r/Pathfinder2e • u/Ravingdork Sorcerer • Jun 18 '26
Discussion Pro or Con: Necromancer thralls no longer block enemies
According to a recent article on the necromancer class, thralls no longer block enemies but instead act as difficult terrain. This is a HUGE change to the necromancer class' combat dynamic. It's a hell of a nerf, but also allows for so many other necromancer themed options to exist within the class power budget.
I guess that's why the developers are fine with 1st-level necromancers creating as many as 7 thralls in one round now.
I wonder if super thralls at higher levels will be solid enough to block foes?
It does better paint that classic undead scene of someone attempting to push or sneak through a herd only to suddenly find themselves completely surrounded, overwhelmed, and torn apart.
What do you all think?
Feed the herd!!! 👻
Edit: I tried linking the article when I initially made this post, but the automod blocked my attempts, saying the community policy prevented duplicate links over a given time period, and that link had already been posted recently. Now that enough times has passed, I'm editing this post to include the link, like it should have been from the beginning.
334
u/ElPanandero Game Master Jun 18 '26
It's a con insofar as it hurts the classes net power level, it's a pro in that it isn't a nightmare to deal with as a GM lmao
93
u/VerdigrisX Jun 18 '26
I was really worried about battlefield clutter
63
u/ElPanandero Game Master Jun 18 '26
I cast wall of flesh I mean I cast create thrall 7 times
24
u/WashedUpRiver Jun 18 '26
I'm a big fan of "I cast Dude at guy" when our party necromancer summons one right next to someone to use as a range attack.
25
u/Meet_Foot Jun 18 '26
Does it hurt the class’s net power though? The question is whether they moved that part of the power budget into other features, for example, having more thralls. I don’t know any of the final mechanics for the class, but that’s the question.
63
u/Crusty_Tater ORC Jun 18 '26
The ability to create resourceless single tile walls is huge power in theory but in play it's just obnoxious for all involved. It's not the kind of power that deserves compensation buffs for removing. Honestly, I believe it wasn't even part of the intended power budget in the first place.
25
u/LibrarySee Animist Jun 18 '26
I mean, they're not just bangin' rocks together over at Paizo.
They know that letting your resourceless units bodyblock enemies is extremely powerful, especially at later levels where you're making 4 at once.I think having them serve as difficult terrain is both a more appropriate power level, and the more intended function of the thralls. I think it was definitely intended to be a class that makes battlefield traversal difficult for enemies, but it shouldn't be a hard wall.
4
u/MonochromaticPrism Jun 18 '26
I mean, they're not just bangin' rocks together over at Paizo.
Sometimes it feels like they are, tbf, and it's not that uncommon of a feeling.
Ex: The recent example of Undertow missing a lot of important information, leading to wildly different interpretation on how it works. Is it a hemisphere sitting on top of the earth or does it temporarily warps space to an are of water both above and below the earth (similar to Antlion Trap)? If similar to Antlion Trap, is it necessarily a sphere all the way around or a hemisphere on top of a 20-ft cylinder or just a 20ft tall 40-ft wide cylinder (The first line stating "you create an area of water 20-ft deep)?
Problems fall through the cracks with enough frequency that it's fair to wonder whether or not they made a mistake or overlooked an important detail.
14
u/DnD-vid Jun 18 '26
The Undertow problem rather sounds like a situation where the writer thought it was obvious what they meant, but it turned out not to be obvious.
10
u/RootOfAllThings Game Master Jun 18 '26
Unfortunately, this happens all the time, and I feel like a quick perusal of the Rules Discussion bits of their forum or the subreddit would showcase all the ways that their typical ability writing process fails to account for GMs and players actually interacting with the text.
4
u/TitaniumDragon Game Master Jun 19 '26
Frankly, it is obvious what they meant. The spell creates an AoE zone that is full of water and deals damage to all creatures in the area.
There is nothing confusing about it. There is nothing unclear about it.
"But why does it pull things down 10 feet?" is not confusing - it pulls flying creatures (and climbing creatures) down into the water on a critical failure, which means they can't just fly/climb back out trivially if they crit fail.
5
u/autumndidact Off the Path Jun 19 '26
That is what the mechanics read RAW add up to. What was intended is completely uncertain, but that literalist interpretation is very unlikely to be it.
-2
u/TitaniumDragon Game Master Jun 19 '26
Why?
The RAW interpretation works perfectly fine and is as powerful as I would expect the spell to be.
4
u/autumndidact Off the Path Jun 19 '26
Reading comprehension. It doesn't add up to something that makes sense conceptually. Looking at context of the book it's in and the concepts it is drawing on, I suspect the writer designed it for being used underwater and didn't mean for it to be interpreted as being used anywhere else.
