stands around.

Given a thralls speed and the range of create thrall I don't see where the necro would be far enough away on a regular basis to miss out of the first round of combat if they want. Now if it's just for 'attracting an ambush', then, IMO, they'd be unlikely to attempt the Recall anyway; Just toss a hooded robe on them and send them in.

[Red Griffyn]

A natural counter to a strategy of trap fodder is twofold. One disarming a trap instead of setting it off doesn't alert the dungeon to your prescence. Set off could kick off a chained fight or alternate consolidation of multiple fights that are tougher, or allow yhe boss to prebuff. Two, many traps can be perpetual or reset quickly. That leaves them aware of the trap, but still in need to disarm it. In many cases the way to disarm the trap can be on the other side of the area protected by the trap, making disarming harder (also a higher DC) once set off.

What about traps that lock the room door and fill the whole area with danger like flooding (or other dangerous environmental effect) or conjures enemies at both ends of a hallway to sandwhich them. What about a trap that only arms itself when another trap goes off? What about a progressively scaling trap for entering the wrong puzzle answer (i.e., traps that can't be triggered by thralls anyways). There are many kinds of traps other than an instantaneous fireball or pit that are just worse for the party to set off. Imagine a chained encounter where there is a dangerous perpetual trap ahead and enemies rushing from behind with no real escape option. So many creative ways to approach this.

Also remember you don't need to yuck the yum of the players. Traps are intended to be found and either avoided or disarmed by most party compositions. In 90% of cases the PCs succeed. So having a few thrall auto wins with potential consequences is just rewarding good player tactics.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Thralls absolutely would trigger normal hazards. Haunts would depend if they have "living creature" in their targeting options or not.

Thrall would absolutely be able to open door. Can't make skill check but most doors in officials APs don't have checks, they only serve as encounter seperations.

As far as "thralls would alert enemies" - I mean, I don't know about you guys but 99% of parties I am part of or play with never bother with any stealth and if raging barbarian, soprano singing bard and exploding fireballs don't alert whole dungeon/keep/castle in official APs cause game is not designed around that - thralls also would not alert anyone but the next encounter which would trigger anyway once "doors are open".

I don't honestly see a problem here. Class specializing in creating cheap meat shields use them as cheap meat shields... seems rather fine with me?

Also, most hazards in APs are just there to annoy players as they are far away from ecnounters or sperated from them so it's basically just a reason to use out of combat healing in most cases.

[The Raven Black]

Summoner and their Eidolon are much more worrisome IMO.

Also I don't get why this thread is in the Rules forum. Feels like it should be in General Discussion.

[NorrKnekten]

I really dont see the issue as written.

The ambushers would hear that the necromancer is nearby before the thrall even shows up, due to the Thralls abysmal speed and Create Thrall being a spell.

Creating a thrall every minute and having it move would be a travel speed of 5ft. Easily fixed by time pressure.

Creating a thrall ala Repeat a spell still leaves plenty of chances to miss the hazard before walking onto it if they want to hold a reasonable pace, Once more due to the horrible speed and coverage. Same reason as the Detect Magic activity.

The Thralls ability to interact is limited, In the same way as something like the Tripkee's tongue is albeit the wording is different its still up to the GM to determine what a complicated movement is. I would consider the spatial reasoning of pushing while also turning the handle or to operate a latch to be to complex for a mindless creature.

Theres plenty of limits there in the rules for how a necromancer can and cannot use the thralls.. some of it up to GM interpretation but with the above considerations I find them just as disruptive as a trapfinder rogue.

[Maya Coleman]

I've moved this to General Discussion since it's more about the class and its use than a specific rule? Correct me if I'm wrong though!

[Matthew Downie]

Have a thrall trip an easily avoidable alarm and alert all the enemies.

[Dubious Scholar]

Put the trigger for a trap at the end of the very long hall and have it attack the entire hall. Set it up so a necromancer has to be in range of the trap in order to see the Thrall they're commanding and give it directions.

Make a hallway that's sort of on fire. 1 damage per round. Thralls can't exist in that hallway but it'll barely bother PCs.

