Gravewalkers: Bonethrall? Command Undead? Minions?

[Dalebert]

Q 682
Can a Gravewalker witch magic jar a creature that is under your control via casting command undead, the spell; not the hex?


A682 No, using command undead does not make an undead creature "your minion".

They claim it does in bonethrall:
"the creature falls under her control as if she had used command undead"
Can you help me understand your interpretation?

I can see how one might be inclined to assume that possess undead is linked to bonethrall but it doesn't say that. They're two separate abilities.

By the RAW, it appears that bonethrall is like a limited version of command undead. Unlike the spell,
1) It's limited to 1HD/lvl
2) Intelligent undead can save again every day

The perks are that they can cast it at will and it's a supernatural ability (No SR, No AoO). And they give all Gravewalkers the spell, command undead, presumably as another method for obtaining minions that is a little more stable.

Does the spell command undead come with any HD/lvl limitations? I didn't see any in the spell description. Also, it says nothing about a new save every day that I could find.

[Keneth]

Hrm. The way I see it, command undead is just charm and command spells rolled into one and made to work on undead. Is a charmed creature your minion? How about creature under a compulsion spell? Plus, command undead doesn't make use of a caster's HD limit on controlling undead, or any other rules for owning undead minions, which to me seems like more proof that these undead lie outside of the general scope.

Bonethrall does say it works as command undead, and it uses a (separate) HD pool, but only because it's an at will ability. I don't see how that implies anything different; I wouldn't allow Posses Undead to work on undead "controlled" by command undead or Bonethrall.

[Dalebert]

Bonethrall does say it works as command undead, and it uses a (separate) HD pool, but only because it's an at will ability. I don't see how that implies anything different; I wouldn't allow Posses Undead to work on undead "controlled" by command undead or Bonethrall.

How is a gravewalker supposed to get "minions" if they aren't referring to commanded undead, and by level 8? Does it define anywhere else what a minion means for a Gravewalker?

[Keneth]

They get animate dead as a 3rd level spell at 6th level and have a pool of HD they can control like all other casters. :smallconfused:

[Dalebert]

They get animate dead as a 3rd level spell at 6th level and have a pool of HD they can control like all other casters. :smallconfused:

You can't use possess undead on the mindless ones. That was answered earlier in the Q&A thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16529725&postcount=1457) and his answer makes sense if you read magic jar. So with that cleared up, how do they expect you to make non-mindless undead into your "minions" by 8th level?

Also, Command Undead makes the mindless ones completely obedient anyway so Bonethrall or command undead are as good as animating them yourself.

FWIW, I agree that "minions" seems a strong word to use for what command undead does, but that appears to be exactly what they're referring to with possess undead.

[Benthesquid]

Unfortunately, I'm unable to find anything that defines "minion" in mechanical terms for Pathfinder. I'd suggest asking the Devs on the Paizo board, and in the meantime, talk to your GM. While I believe my earlier comment was correct, RAW, as a GM I probably wouldn't have any problem allowing you to possess a skeleton.

[Dalebert]

Unfortunately, I'm unable to find anything that defines "minion" in mechanical terms for Pathfinder. I'd suggest asking the Devs on the Paizo board, and in the meantime, talk to your GM. While I believe my earlier comment was correct, RAW, as a GM I probably wouldn't have any problem allowing you to possess a skeleton.

I believe they have failed to explicitly define it. This feels a bit sloppy. I do, however, believe it's strongly implied that they're referring to undead under the command undead effect even though they are not devoted to a degree that would make them fit what most think of as minions. And then once they are charmed in such a manner, they become susceptible to possess undead. Like I said though, that's totally an inference based on the context.

And if so, that leaves complications. What happens after you possess one of them? It's soul goes into the poppet while you're riding around in its body. Does it know what happened? Does it know you did it? Does it take that as a threat per the reading of command undead? Can you feed it a cover story? "Oh, deary. You went into a trance for a moment there. What happened? Are you okay?"

Guess it depends on their intelligence, experience, and how good of a bull-pooper you are.


I'd suggest asking the Devs on the Paizo board

Sorry, I'm new to PF and still discovering relevant resources. Could you link me?

[Psyren]

I would say "minion" = "undead in your control pool." Command undead itself does not have a control pool, but their Bonethrall ability does.

I agree though that it's poorly defined and you should make a thread in the Paizo rules forum for FAQ-age.