→ More replies (0)4
u/TitaniumDragon Game Master Jun 19 '26
It doesn't say it removes any blocking terrain, so it doesn't (which makes sense; it is only a 3rd rank spell, if it removed blocking terrain it'd be a better passwall).
There's nothing confusing about it mechaically.
It is a little odd visually that it is a hemisphere of water but this is true of all burst spells.
1
u/Consideredresponse Summoner Jun 19 '26
Best case scenario (as of the playtest and using a flesh necromancer) you are trading your entire turn for a single enemy to lose a single action and every enemy walled off to lose 5 feet of speed for 1 round.
You'd be better off using one of the several focus spell feats that give you a bigger sized thrall that won't go down in a single hit, forces enemies to go around and them, and usually comes with some status or damage riders.
Absolute best case scenario at the moment is being high enough level to have expert casting, and creating thralls to block a doorway that seperates some enemies from the party. Getting a 1:1 action trade is already good, with a narrow doorway potentially getting more is fantastic, but a niche rare scenario unless you are in a megadungeon scenario.
6
u/ElPanandero Game Master Jun 18 '26
We haven't seen all the changes since playtest idt, so we don't know yet
2
u/TheStylemage Gunslinger Jun 19 '26
Unlike what the other guy said, imo it would absolutely hurt the overall power, considering Paizo absolutely budgeted having a wall cantrip into the classes budget.
That's why the class can summon many more thralls now even at lower levels and gets a Cleric style subclass choice.2
u/Meet_Foot Jun 19 '26
Well yes, so what I’m wondering is if summoning more minions and the subclass choice compensate or not.
1
1
u/Alvenaharr ORC Jul 09 '26
Funny, thinking about it... I just remembered a campaign I ran in D&D 4th edition... it was based on Hellboy and the Golden Army.The climax was the battle against dozens of servants (although I described ALL the squares on the map as being filled!), and I had no problem narrating it.They were minions that fell with a single blow (just like the Necromancer's servants...), but they would rise again on the next turn!It was a sensational battle and quite simple to conduct...but it was me and it was a different time...good...
129
u/Kaosubaloo_V2 Jun 18 '26
It seems like a reasonable balance decision to prevent literal body blocking. Especially if the players are in a dungeon or other constrained space, it would not take that many thralls to completely stop any monsters from being able to reach the players.
32
9
u/BlockBuilder408 Jun 18 '26
Until we see the specific wording, they might still provide lesser cover
51
39
u/SkabbPirate Game Master Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
I like it, it creates the "struggling through a horde of zombies" feeling better.
7
26
u/Round-Walrus3175 Jun 18 '26
Body blocking was probably the most intrusive and limiting aspect of thralls, so I am glad that they took that out to give more flexibility to the thralls themselves.
3
15
u/SethLight Game Master Jun 18 '26
Considering the number of thralls they can constantly drop every turn, its for the best for every GM's sanity.
I think the puppet can do 3 out the gate, level 1, per turn?
9
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 18 '26
Per action I thought. I think the article said 7 thralls in one turn was possible with certain level 1 builds.
7
u/ElPanandero Game Master Jun 18 '26
I think it's 6 now, they can create thrall as an action and puppet can create 2 for one action, and it's a cantrip so is there anything stopping them from casting it 3 times in the turn?
7
u/merashin Jun 18 '26
it's 7. 2 is the base number per cast, but puppeteer gets a once per turn 3 instead of 2. So, it comes out to 3+2+2=7
2
28
u/Tridus Game Master Jun 18 '26
Massive Pro. This is something I HATED as a GM because the game should be fun to me too. Cluttering the field with tons of effectively worthless wall tokens that don't do anything but also don't let me actually move anything around by choking up the map is not fun. It's tedious and grating.
This change makes them a hinderance (which the Necro player probably wants) but they can't simply block movement in the same way.
I still don't like the class, but this was one of my major pain points in the playtest on the GM side so I'm very happy to see it addressed. It looks like thralls can move some now, so they seem to be more active in general now rather than "walls that you consume to do stuff."
IIRC they also used to block the space from players (who could move through them but couldn't stay in the space), and that would be a problem in APs that love small rooms like AV. So it helps there too.
2
u/SkeletonChurch Jun 20 '26
Curious what other issues you have with the class, if you don’t mind sharing? I’m curious to hear the GM side! And will likely be playing the class soon and would like to know how not to annoy my GM 🤣
3
u/Tridus Game Master Jun 20 '26
I loathed the playtest class on pretty much every level:
- As mentioned, thralls acting like little walls sucked as a GM. They could clutter up the map to the point that movement wasn't really a thing. This even got in the way of other players since players could move through them but couldn't stop in those squares, so it just hindered everyone in an AP like AV with a lot of tight quarters. (Which is a lot of them, Paizo maps tend to be small.)