[Tactical Drongo]

You could use traps that:
-Are triggered magically by living things
-triggered not by stepping on them or simply walking through
-reset after each use (they know where they are, they still cant just walk around it)
-make the trap a (silent) alarm to call guards
-have layered traps with the first one(s) removing thralls (works well with reseting ones)
-have traps that when triggered are still a problem for the whole party (remember the rolling boulder from indiana jones?)
-have traps with lingering aoe (dangerous terrain)
-have a pitfall or the like which requires a check to get over (longer then the spell range, or not, doesnt matter if they can put thralls on the other side if they cant get over)
-use ridddle doors
-make a puzzle which forces them to use their thralls in a certain way to get past it, which gives them opportunity to use their thralls but it might be possible to do because of the thralls in the first place (lets say in the lair of an enemy necromancer)

of course, if you always have only figurative landmines, the thralls are gonna have a field day with them
as a gm, you have to give your players opportunity to use their skills, but also have to work around tham at times

balance is important

so my suggestion: make a dungeon, give it a fun theme, use any numer of the special traps listed in the thread and warn the players 'hey guys, I am trying a bit something new today' (or not)
throw in a few landmines that work as per usual, but put in more variety

[Deriven Firelion]

I haven't run one yet. If the necromancer has become the new Master Summoner from PF1, then ban it rather than denying the player making them feel like you dislike them when you dislike the class.

I'll wait to see what it plays like before I decide anything. I hope it doesn't become the new Master Summoner.

[Zoken44]

I think the best things to keep in mind are what Han Del said at the beginning.

However, I will point out that this seems to be coming from an adversarial-GM perspective and you may want to examine that.

At the end of the day, while I don't like your take, your table is your table, and there is nothing wrong with setting that boundary. Especially as it sounds like you play to be fair in enforcing it, waiting for the current campaign to end before bringing it down on your two current necromancers.

[Squark]

I'll stand by the argument that the "decision making" clause of Repeat a Spell is broad enough that the GM is well within their rights to put their foot down on continuous use of thralls. But on the whole, I don't think thralls are actually revolutionary for dungeon crawling- They don't do much that can't be substituted for by telekinetic hand and a hireling with a half dozen chickens in tow, and the latter is an ancient tradition still kept by OSR players.

Actually, speaking of OSR, I think this is a case of some old school tactics butting up against designs that often don't address them. And the best answer to that is communication. Explain to the players that they're bringing a tactic that dates back to early dungeon crawls, and that you have to address that in some way. If you really, really do not like "Combat as War" dynamics, ask them to stop, because continuing to challenge them will require you to do a lot of adaptation of modules and GM in a way you don't enjoy, which will have a knock-on effect on the quality of your GMing and thus their enjoyment. But if you're not opposed to "combat as war" (PF2 can support it, although Adventure Paths generally aren't designed around it), you still should warn your players that they're opening a Pandora's Box of increased patrols, complex traps designed to be proof against common countermeasures*, and enemies that adjust their deployment based on party tactics. And to be clear, some people love that (including me). You can even do trial runs of this sort of thing so you and your players can decide if more ruthless enemies and a slower, measured progress through environments is what everyone really wants. You can also ask if players are trying to bypass something they find tedious and you may not like either (See NorrKnekten's opinion on these old school hazards). You can cut hazards from your home games or if you're running a game in Adventure Mode for society play. That's fine.

*e.g. pressure plates that won't be triggered by ramshackle creations like thralls, traps designed to catch someone opening a door as well as someone directing a thrall/trained animal.

[graystone]

Squark wrote:

I'll stand by the argument that the "decision making" clause of Repeat a Spell is broad enough that the GM is well within their rights to put their foot down on continuous use of thralls.

There isn't ANY "decision making" past placement so I think it's a rather specious argument. The "decision making" is in the Command a Thrall action which isn't a spell so any rule mention about "repeating a spell that requires making complex decisions" doesn't apply. If placing thralls with create thrall every few rounds counts as "a spell that requires making complex decisions" that causes fatigue, then just about EVERY spell would. I personally wouldn't accept it as a valid RAW reason to prevent its use.

Secondly, Repeat a Spell really doesn't fit what's happening, as again you aren't casting a spell every other round but are instead Commanding a Thrall every other round most rounds so even if something complex was happening it's happening only 1/10th of the time vs the 1/2 the time referenced in Repeat a Spell. I just don't see an angle you can come at this and make a viable argument for the "complex decisions" spell clause applying. Using Improvising New Activities for what's actually happening has a "model for strenuous activities where the PCs are using the equivalent of 2 actions every 6 seconds" that would apply for better than trying to make Repeat a Spells "decision making" fatigue somehow fit.