Sorry, I'm new to PF and still discovering relevant resources. Could you link me?

Here ya go (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/rules) - make a thread there, hit the button to the top right of your post labelled "FAQ" and I will do the same.

[Keneth]

Ah, I see the confusion. I would have to disagree with Benthesquid's answer on possessing mindless undead.


Nothing in the magic jar description says you can't target mindless undead.
The target line only says "one creature", not "one creature with a soul".
The description says mindless undead don't have souls, not that they don't have a life force to target.


So if you target a mindless undead, you simply ignore all parts about the soul being transfered, but otherwise it works as written.

To me, a minion is someone under your direct control, either because you animated it, or because you used control undead on it. Command undead simply doesn't seem like it would qualify a creature as such.

[Dalebert]

Nope. You can't even tell they're there:

While in the magic jar, you can sense and attack any life force within 10 feet per caster level

Honestly, I am beginning to suspect that bonethrall is supposed to replicate the effect of control undead and they got the spells mixed up. Obviously it's intended to last longer and that's why it has a strict HD limit; because it's a much more powerful effect than a 2nd level spell. Look at the language. It says "control" over and over and implies that you have complete control. It's also reasonable to conclude that they would model a witch's ability to control undead after the negative energy channeling cleric's ability. I remember when I read command undead that it didn't sound at all like what I was expecting the ability to work like.

I'm going to ask on the Paizo forum.

[Keneth]

Nope. You can't even tell they're there

Quote me the part where it says mindless undead don't have a life force, because life force is not the same as soul. :smallconfused:

[Dalebert]

Thread created. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qf09?Gravewalker-ambiguity-on-her-minions#1)

[Keneth]

I've flagged it for FAQ. Hopefully the thread will get noticed, but until then, defer to rule 0.

[Dalebert]

Quote me the part where it says mindless undead don't have a life force, because life force is not the same as soul. :smallconfused:

I don't really care to argue the point. To me, the bigger point is that I think the intent of a Gravewalker was for them to control undead up to their HD worth. That's what they sell it as with the verbiage. I think someone just slapped command undead in there without refreshing themselves on what that spell actually does.

I may be wrong, but if I am, there's no way I want to play a Gravewalker and give up three hexes to control mindless undead when I could do that long-term with spells and keep those hexes for other things.


I've flagged it for FAQ. Hopefully the thread will get noticed, but until then, defer to rule 0.

Three people have flagged it so far. I appreciate any other flags people can offer. :)

EDIT:
Holy crap! I was just writing a lengthy explanation that is probably not necessary. Okay, I think I just resolved this issue. It's not a typo. It's a mis-link! I am 99.99% certain they meant to link THIS command undead ability.

If so, everything falls into place and all the abiguity is resolved. The effect is more like the spell control undead because that's what the negative energy channeling cleric's ability is like. This hex is essentially like the feat clerics who channel negative energy can take which means the aura of desecration actually makes sense. It seemed like a stupid ability because it didn't help the witch in any way. In fact, with the mis-link, it meant it would actually help evil clerics to steal her undead. She's actually channeling negative energy with the hex so the aura raises the DC by one.

Look at the wording. It matches. 1 HD / lvl. A new save every day to break free.

[Keneth]

That would be nice, but no, it's not linked incorrectly. It's linked exactly as Paizo wrote it, to a spell and not a Feat.

It's possible that it's a mistake on the part of Paizo, but it's still RAW.

[Dalebert]

That would be nice, but no, it's not linked incorrectly. It's linked exactly as Paizo wrote it, to a spell and not a Feat.

It's possible that it's a mistake on the part of Paizo, but it's still RAW.

Yes, it's technically RAW, but it's almost certainly a mistake.

EVERYTHING suddenly falls into place. The question of minions gets resolved and fits the description. Aura of desecration suddenly makes sense. The ability as described in Gravewalker matches the feat practically word for word; not the spell. And the feat and the spell have EXACTLY the same name. And without that, the whole class is broken. I guarantee someone did a search for the name to copy the URL and put the wrong one. It's as simple as that.

I'm making a new thread with a much simpler question on the Paizo forum.

Thread made (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qf3b?Gravewalker-Does-the-bonethrall-description#1). I welcome any FAQ clicks!

[Keneth]

I guarantee someone did a search for the name to copy the URL and put the wrong one. It's as simple as that.