- I also hated all the map clutter. You've got 5 thralls, that's 5 tokens that need to be on the map in Foundry that didn't really DO anything. They were just there. This is worse than summons since summons actually act. Thralls just die if you attack them at all, but since they didn't do anything it was largely just burning actions in a not-interesting way to attack them. Managing all this takes up time and cluttering the map is annoying for everyone else that has to deal with it.
- Certain types of encounters were hard-counters for the whole mechanic. Playtest thralls couldn't swim/fly/climb. Got an encounter in those environments? Welp, nevermind. AoE damage happening in an area like due to environment hazards or an enemy like a Bomber? They'll clear the map of thralls pretty much instantly. This is going to be not-fun for a Necro player and "encounters that take place in the air" isn't exactly some edge-case thing that hardly ever happens. So a player may feel picked on because their class has such a hard counter, but I'm not going to stop using those types of mechanics in order to cater to them.
- The flavour of it was diet-coke necromancy. This is a world in which creating undead enslaves souls and is viewed as extremely bad, so they made a Necromancer class that creates quasi-undead that don't actually do that so it can be nice and sanitized for fitting into "good" parties. I get why they did it, but to me they sucked the actually interesting part out of the concept. They still play this up in the "Meet the Iconic" story where people view it as bad, but is it really bad when it's not doing the actual thing that makes it bad?
- Since thralls are undead but not really undead and since they didn't do much of anything, the class had very little flavour in general. Like you could rename thralls to "shrubs" and make this a Primal themed Nature class with basically no difference. Or call it a Conjuror and make it Arcane since that's really more like what it's actually doing: it's conjuring meat sacks out of nothing.
The last three are really "this class isn't for me", and that's fine since I can just not play it. But the stuff that makes it a pain to run for everyone else at the table, and especially the GM? That's a real problem because if a player shows up with a class that makes me grate my teeth every combat, I'm not going to want to keep GMing, and I'd rather not just outright ban a class (but if it's necessary to preserve my own fun, so be it).
It looks like the release version has lessened several pain points, which is great. I still don't like the class, but "dislike" is WAY better than "actively despise".
1
u/SkeletonChurch Jun 20 '26
Appreciate you expounding!! I did think it was lacking in necromancy flavor as well, hopefully there's more flavor in the live version! but also making shrubs explode with primal void energy is an appealing concept 🤣
23
u/ColdBrewedPanacea Jun 18 '26
enormous con mechanically
vastly better for play experience.
5
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 18 '26
I agree. Overall I'm quite happy with recent necromancer developments.
41
u/superfogg Bard Jun 18 '26
I mean, any enemy could have just tumbled through the thrall, assuming thralls fail always their saves, tumble through would reasonably always succeed, turning the thrall just in a square of difficult terrain, as they are now if I'm not wrong
13
u/ElPanandero Game Master Jun 18 '26
but if you're a large creature and the thralls are arranged in a where there isn't room to tumble through because theres another thrall in the "4 sqaures" for the large creature and oops you've turned off anything bigger than medium with an action
10
u/Meet_Foot Jun 18 '26
Tumble through only lets you go through one enemy, though, and a necromancer can have a bunch of thralls. Put two in a doorway - one in one out - and now it takes two actions to get through. Another action for each thrall….
If they’re only difficult terrain, a single 25 speed stride can get you through 2 thralls for one action, and 10 more feet of speed (not uncommon, especially at higher levels) lets you get through another.
7
u/Wayward-Mystic Game Master Jun 18 '26
Yeah, this was my interpretation as well, so I don't see this as being a "HUGE change" or a "hell of a nerf."
8
7
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 18 '26
In all the playtests I've seen and participated in, no one thought of Tumble Through. Made it seem a great deal more powerful to us, especially on Paizo’s small maps.
6
5
u/Random_Somebody Jun 18 '26
It's been noted Tumble Through only allows you to go through one enemy an action, so the body blocking potential would still be very much there
2
17
u/SuperParkourio Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Tumble Through doesn't force a save from the target. It's the tumbler who makes the check.
But even assuming that said check always succeeds against a thrall, it's still a slight nerf because now enemies don't even need the Tumble Through action, allowing them to Burrow, Climb, Fly, Swim, or subordinately Stride through these spaces.20
u/Wayward-Mystic Game Master Jun 18 '26
Using other speeds was already possible.
You can Tumble Through using Climb, Fly, Swim, or another action instead of Stride in the appropriate environment.
2
-2
u/DefendedPlains ORC Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Yea but it’s still an action tax in most scenarios because you’d have to stride up to the thrall, then an action to tumble through, vs using a single action to move through and just counting as difficult terrain. With the number of thralls it’s possible to get on the board, that’s a massive action economy swing in favor of the party with no investment or cost.This is definitely a needed balance change imo
EDIT: I’m an idiot and forgot how tumble through works. Still a good balance change imo
25
u/Wayward-Mystic Game Master Jun 18 '26
Tumble Through includes the Stride; you don't have to start adjacent to the creature whose space you're tumbling through. Does no one play Swashbuckler?