[Tridus]

The Raven Black wrote:

Summoner and their Eidolon are much more worrisome IMO.

They're really not, and we've got years of having them to demonstrate it. The Eidolon and Summoner are tied together: a trap blowing up and nuking one of them is hitting the HP of both since it's the same pool. Conditions that debilitate them significantly hamper the Summoner since the Eidolon is a big chunk of the class power. So "minesweeping" with an Eidolon is little different than minesweeping with any one character.

Thralls are entirely disposable, irrelevant conjurations. Doing anything to them doesn't matter in the slightest.

These are no in the same realm at all.

[Tridus]

Unicore wrote:

It is fair to not like classes as a GM, and to be up front with players about why. In my games, a Necromancer is going to run into a lot of social backlash making minions, even in dungeons around most NPCs and I am clear about that and how frowned upon Necromancy is in my games.

I do agree the class should have been uncommon. The idea that Necromancers are common in world (and not just as enemies) feels like a fairly heavy lore change to me that might not have been well thought out. But a lot of people really like the class, so I get the feeling our dislike of the class is not the majority opinion.

"Gunslingers are uncommon because we know some people don't want guns in their fantasy" and "Necromancers are common even though we know some people won't want Necromancers in their heroic fantasy, especially given the more than a decade of lore on the subject" is quite the dichotomy, yeah.

[Tridus]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It seems like "your tactic is annoying the GM" is a thing we can just have a reasonable conversation about as adults. If you're sending thralls ahead in the hallway to trigger any traps (a tactic that also works with the Kineticist's familiar feats) you either "don't use traps like that anymore" or you seed in a few traps that are better to never trigger at all, since the disposable thrall triggering the trap puts the party at risk.

Yeah this is ultimately the real answer. The game is supposed to be fun for the GM too. Players forget that sometimes.

"Hey folks, this isn't actually fun for me and we need to do something about that" is an entirely valid way to broach the subject. Because if the GM isn't having fun, at some point they're going to stop being the GM.

Either that, or they'll fix it by bringing down the banhammer. That was absolutely my response to the playtest Necromancer.

Haven't seen the final one in a game yet, but if players are doing stuff like this, the natural reaction of the world is that every recurring enemy is going to quickly get wise to the tactic and start coming up with countermeasures. The Necromancer player probably won't enjoy when hard thrall counters start showing up in response to thrall minesweeper, but that's what any intelligent enemy would naturally do if they know the PC are coming.

[ScooterScoots]

Tridus wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Summoner and their Eidolon are much more worrisome IMO.

They're really not, and we've got years of having them to demonstrate it. The Eidolon and Summoner are tied together: a trap blowing up and nuking one of them is hitting the HP of both since it's the same pool.

A fair portion of the time you’re not under any time pressure though, so the eidolon getting nuked doesn’t much matter.

[PossibleCabbage]

It does just seem as a GM the best solution to "players are over-reliant on a specific strategy" is not to put your thumb on the scale and say no, but to simply provide a few situations where that strategy doesn't work or at least that it's less efficacious than a different strategy the players can also access. This is 100% fair play GMing, since if players can come across a tactic and exclusively use that for the next six months of games then they're going to get bored before the story reaches a conclusion.

Like if the party has to sneak up to the bandit fortress in the woods, a bunch of thralls wandering around aren't helpful. They're also not particularly helpful on a sailing voyage, or at a fancy party that's about to turn violent, etc.

[Milo v3]

ScooterScoots wrote:

A fair portion of the time you’re not under any time pressure though, so the eidolon getting nuked doesn’t much matter.

Except that doesn't save the group any time or effort. It's the same as if you sent in a full pc because of how HP is shared. The eidolon getting nuked is the summoner getting nuked.

[moosher12]

I don't think you can really make Necromancers uncommon for moral reasons. The thing is, they are simply ubiquitous, you see them a lot, that's why they are common enemies. But they are not always enemies. Korvosan necromancers are a thing, and even the Pathfinder Society keeps a necromancer branch. There are multitudes of necromancers that operate above board.

It also just muddies the perceptions of rarity further, you'll have an easier time finding a sanctioned necromancer, then you would a sorcerer, because sorcerers are an actual rarity that would have a soft uncommon trait that is ignored for the sake of convenience of popularity. Anyone can be a necromancer, few can even attempt to be a sorcerer.