No, they didn't. They linked it as it's listed in the book. One of the book authors may have unintentionally listed the spell, but it's got nothing to do with links.

[Psyren]

Keneth is right - it is listed on Ultimate Magic pg. 84 the exact same way that magic jar and the patron replacement spells are. Feats are shown differently (usually Capitalized.)

[Dalebert]

Okay. I still think it was a mistake, maybe a mistake carried forward from UM. Do you see my reasoning?

Any idea how likely it is to get an official response on Paizo? I get the impression they may be overwhelmed with questions.

I'm 99% confident my DM will rule that it works like the feat, but if not, I'm making a negative energy channeling cleric and taking the feat. They get much better spells than a witch anyway. Witch spells kinda suck both in selection and expanding what they know.

I love clerics for access to all the spells plus extra domains spells and powers plus armor plus better BAB. I just haven't gotten to play one with undead control yet. I made a cleric with the ability to control other things in a 3.5 game and the DM never has those show up so it's been useless.

[Psyren]

They tend to answer questions in bursts - which could mean anywhere from tomorrow to weeks/months from now.

You may want to edit a summary (like mine) into to beginning of your post so they don't have to slog through all the rationale to get to what you're actually asking.

[Dalebert]

You may want to edit a summary (like mine) into to beginning of your post so they don't have to slog through all the rationale to get to what you're actually asking.

I already edited my original post down from an even longer post several times and now it won't let me edit it anymore. I made a new thread. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qf3b?Gravewalker-Does-the-bonethrall-description) (relevant) Bumps and FAQ votes appreciated.

[Sception]

I agree that the raw is what it is, and that the link to the spell is correct given the original text, but I also agree that it's almost certainly an error in the original text. The ability, and the others based on it, really make no sense if the control is as 'command undead', but everything falls into place, makes perfect sense, and functions as the flavor text implies it was intended if the control granted is instead as 'Command Undead'. I blame Paizo for the stupidity of having two thematically similar but mechanically very distinct game elements with the same blasted name. Moronic.

Anyway, yes, the raw is what it is, but if I were running a game of pathfinder with a gravewalker witch, you can bet that in my game that ability would function as 'Command Undead' the feat, not command undead the spell, and were I playing in a pathfinder game I would ask for the same from the GM before considering a Gravewalker witch as a PC, as the whole archetype is just kind of a mess, otherwise, and it's not like Pathfinder doesn't have a number of other ways to make a necromantic character concept work that are actually written coherently.

It's not the only problem with the Gravewalker, either. As I read it, there is no explicit in game way to replace a lost or destroyed fetish, unlike with the rules for familiars. Sure, as an attended item you're less likely to lose your all important spellbook substitute than a regular witch is, but if you do lose it there is literally no way to get your character back, your PC might as well just kill themselves.

It's a shame, because its one of the more interesting necromantic archetypes in the game, otherwise, and even with its problems is still a darn sight better than, say, the Undead Master cleric archetype. I would love to play one some time, provided the DM allowed for replacing lost fetish (at same cost as regular replacement witch familiar), and read the minion ability as the feat and not the spell.

[Psyren]

FAQ'd. I agree it makes more sense if it functions as the evil (or neutral) cleric ability.

[Sception]

Good to hear the fetish replacement was faq'd, at least - though, where is the faq? I'm having trouble finding it.

Otherwise, I'd still consider the Bonethrall houserule to 'Command Undead' rather than 'command undead a requirement to even consider playing one. Otherwise, you might as well just play a Bone or Juju oracle, Inevitable Cleric, Necromancer Wizard, or, heck, even a regular Witch with the Plague Patron is exactly as effective at creating, maintaining, and controlling undead minions as a Gravewalker under the raw, 'command undead' version of the bonethrall ability.

I mean, their big ability later on is just a more limited version of magic jar, a spell already on the witch spell list. Touch attacks at range is cool, but it isn't enough to justify the archetype's existence on its own, especially since it's not the archetype's thematic focus to begin with.

[Psyren]

Good to hear the fetish replacement was faq'd, at least - though, where is the faq? I'm having trouble finding it.

Assuming you're referring to my post, when I said "FAQ'd" I meant that I hit the button to bring it to the devs' attention.

[Sception]

Oh. Nevermind. Do the devs even bother looking at content that's been banned from PFS?