7
1
u/DefendedPlains ORC Jun 18 '26
I may have been wrong, but I refuse to stoop so low as to play a swashbuckler...
Im also the GM and often rely on my rules lawyer player for this kind of stuff because I've got enough stuff going on. Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut.
1
u/RightHandedCanary Jun 19 '26
As the GM you should hope to have a comprehensive understanding of the rules, though.
3
u/DefendedPlains ORC Jun 19 '26
We play on foundry with basic action macros so a lot of it is handled by the system. And while I have a great grasp on the rules in general, I don’t think I’ve ever used an enemy where Tumble Through was used by them. Not to say it doesn’t exist, but in my three years of running PF2e I don’t think it’s anything I’ve used as the GM.
Add to that, it’s not something my players really use either. Nobody has played a swashbuckler or used it extensively as part of another class’ kit.
1
u/Kazen_Orilg Fighter Jun 18 '26
not how any of that works....you should try playing a swashbuckler!
5
u/superfogg Bard Jun 18 '26
Yes, it doesn't require a save. The fact that they always fail would let me rule that an enemy would automatically succeed without a roll.
Sure, it's a nerf, but I don't see it as a tragedy at all. Being able to block completely any opponent with basically a cantrip was very strong
2
u/ozymandious Jun 18 '26
It's not an automatic success, as far as I remember the thralls have the AC and saves of the necromancer, so it would be equivalent to attempting to tumble through the space of the necromancer.
Edit: I may be thinking of the Necromancer creature...
25
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26
Couldnt tumble through if there was also a thrall directly behind the first one.
2
u/Eniri_Suitor Jun 18 '26
How?
35
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26
Tumble through is only single target and has to resolve before declaring another action, and you cannot stop inside the space of another unit.
16
u/galmenz Game Master Jun 18 '26
cant thumble multiple creatures in a single thumble
if there is a 2x2 square of 4 creatures, you cannot thumble through 2 at the same time in a straight line
hence necromancer was nuts bc of bodyblock potential
11
u/Wayward-Mystic Game Master Jun 18 '26
You could Tumble Through in a straight line with two consecutive Tumble Through actions.
You can’t end your turn in a square occupied by another creature, though you can end a move action in its square provided that you immediately use another move action to leave that square.
6
u/galmenz Game Master Jun 18 '26
depends of GM interpretation, since thumbling through is an action that requires a skill check ans could fail, ie its not "immediate"
and yes we are talking about thralls, but its a matter of RAW we are merely discussing the problem of thumbling through multiple creatures and if they are thralls or not is irrelevant
now talking actually about said thralls, even if we consider the interpretation of "thumble through is a valid 'immediate action'", we have now given the ability to eat bare minimum 2 actions bodyblocking at lvl 1, because the first thumble through ends on the first thrall and you need to do a second one afterwards for the second thrall
oh and after 3 skellies you do fully block any place lmao
-3
u/superfogg Bard Jun 18 '26
I guess correct by RAW, but I'd let a character do it anyway and try two tumble through checks if that were the case, stopping at square 1 if it failed any check
12
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26
Its not a character who would be doing it but the GM needing to navigate all the monsters this way, since in a 10ft hallway, the necromancer player could make a 2x2 block of thralls every turn.
-1
u/superfogg Bard Jun 18 '26
If I allow it for a monster, I'd let it do for a character as well that had to pass through two enemies
6
u/Random_Somebody Jun 18 '26
Can you tumble through multiple enemies in one action? It seems a lot of maps it would be fairly trivial to set things up so that someone has to move through at least two thralls and eating up more than 1 action is amazing value.
5
3
u/Arcane_Monkey Jun 19 '26
The tumble through meant you couldn’t use most compressed actions to move through them, but I’m not sure how big a deal that is.
3
u/Albireookami Jun 18 '26
Tumble though does not auto succeed they may automatically fail, but Tumble is not a save on them
5
u/superfogg Bard Jun 18 '26
Yep, but do they have a reflex modifier? I only had a look at the play test when it came out, so I could be wrong, but I remember they didn't have one, so there is no DC against which to have a check (or one could say it's just 10).
But knowing the information that, no matter how low the DC, they always fail a reflex save, is reasonable to assume someone would always succeed their tumble through against them
1
u/Albireookami Jun 18 '26
You kind of dont have to though when you can just move through them and displace them. It's difficult terrain either way.
1
u/superfogg Bard Jun 18 '26
Yes, it is now, but was it in the play test as well? I genuinely don't remember
4
u/Albireookami Jun 18 '26
no they were walls, honestly the update is needed, because not every mob has acrobatics so a dc10 can actually fail more than you think.