And then when bringing in morals while the rogue exists as a class. Where the sterotypical rogue will be the morally dubious rogue, or going back to the fact that wizards, the origin of necromancers, could just be necromancers, and are common.

[moosher12]

As for advice on dealing with thralls as minesweepers. Just don't play NPCs as dumb. THralls are loud, they can't sneak, they probably anti sneak by groaning, or crackling around. Let NPCs notice these things and plan. If thralls make a lot of noise, then let the NPCs secretly roll initiative to react to the loudness. An often forgotten tactic, is that nothing is stopping NPCs from preparing actions. And even if a thrall is sent through to get hit and destroyed, another prepared action can go for the PCs the moment they peak through the door. The best part is the NPCs still have their full 3 actions when their turns come around. Longer the PCs dilly dally, the more likely that all of the NPCs have a prepared action

[Squiggit]

tbh this feels more like an example of where just sitting down and asking players to not be super obnoxious about things feels more reasonable than banning a whole class.

[gesalt]

Is this really any different from grabbing a staff of summoning and having a whole bunch of 1st rank summon fodder to minesweep? Or just using useless 1st rank slots at later levels.

[moosher12]

Or the old gygaxian strategy of using hirelings as minesweepers.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

moosher12 wrote:

As for advice on dealing with thralls as minesweepers. Just don't play NPCs as dumb. THralls are loud, they can't sneak, they probably anti sneak by groaning, or crackling around.

Oh, yeah cause Giant Minotaur Barbarians with weapons twice their size are not loud. Champions/Fighters in full mail/plate are not "crackling around" and after first encounter nobody heard raging barbarian, cackling witch, exploding fireball after loud incantation and bard either singing or playing sickest solo on lute while gunslinger uploads double barrel shots. Yeah, nobody ever hears that in dungeon.

But single thrall moving upfront suddenly is very "loud".

I don't get it. Player uses tools provided him by game. He uses it in clever/creative way and legit way on top of that.

GM "WELL, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT HERE!" ;)

[The Raven Black]

Milo v3 wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

A fair portion of the time you’re not under any time pressure though, so the eidolon getting nuked doesn’t much matter.

Except that doesn't save the group any time or effort. It's the same as if you sent in a full pc because of how HP is shared. The eidolon getting nuked is the summoner getting nuked.

Not the same because the Summoner is getting nuked while next to healers while the Eidolon keeps on exploring and acting 100 feet further as needed.

And if things start to get real bad, the Summoner can just unmanifest the Eidolon.

[WatersLethe]

I kind of feel like if your dungeon is defeated by shambling minions marching several yards ahead of the party, the dungeon was a bit bad to begin with.

Simple traps themselves have always been pretty dumb, and ambushes that trigger on mindless slow zombies aren't very clever and maybe deserve getting counter ambushed.

[Shadecap]

So ultimately I think there's a lot of really good discussion about this. I listened to thoughts of my players and a lot of what was mentioned here and I think I came up with a decent way to handle Necromancers that keeps me enjoying the game, still allows players to do this -as intended- class feature, and gives other players and NPCs to do things as they'd like.

I think my biggest issue is that my players wanted to initially handle all of the "minesweeping" as an Exploration Activity, and to me that felt impersonal and that it didn't have the spirit of "adventuring" behind it, and it was impacting my enjoyment of the game.

So our agreement now, and I believe this should work as RAW: Repeat a Spell lets you cast a 1 or 2 action spell while you are traveling. Command Thrall is a separate action and not a spell, so you cannot command them as part of Repeat a Spell. If a Necromancer would like to Command Thrall to explore using Command Thrall, I would switch us out of Exploration Mode and into Tactical with an Initiative roll. This would give me additional time to react and adapt to the situation as well as allow other party members to do things while it's happening.

Might not work at every table, but it satisfies me and both of my current Necromancer players, and can certainly allow for future necromancers as well.

[kaid]

Honestly it seems like sending mindless thralls around to trip into traps/open doors thing seems like a pretty normal expected thing to do with a necromancer.

If you want trapped doors have them be locked and have trap go off only when door is opened. Thrall can't lock pick. It really should not slow down game play too much just have them lay out what they are in general doing and go accordingly. A lot of the thrall types are going to be a lot lighter than a human the ghosts/skeleton for sure are simply not going to be heavy enough to trigger a lot of pressure plates aimed at human/larger prey.

You could also have magic traps that have wards to not trigger on undead which would make sense in a lot of crypts/runes as those may be the expected defense force so no point having your own mindless guardians tripping your own traps.