[Psyren]

Oh. Nevermind. Do the devs even bother looking at content that's been banned from PFS?

Sure, all the time. For example, inquisitions are not legal for PFS, but they still ruled on inquisitions being open to all domain-using classes.

[Dalebert]

a regular Witch with the Plague Patron is exactly as effective at creating, maintaining, and controlling undead minions as a Gravewalker under the raw, 'command undead' version of the bonethrall ability.

Exactly! The command undead spell lasts days, more if you extend, and without the HD/lvl limit. Then as soon as your 6th, you can animate 4 times your HD worth of exactly the type of mindless undead you want, all without giving up 3 hexes and a familiar to be a GW.

Meanwhile, the GW is giving up 2 hexes and the benefits of a familiar for what a 1st level cleric can get with one feat. And how the Hell is aura of desecration supposed to make any sense for something that is a spell effect and not negative energy channeling?? *shakes head violently*

Just in case my DM doesn't see the light, I already made up a cleric with the 'Command Undead' feat and the Death and Trade domains. You're right about Undead Lord not being worth it. Two bonus feats (one pretty late) and an extra zombie or skeleton for a domain with all the associated spells and powers, and Trade domain rox.

[Sception]

The inevitable subdomain of law is a good choice for necromantic clerics, doing what the undead subdomain of death should have done in granting access to command undead, which is a key spell for necromancers, when it isn't limited by hit points and handing out extra saves.

And necromantic witches have that via patron choice. Gravewalker even offers the spell directly, rendering its own signature ability obsolete.

As a necromantically themed character you want all three control pools - animate dead, comand undead, and Command Undead. Most necromantic specialized character options in pathfinder offer all three, one way or another. Yet another reason to suspect that the Gravewalker got bungled somewhere along the line.

Imagine it with the 'desecration aura' having an actual desecrate effect, and 'bonethrall' mimicking Command Undead. Would have been so cool, a real throwback to what the True Necromancerwanted to be, and a worthy peer to PF Necromancy specialist Wizards, Bone or Juju Oracles, and ... er... Law(inevitability) Clerics.

PF necromancy has come a reasonably long way. Still nothing on 3.5 necromancy, but not at all bad.

[Psyren]

And necromantic witches have that via patron choice. Gravewalker even offers the spell directly, rendering its own signature ability obsolete.

I disagree with this; Bonethrall is better than the spell since you get it so much earlier (1st instead of 4th level), you can prepare a different spell in its place, and it ignores SR/immunity. The saving throw also scales, making it much harder for them to get out, and Bonethrall is at-will, so that even if they break free you can simply spam it until they fall under your sway again. Note that it uses your Hex DC as well, meaning that both Potent Hex and Ability Focus will raise the DC even higher.

Also, I wouldn't say Gravewalker is meant to be a primary necromancer, any more than Hedge Witch is meant to be a primary healer. Rather, it just gives your witch a few more options, helping you to deal with a creature type that Witches normally have lots of trouble with.

[Sception]

The save and spell resistance don't matter. Command undead is used for controlling mindless undead, particularly powerful skeletons and zombies that you create yourself but which would overflow your animate dead control pool, and those kinds of creatures get no save and have no spell resistance.

Against intelligent undead, even if they save you get only get control equivalent to a charm person spell, which with most GMs isn't even enough to get a hostile enemy to stop attacking your allies, let alone have them fight for you, and not only are they not obligated to follow your requests, but the request simply being contrary to what they would normally do anyway entitles them to another save.

Charm person is not a bad effect, but it is not a minion control effect, and necromancers who rely on it to control intelligent undead are going to find it vastly unsatisfactory. That's what Command Undead is supposed to be for - and is a big reason why the later comes with HD control limits (like Bonethrall does - and command undead does not).

I agree that early access is nice, but it stops being significant the moment you have access to the actual spell - which I might remind you has a duration that lasts in days, so it's not like you're burning spell slots while adventuring most of the time, anyway - and it is never functional for what you seem to imply it's meant to be used for. And it's at-will spamability is directly limited by the hit die cap - a cap which, again, the spell it's emulating doesn't have.

Everything about the ability - from the hit die cap and daily save to the flavor text to even what you yourself imply is its intended purpose, says that it's supposed to mimic Command Undead, not command undead, and it simply does not cut the mustard otherwise.