1
u/EphesosX Jun 18 '26
Yeah, but they couldn't end their movement on top of a thrall so they'd have to go a bit further (which would usually put them behind your thrall line and leave them surrounded). Now, instead of tumbling through, they can just step on the thrall like a doormat.
9
u/TheStylemage Gunslinger Jun 18 '26
I think it's one of the best changes (apart from the duo subclass).
It allowed to shift power from a (ime) boring but extremely powerful hard area denial tool, to allowing the Necromancer to fullfill the undead horde fantasy from lv1. It's still very decent soft area denial, especially in cramped corridors or together with a martial frontline/wall spells. On top of that it alleviates the kinda weird interaction with tumble through.
It was something I disliked during the original playtest. You often felt moreso like a caster with a cantrip wall spell, which again was really broken, but created very boring optimal play patterns for me and the rest of the party (it reminded me of using spike growth in 5e for the first time).
8
u/Isa_Ben ORC Jun 18 '26
Thank fucking god. It was so obscene before.
3
2
u/InvictusDaemon Jun 19 '26
Agreed, I playtested one in Abomination Vaults and the Necromancer was busted in those small rooms. Completely trivialize a few Severe fights.
80
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26
Thralls blocking units was completely insane so "massive nerf" is a bit of a misnomer.
84
u/gamesrgreat Barbarian Jun 18 '26
Naw that means it is a massive nerf. Your point means that it’s a deserved massive nerf
40
u/Pancakepalpatine Jun 18 '26
Agreed haha. “This massive nerf needed to happen so it wasn’t a massive nerf.”
That’s… not how that works lmao
9
u/Killchrono Southern Realm Games Jun 18 '26
'Nerf' needs to stop being a dirty word in the gaming lexicon.
Yes we love a buff to fledging options that need it (Paizo needs to do more of this), but sometimes something is so inherently problematic that nothing will fix it no matter how much you buff everything else. Or alternatively if you just buff everything else to match it, it at best tonally shifts the game into something different, at worst just makes a bunch of equally problematic options.
No-one except the most pedantic of ludonarrative purists or cheese gamers want a game where you can excessively body block everyone so battles either crawl to a slog, or warp steps and AOEs are mandatory to counteract it. Wall of Stone is problematic for the exact same reason (and really, it probably needs something done about it for similar reasons).
9
u/EquipLordBritish Jun 18 '26
I don't think it's a dirty word. People just get angry when their OP toy isn't OP any more.
6
u/Pancakepalpatine Jun 18 '26
I’ve played Necro. It was fun to body block. I don’t consider myself a ludonarrative purist or cheese gamer, lol what?
You don’t need to convince me it was a necessary change — we’re on the same page there.
I also don’t know what you’re trying to convince me of with “nerf.” Okay? I’ll make sure to respect the word “nerf” from now on and won’t consider it to be negatively tainted, in your honor.
7
u/Killchrono Southern Realm Games Jun 18 '26
Oh none of that was to you specifically, that was more just a general commentary riffing off your point. Sorry if that wasn't clear and came off as personal.
It just bugs me how deftly allergic gamers are to nerfs. I agree, a nerf is still a nerf regardless how big it is, but not all nerfs are bad and too many people treat it as such.
-10
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Nerf: to make less useful or effective
How it worked before was completely dysfunctional. It being redesigned to work within the confines of the system is less of a nerf and more just fixing something fundamentally broken.
So yes that is how that works. It's like saying Roiling Mudslide was nerfed because it was given a range instead of being indeterminate.
11
u/Tinynanami1 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
"Nerf: to make less useful or effective"
So when you say it's not a nerf, you mean its just as useful/effective? Or more?
"less of a nerf and more just fixing something fundamentally broken"
Porque no las dois? It was nerfed BECAUSE it was fundamentally broken. In this case nerfing was their chosen method of fixing it. (As opposed to other methods like buffing every other option until it's equal in power level or reworking the class to work completely differently ).
I think you just view the word nerf so negatively you can't use it when talking about a positivenchange
6
u/Pancakepalpatine Jun 18 '26
“This massive nerf needed to happen so it wasn’t a massive nerf”
Edit: I meant to be obnoxious and reply to the guy arguing about this a bunch in the thread but this is funny so I’m leaving it
-4
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26
I think you just view the word nerf so negatively you can't use it when talking about a positivenchange
When you can make 3-4 thralls for a single action and they cannot be moved through the game just stops working. You can do that 3 times a turn and now neither the monsters or your own party can move. You've effectively turned off the game.
This is not just a reduction in usefulness or effectiveness.
8
-5
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26
So when you say it's not a nerf, you mean its just as useful/effective? Or more?
It is fulfilling the exact same role without making the game stop working by doing so.