[Perpdepog]

WatersLethe wrote:

I kind of feel like if your dungeon is defeated by shambling minions marching several yards ahead of the party, the dungeon was a bit bad to begin with.

Simple traps themselves have always been pretty dumb, and ambushes that trigger on mindless slow zombies aren't very clever and maybe deserve getting counter ambushed.

This is a whole different discussion, but I do agree that simple traps don't really do what they're intended to do with how PF2 is set up, I mean, unless they are immediately next to an encounter.

The main point of those traps, at least in most modern games, is to build tension by making actual fights harder for the party through debilitation. This makes damage one of the weakest ways a trap can inconvenience a party in PF2 because damage is one of the easiest debilitations to remedy.

[graystone]

Shadecap wrote:

Might not work at every table, but it satisfies me and both of my current Necromancer players, and can certainly allow for future necromancers as well.

So RAW this means that normally the necromancer is creating new thrall every 12 seconds all the time in Exploration? So at 1st level, that means he'll start any 'encounter' with 10 thrall [or 15 with Puppeteer]. If that works for you that's fine, but starting out at max possible thralls seems a bigger issue than it solved IMO. Personally I'd use the Improvising New Activities for an activity that makes a single set of thrall with Create Thrall then commands them with Command a Thrall so they start encounters with just one set.

[moosher12]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

As for advice on dealing with thralls as minesweepers. Just don't play NPCs as dumb. THralls are loud, they can't sneak, they probably anti sneak by groaning, or crackling around.

Oh, yeah cause Giant Minotaur Barbarians with weapons twice their size are not loud. Champions/Fighters in full mail/plate are not "crackling around" and after first encounter nobody heard raging barbarian, cackling witch, exploding fireball after loud incantation and bard either singing or playing sickest solo on lute while gunslinger uploads double barrel shots. Yeah, nobody ever hears that in dungeon.

But single thrall moving upfront suddenly is very "loud".

I don't get it. Player uses tools provided him by game. He uses it in clever/creative way and legit way on top of that.

GM "WELL, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT HERE!" ;)

I think you're taking the advice out of context. If the party as a whole is being loud and bumbling, of course NPCs will and should notice. But not everyone plays even martials as loud. Secondly, enemies do hear these things. If you've ever run an adventure path, you'd know that it's almost always assumed that enemies can hear your fight. It's just that the way they react to them is controlled. In less orderly dungeons with more infighting, the NPCs tend to assume the fighting from another room is infighting, and leave it be. Though in many cases, more organized groups of NPCs use the sound as time to bunker down for a few minutes assuming their room is next. This is the time where they cast spells and take consummables to buff their power, and then take advantageous positions, and lastly, assuming they are still on alert, they can roll initiative and have prepared reactions ready for the PCs to open the door. (They rarely join the fight for the sake of not overloading the players as a balance consideration, but they are more often then not, aware that there was a fight, what they may not know is whether the fight is between their allies and their other allies, or their allies and enemy intruders). This advice is a reminder to GMs that enemy NPCs, short of like, animal intelligence, have the capability of bunkering down and readying for the PCs.

Thirdly, you're assuming a lack of teamwork. A necromancer can shush their martial PCs and any hirelings. And if the party keeps a Stealthy class, such as a rogue, they can take Quiet Allies and let the party Follow the Expert to sneak reasonably easy, even if the most boisterous of barbarians is in the party. But thralls are immune to this party contingency. They cannot attempt Stealth checks, and they cannot Follow the Expert. Even when you make the martials stealthy, a thrall can never be stealthy short of casting a Silence Spell on it. Which might be a waste if the thrall dies so quickly.

Also a final, but not very important note. Funny enough, minotaur is the wrong ancestry to use. Minotaur barbarians are canonically surprisingly stealthy to the point they have ancestry feats about the fact they can just do Batman Disappearances. So you should have picked something else like an orc.

[The Raven Black]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I haven't run one yet. If the necromancer has become the new Master Summoner from PF1, then ban it rather than denying the player making them feel like you dislike them when you dislike the class.

I'll wait to see what it plays like before I decide anything. I hope it doesn't become the new Master Summoner.

What are the grievances against PF1 Master Summoner ?