And if you just want some options to deal with undead, you can take the plague mystery and not ditch your familiar or burn half your early hexes on effects that are just worse, more limited versions of spells you can cast regardless. Corpsewalker replaces a bunch of your patron spells, anyway, so its not like you'd be missing out. And I'd contest that the Gravewalker is, in fact, supposed to be a necromancer, or at least more of one than a plague witch already is, and even succeeds in that regard if you simply read command undead as Command Undead. Plus, your create undead spells would actually be useful.

[Dalebert]

The thread on Paizo (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qf3b?Gravewalker-Does-the-bonethrall-description) has about 6 votes. I don't know if that's good but it hasn't gotten any responses and is way low on the list. It could use a bump.

[Sception]

it has a response, now.

edit: from me, anyway, seconding the question. Not an answer.

[Dalebert]

The inevitable subdomain of law is a good choice for necromantic clerics, doing what the undead subdomain of death should have done in granting access to command undead, which is a key spell for necromancers, when it isn't limited by hit points and handing out extra saves.

I do want it, but it's hard to justify taking an otherwise mostly unappealing domain for that one spell. I took Death and Trade (sub of Travel) for my cleric that I made as my alternate character if the DM leaves Gravewalker broken.


edit: from me, anyway, seconding the question. Not an answer.

Yep, that's fine. Just glad to see it bumped and not hidden too many pages down.

EDIT:
What would you folks say is a reasonable level to expect to be able to afford a stone familiar (6000gp), and I mean being reasonably frugal but not starving myself of any other items if they fit just right? I figure wizards have to invest money in spellbooks so I can invest a comparable amount in a spell backup plan in case my poppet kicks it. But at low levels, the spells are inexpensive enough that it's probably not worth stressing about too much. I'm trying to find that sweet spot when I will start to sweat a little because the spells are more valuable compared to getting a stone familiar and I'm thinking it's around 7th to 9th level.

My DM has been unresponsive about my questions so I'm in the lurch about which character to play. He probably hasn't even read them yet. I actually like my cleric more at this point but my group would have no arcane caster so I'd still be willing to play the Gravewalker if he doesn't leave it broken. I know he's going to say the poppet is replacable even though that's also broken in the RAW but I will have to talk to him about that because the poppet is another area of obscurity as to exactly what it does and how to replace it.

[Psyren]

Dale, FYI the playground mods tend to frown on triple-posting so you may want to just edit new information/responses into your latest post.


The thread on Paizo (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qf3b?Gravewalker-Does-the-bonethrall-description) has about 6 votes. I don't know if that's good but it hasn't gotten any responses and is way low on the list. It could use a bump.

Keep in mind they may not answer it for weeks if not months, especially with the ACG playtest taking up most of their time. So you may have to be patient.


What would you folks say is a reasonable level to expect to be able to afford a stone familiar (6000gp), and I mean being reasonably frugal but not starving myself of any other items if they fit just right?

A general rule of thumb is no more than 50% of your WBL on a single item, and that is only for a major item that you absolutely have to have ASAP (generally, you reserve this amount for something essential like your +Int headband, saving throw cloak, metamagic rod etc.) For other items it's 25-33%. A stone familiar is useful but unless you think you're in a very gritty/lethal campaign world I would put it low on the priority list - most DMs don't target familiars, especially if you keep them out of combat.

Based on that, you're looking at level 6-8 to grab a stone familiar, but again, keep in mind that you're foregoing items that are likely to be much more useful in order to grab it so quickly so be sure it will be used.

[Sception]

If you play a witch, try to see if your GM will let you be part of a organization of witches, even if not an actual 'coven'. Witches' familiars can learn spells from each other, so this can be used to back up your non-patron spells. Losing your familiar would still hurt - to the point that I wouldn't recommend involving it in combat - take a flying familiar, preferably stealthy, and have it fly away and hide at any sign of danger - but at least if you did have to replace your familiar, you could get your spells back from your sisters, plus whatever small handful of new spells your new familiar would start with. Not really enough of a bonus to make up for the cost of replacing it and nerfing of your character while you waited for the downtime to do so, but enough to take the sting out of it.

Honestly, a non-gravewalker plague witch is already not a terrible necromancer (basically equivalent to 3.5 sorc or wiz necromancers, who lacked rebuking), as you'll have command undead and animate dead. Not as good as a dedicated cleric or necrospec wizard or bone/juju oracle, but still decent. If your DM doesn't want to mess with reinterpreting the Gravewalker, then plague witch is still probably a fine choice for your character. And you'd get a lot more use out of your early hexes that way, so long as the campaign isn't heavily undead themed to start.