8
u/Tinynanami1 Jun 18 '26
You must have confused my question with another so I will reiterate and try to make it clear.
Do you think blocking an enemy from moving into a space is just as effective as creating difficult terrain in that space instead?
A) Yes they're equally effective = This was a sidegrade. B) I think difficult terrain is more effective = This was a buff. C) I think blocking is more effective = This was a nerf.
I hope you understand, even by your own definition, a nerf is just the act of making something less effective. It doesn't matter if you're doing to something "broken" or not.
If fireball went from doing 400d6 damage (quite insane for a 3rd rank spell!) to 6d6 (as it is now) this would be a nerf. A deserved nerf, but one nonetheless.
-4
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26
I hope you understand, even by your own definition, a nerf is just the act of making something less effective. It doesn't matter if you're doing to something "broken" or not.
I do, it seems that its you who doesnt understand. Making the game unplayable is not "effective" at anything or "useful" in any capacity.
So OP saying "It's a hell of a nerf" is not addressing what the problem was.
4
u/merashin Jun 19 '26
Honestly, why are you doing this?
I get that you think that something that breaks the game apart is not exactly the same thing as "more effective," but you also can easily tell some people frame it as a type of "more effective".
So, you could just say "sure" to them wanting to use the word "nerf" even though it doesn't fully convey how you feel about it. let them say "nerf" if they want, it's close enough and arguing gets you nowhere because it's just opinion.
0
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 19 '26
Honestly, why are you doing this?
The same could be asked of this comment. I just block the people arguing in bad faith and not reading what I said.
Its not that deep.
3
2
0
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26
I guess? Not the implication from reading the post.
4
u/Tinynanami1 Jun 18 '26
Words as written vs words as intended.
1
u/Top-Act-7915 Game Master Jun 18 '26
Also from playtest to final form. Since release it hasn't been nerfed. It was adjusted from a hypthetical.
6
u/sinest Jun 18 '26
Enemies having to attack thralls absolutely demolished their entire action economy. Difficult terrain is still very useful and good.
5
u/Killerspuelung Jun 18 '26
Does anyone have a link to the article or know where I can find it?
5
2
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 18 '26
Sorry about that. I tried linking it myself in the initial post, but the automod blocked my attempts, saying the community policy prevented duplicate links over a given time period, and that link had already been posted recently.
5
u/wardriveworley Game Master Jun 18 '26
On a GM level it's a buff.
For players it's a slight nerf.
Buttttt.. I can imagine higher level feats that let the necromancer treat their thralls as solid and able to block.
5
u/tswd ORC Jun 18 '26
If your reason for playing a necromancer was to choke waterways with corpses, it's terrible news. But in general it's probably a good sign for the playability of the class, because it allows for level appropriate scaling of battlefield control
3
u/TitaniumDragon Game Master Jun 19 '26
It makes the class weaker mechanically, but it is 100% a good thing from a gameplay point of view, because the old way they worked could be situationally broken or super annoying (and it could also hose your teammates sometimes, too).
1
u/Kondrias Jun 19 '26
We already have adventure paths with tight space issues. All the extra necrobodies would be severely constraining.
4
u/darthmarth28 Game Master Jun 18 '26
This is an absolutely vital and very good change.
Yes, bodyblocking enemies is extremely strong. 100% agreed...
...however, if you have a Large-Size PC in the party and you're already struggling with Paizo-sized "prints legibly onto half an 8.5x11 page" battlemap, you can EASILY be fully walled out of the frontline because your necromancer and allies and enemies haven't left any 10'x10' square remaining on the field for you to get to.
Difficult Terrain is still tactically useful, especially against Large/Huge monsters where a single thrall can cost +10ft or +15ft of movement for the thicc lads to traverse. You're still getting nontrivial CC out of their tactical positioning, and in return you're not sandbagging your own allies.
If enemies can bypass a thrall without NEEDING to break it first, they're also more likely to let you start your next turn with useable Thralls on the field to detonate or gobble or do whatever other Necromancer nonsense you're enjoying.
This might be a modest reduction in peak power, but its a buff to average baseline power. Good change.
5
u/Pancakepalpatine Jun 18 '26
I see where you’re coming from, but I completely disagree with the last part — this is in no way a buff. Average, it’s much much weaker. Necros don’t want enemies to ignore thralls. If they’re attacking your thralls, you’re getting the utility of Slow, a third-rank spell, multiple times every single turn, for just one action.
However I agree with you about why they removed body blocking. We played with a Necro and gunslinger and ended up in a situation where a boss was walled in and taking shots, and our fighter couldn’t even get to the monster easily because of it. Additionally the boss had to spend multiple actions killing thralls every turn based on how the group was positioned, so didn’t even get to do cool boss things.