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

moosher12 wrote:

I think you're taking the advice out of context. If the party as a whole is being loud and bumbling, of course NPCs will and should notice. But not everyone plays even martials as loud. Secondly, enemies do hear these things. If you've ever run an adventure path, you'd know that it's almost always assumed that enemies can hear your fight. It's just that the way they react to them is controlled. In less orderly dungeons with more infighting, the NPCs tend to assume the fighting from another room is infighting, and leave it be. Though in many cases, more organized groups of NPCs use the sound as time to bunker down for a few minutes assuming their room is next. This is the time where they cast spells and take consummables to buff their power, and then take advantageous positions, and lastly, assuming they are still on alert, they can roll initiative and have prepared reactions ready for the PCs to open the door. (They rarely join the fight for the sake of not overloading the players as a balance consideration, but they are more often then not, aware that there was a fight, what they may not know is whether the fight is between their allies and...

Jesse....what are you talking about? You wrote essay when my point was that if enemies don't run from other rooms to join encounter (cause that's not how APs and their encounters are designed, unless you design encounter in which enemies do run from other room but then it's still "controlled outcome" when it comes to final difficulty) when party is roaming and fighting, they won't becasue of single thrall raoming.

That's it. You overcomplicated something that doesn't need overcomplication. PF2e is not that deep. It's basically a board game when dungeon starts. Especially in offical APs.

[moosher12]

Op is complaining that thralls trivialize encounters, I am giving advice on how to use the rules to let the thrall not trivialize encounters.

Meanwhile, you are fixing nothing for OP. You can tell them, thralls don't make a difference, to which I agree, but so many people have already said that before even you, that that does not help. But you are not telling them how they can counter thralls if they see them as a threat and want avenues to deal with them.

As to overcomplication, I often keep in mind neighboring rooms when combat starts when I run APs. It's a routine consideration. I'll roll secret initiatives while NPCs prepare for PCs if the PCs are too loud. It keeps the dungeon feeling more alive. It's not even a hard or complicated thing to do, it's a simple mental question, "Would these guys be able to tell?" If yes, throw them on the initiative tracker, and they can join the fight when PCs move forward (And if you're running at a physical table and not a VTT, you can just give them free turns at the end of a round to do their thing as an abstaction). I don't like treating NPCs as boardgame pieces, they are characters, not video game NPCs with a basic VI. That's one of the reasons why we play TTRPGs, because NPCs are allowed to actually think.

If you want to play it shallow and not use the tools you're given, that's your prerogative.

[ScooterScoots]

Milo v3 wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

A fair portion of the time you’re not under any time pressure though, so the eidolon getting nuked doesn’t much matter.

Except that doesn't save the group any time or effort. It's the same as if you sent in a full pc because of how HP is shared. The eidolon getting nuked is the summoner getting nuked.

No, there are major differences.

Any long lasting conditions are only on the eidolon, not a full character.
You can’t be insta killed by anything but a death effect because you have summoner’s precaution up (probably, depends on how your GM rules reactions vs traps)
Any ongoing damage can be avoided by demanifesting
The summoner is easily accessible to heal if needed even if the guy in the trap (the eidolon) has had line of effect cut off.

[ScooterScoots]

Shadecap wrote:

So our agreement now, and I believe this should work as RAW: Repeat a Spell lets you cast a 1 or 2 action spell while you are traveling. Command Thrall is a separate action and not a spell, so you cannot command them as part of Repeat a Spell. If a Necromancer would like to Command Thrall to explore using Command Thrall, I would switch us out of Exploration Mode and into Tactical with an Initiative roll. This would give me additional time to react and adapt to the situation as well as allow other party members to do things while it's happening.

Might not work at every table, but it satisfies me and both of my current Necromancer players, and can certainly allow for future necromancers as well.

Besides being a dubious reading of exploration activities this also doesn’t change much of anything besides how long you spend out of game on routine b~+!#!!&.

The entire reason we have exploration activities is to reduce the simulation detail on stuff like “and then jimmy probed *another* individual square with his 10ft pole, just like we’ve been playing out for the last hour.”

Instead we just say that jimmy is doing that as his exploration activity and we fast forward until there’s potential for something interesting to happen, then resolve the situation then with a roll or if jimmy is lucky the trap just missing him because the pole would trigger it out of it’s range.

[ScooterScoots]

moosher12 wrote:

Or the old gygaxian strategy of using hirelings as minesweepers.

But GM he’s 70 years old, half blind, and has cancer. Why *isn’t* it ethical for him to die stepping on a trap for his village.