[Dalebert]

If you play a witch, try to see if your GM will let you be part of a organization of witches, even if not an actual 'coven'. Witches' familiars can learn spells from each other, so this can be used to back up your non-patron spells.

Yes. I'm the one who started that rather lengthy thread that suggests that would be the culture. :) I linked my DM to the thread to see what he'd say, but he hasn't responded about that either. To me, it seems like a given. It should take very little persuasion to get other witches to do just that, though I do suspect they would require some sort of trust-proving process. To what extent is really up to the DM.


Honestly, a non-gravewalker plague witch is already not a terrible necromancer

No, not terrible considering she's not giving up all that stuph that Gravewalkers give up and she can still have a small army of mindless undead and maybe even a somewhat friendly intelligent undead or two hanging around, but honestly I've got my heart set on a proper necromancer now that I've gotten the taste for it. It's something that has always appealed to me about negative-clerics, but it has never seemed practical to do because they seem evil, or at least couldn't be good. This game, OTOH, has no alignments. Anything alignment-related is moot. I have a concept for a basically good-aligned necromancer whether that ends up being a GW, a regular witch, or a cleric.

[Sception]

Have you considered a Bone or Juju Oracle? They get the unholy trinity of animate dead, command undead, and Command Undead; they're cha-based casters so their Command Undead is more effective than most, they have early access to undead control via their special summoning ability & lesser animate dead (admittedly clerics get the latter one level earlier), you can access increased character level for either their Command Undead ability or their special undead summon via racial favored class substitutions (elf has it, plus some others, I think). For undead control, they're probably the best Pathfinder has right now, at least from my initial cursory glance at the system, though admittedly they're weaker casters than clerics or wizards (or probably witches for that matter), due to being spontaneous divine casters, which is kind of meh, and they do miss the negative channeling 'damage my enemies while healing myself' ability of the death domain cleric.

Still, they certainly seem worthy of consideration. They may be weaker than other full casters, but they're still full casters none the less, and it's hard to beat the haunted curse for flavor value on a necromantic character.

That would be my go-to backup choice, if my DM insisted on a by the book interpretation of the Gravewalker's abilities.


EDIT: I have revised my opinion on the Gravewalker's abilities, subsequent to being informed that magic jar does not normally function on unintelligent minions.

The abilities all function and do something - just not always something particularly significant. Bonethrall is basically obsoleted by command undead, but it's nice to have until then. Aura of Desecration doesn't help the Gravewalker's abilities, but does offer undead in the aura a slight bit of protection against channeled positive energy (channeled neg gets an offsetting bonus, so it helps against good clerics but not evil ones), and since it doesn't restrict its effects to friendly undead, that's exactly what it would be if Bonethrall worked as Command Undead, anyway (the DC would be plus one, but they'd have +1 save against it from the channel resistance that the aura also gives them).

Possess undead is meaningful in that it allows you to target your undead minions with a magic jaresque effect, and since it seems to specifically replace the targeting conditions of magic jar, my reading is that it does in fact allow a [i]magic jar[i]ing of your mindless minions, which is normally not allowed. Without this interpretation, the ability literally does do nothing at all, as a gravewalker under the raw version of bone walker can never have intelligent undead 'minions'.


A gravewalker may take direct control of one of her undead minions within her aura of desecration, as if using magic jar. Seems to directly bypass the normal restrictions that would prevent you from targeting one of your minions with that spell.


I'm still convinced, based on the level of access, the HD cap, and so on that Bonethrall meant to reference Command Undead and not command undead, but I am no longer of the opinion that the gravewalker's abilities are without function, otherwise.

[Dalebert]

Note that it uses your Hex DC as well, meaning that both Potent Hex and Ability Focus will raise the DC even higher.

I found Potent Hex on the feat page (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats) but Ability Focus appears to be a monster feat. Is there another one? If it's something I could actually take, I want to know about it.


Have you considered a Bone or Juju Oracle?

I'm looking at them but I'm not generally a fan of spontaneous casters with extremely limited fixed spells known. They do get some nice perks though. Some of their abilities seem on par with witch hexes if not better. And there's yet another archetype that gets Command Undead trivially but they make the witch give up an arm and a leg for a neutered version.