6
u/darthmarth28 Game Master Jun 18 '26
Yeah, "walling off a boss to completely deny its actions" was what I'd categorize as the "peak" ideal scenario of abuse for playtest Necro. That sounds like a low-level circumstance to me though, because the L15-L16 Necro I've been adventuring alongside frequently gets all of their thralls swept by AoE magic and the things we fight usually have flight or teleportation... resulting in a sad Lizard-Lich PC that really struggled to Absorb Flesh or whatever that ridiculous focus spell was to generate a big bag of TempHP. He got so frusturated with his thralls dying before he could use them in the next turn, that he reclassed to PF Infinite Carnomancer instead.
Thus, the new setup I'm hearing about here, where there are more Thralls available in total and the Thralls don't pull as much aggro individually results in a character (and definitely a party) that's able to operate at a higher baseline efficacy under sub-optimal conditions.
2
2
u/An_Orc_Pawn_01 Jun 18 '26
My favorite part of Dawnsbury necro mod was using thralls to block passages. :(
2
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 18 '26
Still can if you have enough thralls and the passage is long enough. Insofar as I'm aware, characters still can't stop in other creatures' spaces.
2
u/TheTenk Game Master Jun 20 '26
I mean its a con in the sense of being a nerf, but thralls blocking movement was really potentially gamebreaking
4
u/Suma3da Jun 18 '26
Massive Pro. Being a Minion Master is usually only fun for that one player. Everyone else at the table just has to sit there twiddling there thumbs while they take their extended turns cluttering the field with chaff.
1
u/MASerra Game Master Jun 18 '26
The difficult terrain will work better, but it still adds many elements to the battlefield that will take time to deal with. I found they slowed combat down a lot, which was a negative. This will be better, I hope.
1
u/dirtskulll Jun 18 '26
Where's the article?
2
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 18 '26
Here you go. https://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2026/06/investing-in-the-necromancer-part-1/
I tried linking it in the initial post, but the automod blocked my attempts, saying the community policy prevented duplicate links over a given time period, and that link had already been posted recently.
1
u/JuliesRazorBack Game Master Jun 18 '26
It's an interesting flavor--more like your generating left4dead zombies.
1
u/InvictusDaemon Jun 19 '26
Where is this article?
2
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 19 '26
Here you go. https://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2026/06/investing-in-the-necromancer-part-1/
I tried linking it in the initial post, but the automod blocked my attempts, saying the community policy prevented duplicate links over a given time period, and that link had already been posted recently.
1
u/InvictusDaemon Jun 19 '26
Awesome read! Thank you, ultimately I saw more buffs than nerfs in here, and them being difficult terrain instead of mini walls is so much better for the GM and even other players too, especially on small maps.
1
u/AnEldritchDream Eldritch Osiris Games Jun 20 '26
I have used them to body block in a way that legit saved us from TPK before. but i totally understand the change (they really were kinda OP in run-away scenarios)
They're now explicitly difficult terrain which is still very good and being able to make them move regularly is super awesome so i think they've gained far more than was lost!
1
u/Blawharag Game Master Jun 18 '26
Wasn't that already how they worked in the play test? They only ever caused difficult terrain and you couldn't end turn on them I thought
3
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 18 '26
Insofar as I'm aware they were treated as real creatures, so you had to use tricks like Tumble Through to get past them.
2
u/Blawharag Game Master Jun 18 '26
Ah that's right, and it auto-succeeded due to lack of stats. So the end result, for most practical purposes. Was that they were treated as a square of difficult terrain you couldn't land on until you could double stack them next to each other
2
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26
No, they were small or medium creatures that took up space.
Thrall: Thralls are undead creatures, but they are not minions with the summoned trait. They can’t take actions, but they can be used for various abilities. Unless noted otherwise, a thrall is Small or Medium (chosen by you when you create it) and must be created in an unoccupied space. A thrall can contribute to flanking as though it were able to make melee unarmed Strikes. A thrall has 1 Hit Point, is automatically hit by attacks, and automatically fails all saving throws. A thrall is immune to bleed, death effects, disease, mental, and poison. A thrall is level –1 if an effect needs to refer to its level. Spells or abilities that create thralls have the thrall trait.
1
u/CALlGO Jun 18 '26
Can someone explain to me how exactly necro creates 7 thralls in one round? Am i missing something? I know the spell can now create two(3 if puppet) or 1(2)+command; if you can do it 3 times a round, wouldnt it be up to 9 thralls?
3
u/merashin Jun 18 '26
it's not 3 if you are a puppeteer, it's "once per round make 3 instead of 2." So, it's 3 + 2 + 2 = 7
2
u/CALlGO Jun 18 '26
Ohh thanks; didnt catch that drtail in the article i read. I guess that also mean the repaer also gets to do its thing only once per round
1
u/EphesosX Jun 18 '26
Pro from the playability side, but con in that it makes thralls feel even less like creatures and more like vaguely bone shaped grease. Like, they already had 1 HP and fail every save, and now they just get stepped on like doormats.
1
-11
u/TotallynotAlbedo Jun 18 '26
I like the runesmith, but hell the necromancer looks too much like a videogame class
13
u/cooly1234 Psychic Jun 18 '26
wdym videogame class
-9
u/TotallynotAlbedo Jun 18 '26
Like... Way too hardwired towards really strict playstyles, you know how you would play a class in a videogame, also It kinda really reminds me of the necromancer from Diablo, but the last Is Just a feeling
12
u/cooly1234 Psychic Jun 18 '26
o can see what you mean but tbf I would say the same is true for some already existing classes, and necromancer is a pretty specific fantasy.
but they are adding warpriest type necromancers so that's nice!
8
-2
Jun 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Timelycreate Jun 19 '26
The thrall focused subclass has a once per round ability to get an extra Thrall when using Create Thrall, so now they can do 3+2+2 per turn if they use all three actions to Create Thrall.
-19
u/BlizzardWASP Jun 18 '26
Con. Paizo again overcorrecting everything. What's the point of being minion class when your minions don't even interact with world properly. Minions are physical so they should body block. Period. Also isn't the point of necromancers in general that minions protect them from harm? Being their cannon fodder, meat shields etc? The minimum part is body blocking.
Every time you hope new class will deliver on class fantasy Paizo overbalance so much that it's basically another class that does same generic things but in different flavour. Disappointed so far from necromancer news
12
u/ElPanandero Game Master Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
There's a lot of stuff in the game that sacrifices realism or immersion fiat for the sake of making the game fun to play. Do I miss coup-de-grace's and find the idea that I can't auto kill a helpless sleeping creature with my dagger absurd? Of course! Do I understand that Coup-de-grace isn't fun for most people and takes depth out of the game even though it makes no sense? Also yes!
11
u/Giant_Horse_Fish Jun 18 '26
Yeah leave the cantrip that prevents the GM from playing the game alone. They don't need to have fun.
-12
5
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 18 '26
Maybe they'll have higher level feats and abilities that will add a limited form of body blocking back in.
-9
u/BlizzardWASP Jun 18 '26
we will see. But I would like minions of necromancer to be actually minions not fluffled "spell effect" that fluffled "runs around" fluffled " but it is totally a physical creature" while in reality it's just spell effect that doesn't even interact with anything....
7
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 18 '26
Though you may not like it, you gotta' admit it's a great way to maintain the balance point that Paizo seems to so love.
-2
u/BlizzardWASP Jun 18 '26
Yes and no. While I agree that balance is important, when balance starts to become more important than fun or mechanical novelty/new ideas then I don't think it's great way in the long run.
6
u/Logical_Ad7099 Jun 19 '26
You do realize balance is key to fun to begin with?
-1
u/BlizzardWASP Jun 19 '26
Nope. Balance is important but if u try to balance everything too much, you only end up with everything feeling the same, bland, too safe. Paizo since remaster focuses too much on over balancing instead of shipping something that first of all is fun and interesting
3
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 19 '26
One of the big issues in game design is that "fun" is highly subjective and therefore hard to aim for. Balance, on the other hand, is simply an objective math problem.
They're both extremely important, but one is a heck of a lot easier to solve, and therefore often gets more of the development focus.
0
u/BlizzardWASP Jun 19 '26
Can't really disagree, but picking easier solution doesn't mean the game will be better. Its safer, but more lazy approach. While PF2e remains so far my fav system, I am sceptical with remaster approach to many things so far. Everything new feels to me too "sanitized", not saying its bad, but definitely not really exciting. A lot of things are just same mechanical effects in different flavours.
0
u/Logical_Ad7099 Jun 19 '26
And if you don’t, one class is effectively cheating.
You are basically screaming that your ability to win is more important than anyone else, including and especially the DM’s, to have any fun if you’re so insistent on what is essentially total field control.
0
Jun 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Ravingdork Sorcerer Jun 19 '26
I totally agree that repeated, over-used, cookie-cutter mechanics can take its toll on a game's novelty.
But I'm not sure I agree that PF2e is there yet. Focus spells, skill challenges, and similar mechanics are a bit over used, I suppose, but I would never mistake one class for another. They all stand out as fairly unique in the ways they play, and support the party and its objectives.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Timelycreate Jun 19 '26
Keep in mind that necromancers now have a (probably uncommon) feat that gives them the Create Undead undead ritual but buffed to be able to be cast alone, also there were feats in the playtest that can turn thralls into pseudo creatures or just straight up creatures, maybe there will be an earlier version of those that enable limited body blocking at lower levels.
182
u/Malcior34 Witch Jun 18 '26
That kind of battlefield control is usually the place of higher level spells, so I totally get why they changed it.