Have you considered a Bone or Juju Oracle? They get the unholy trinity of animate dead, command undead, and Command Undead;

Where are you seeing command undead? Neither appears to have that.


Aura of Desecration--the DC would be plus one, but they'd have +1 save against it from the channel resistance that the aura also gives them

Awe, man. For a little while there, I had deluded myself into believing this wasn't just created to hog a hex slot. Even with the fix, it still sux.


I'm still convinced, based on the level of access, the HD cap, and so on that Bonethrall meant to reference Command Undead and not command undead, but I am no longer of the opinion that the gravewalker's abilities are without function, otherwise.

Gotcha, but it's still not remotely worth all that they give up for such crappy abilities. Cleric lvl 1-one feat. Done.

[Psyren]

I found Potent Hex on the feat page (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats) but Ability Focus appears to be a monster feat. Is there another one? If it's something I could actually take, I want to know about it.

Players can take Monster Feats just fine. Bestiary:

"Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)."

The prereq for Ability Focus is a Special Attack, and that's exactly what a Witch's Hex is.



Where are you seeing command undead? Neither appears to have that.

Both the Bones and Juju mystery can select a Revelation called Undead Servitude that gives them a cleric's Command Undead and a channel to power it.



Gotcha, but it's still not remotely worth all that they give up for such crappy abilities. Cleric lvl 1-one feat. Done.

This is a very bad idea, because the save DC of your Command is based on your class level. Dipping cleric for 1 level will mean your Command DC is far too low to be of any use.

[Dalebert]

Both the Bones and Juju mystery can select a Revelation called Undead Servitude that gives them a cleric's Command Undead and a channel to power it.

I know it's confusing after all my complaining about it, but in this case I was talking about the 2nd lvl spell. I know they can get the feat. That's crucial, but the spell is a nice compliment to it because it has no HD limit, no save for mindless undead, and a long duration. You can fluff your pool of undead and save your pool of HD for the big wigs.


This is a very bad idea, because the save DC of your Command is based on your class level. Dipping cleric for 1 level will mean your Command DC is far too low to be of any use.

No, I'm not talking about multi-classing. I'm saying this is why I would just play a cleric instead. I'm also just pointing out how easy they make it for clerics and how painful and expensive they make it for witches.

[Psyren]

I know it's confusing after all my complaining about it, but in this case I was talking about the 2nd lvl spell. I know they can get the feat. That's crucial, but the spell is a nice compliment to it because it has no HD limit, no save for mindless undead, and a long duration. You can fluff your pool of undead and save your pool of HD for the big wigs.

As Cha-based casters (with Desecrate no less) they have a pretty massive pool. So there's no real reason to have the spell honestly. And the spell DC doesn't scale either while the ability does.


No, I'm not talking about multi-classing. I'm saying this is why I would just play a cleric instead. I'm also just pointing out how easy they make it for clerics and how painful and expensive they make it for witches.

This is why I told you earlier that witches aren't intended to be primary necromancers. If that's the main role you want to play, then yes, clerics are far better. The point of Gravewalker is to be a witch with some answers to undead opponents, not to replace the cleric.

In short, if you want to be a cleric, play one; saying that a witch makes a bad cleric may be a true statement but it's also pointless.

[Dalebert]

This is why I told you earlier that witches aren't intended to be primary necromancers. If that's the main role you want to play, then yes, clerics are far better. The point of Gravewalker is to be a witch with some answers to undead opponents, not to replace the cleric.

Dood... They're called "GRAVEwalkers". Yes, it's primarily focused on necromancy! This should a "duh". And it fits with the mythology of witches perfectly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06IkPrdH16U#t=120), so when you say "not intended", whom do you mean?


In short, if you want to be a cleric, play one; saying that a witch makes a bad cleric may be a true statement but it's also pointless.

I'm saying an archetype designed around giving up substantial class features to specialize in necromancy should be on par with a class that has it as one tiny optional add-on. You imply necromancy is a defining class feature of clerics. That's absurd.


As Cha-based casters (with Desecrate no less) they have a pretty massive pool. So there's no real reason to have the spell honestly. And the spell DC doesn't scale either while the ability does.

I wouldn't say no reason. It's a great spell, but they do have a pretty massive pool as you say, which makes it feel more like icing. Point is he said they have it, "the unholy trinity", and I couldn't find it so...

[Psyren]

Dood... They're called "GRAVEwalkers". Yes, it's primarily focused on necromancy!

Right, and they're good at it... compared to other Witches. An evil Cleric or Bones Oracle will still run rings around them.

The Dirge Bard is in the same boat. They get some necromantic stuff, but they're quite simply not intended to be on par with Clerics. It's a clear design goal that clerics are the granddaddies of necromancy in PF, because they also held that throne in 3e (at least, until the Dread Necro came out.)

(Also, "True Blood" is mythology now? :smalltongue:)



I'm saying an archetype designed around giving up substantial class features to specialize in necromancy should be on par with a class that has it as one tiny optional add-on. You imply necromancy is a defining class feature of clerics. That's absurd.

To put it bluntly, you're very wrong. Necromancy IS a defining class feature of clerics - evil clerics.

And no, just because you give up a bunch of stuff doesn't mean you should be on par with another class that doesn't have to at their own schtick. For example, the Shapeshifter Ranger gives up a bunch of class features to gain a shapeshifting ability, but he comes nowhere near a Druid's ability at the same thing, and that is intentional. Similarly, a Magician Bard gives up a bunch of class features to be a better caster, but any Sorcerer will still magic them under the table. The point is to bring them closer to that ideal - not really to equal or surpass it.

[Dalebert]

(Also, "True Blood" is mythology now? :smalltongue:)

True Blood is inspired by many stories before it. I just brought it up because it's recent and they actually spent a whole season on necromancer witches who were making vampires their bitches. But it's just the latest of many and that's why it worked.


To put it bluntly, you're very wrong. Necromancy IS a defining class feature of clerics - evil clerics.

In D&D, yes. Historically, D&D has been fairly rigid in it's class definitions. It's evolved. PF seems to have done an even better job of expanding the types of characters people can play and letting them change out certain options. But you can't call something a defining class feature when it's a FEAT that some of them are eligible for, not anymore anyway. It's ridiculous to compare an optional feat to a druid's shape-shifting.


Similarly, a Magician Bard gives up a bunch of class features to be a better caster, but any Sorcerer will still magic them under the table. The point is to bring them closer to that ideal - not really to equal or surpass it.

And now you're comparing a sorcerer's spellcasting ability to an optional cleric feat. :smallconfused:

[Sception]

Gravewalkers aren't actually particularly good at necromancy compared to witches who choose to follow that path via the Plague mystery.

And clerics aren't particularly good at undead control necromancy compared to specialist wizards unless they go out of their way to get enervation and command undead via domain spells.

Oracles are decent, but lacking command undead hits them pretty hard.

Gravewalkers/plague witches are ok, but lacking Command Undead hurts a lot more in Pathfinder than it does in 3.5, what with the create undead access to intelligent, templated undead (though, again, access to those requires enervation as well).

I'm still catching up on my pathfinder necromancy - I've been out of the game for a few years now, but so far it seems to me that as an undead master (the concept not the mechanically lackluster cleric archetype), you really want access to animate dead (for bloody skeletons and fast zombies of powerful or useful monsters), command undead (to control excess animate dead creations), Desecrate (for the augmentation to animated undead HP), create undead (for a skeletal champion or juju zombie of a slain enemy with useful class levels - note you wont have more than one at a time), enervation (for the same) Command Undead (to control your skeletal champion or juju zombie), and... that's pretty much everything, from what I can tell? Am I missing anything? Maybe the feat to grab a word of power if allowed, for free non-bloody, non-fast animate dead, but honestly... meh. Maybe Polymorph Any Object to get desire corpses to animate, but that's pretty late game.

I'm not sure who gets all of those - maybe a cleric of undeath and inevitability? You could get everything except for PAO that way, I think.

Wizard gets pretty close, missing out only on Desecrate. If you have to chose between command undead and Command Undead, I think I'd lean towards the latter in pathfinder, provided you can also access enervation, but yeah, you really want both.


It's a shame Create Undead is still so worthless for any class without Command Undead (the feat).

[Psyren]

In D&D, yes. Historically, D&D has been fairly rigid in it's class definitions. It's evolved. PF seems to have done an even better job of expanding the types of characters people can play and letting them change out certain options. But you can't call something a defining class feature when it's a FEAT that some of them are eligible for, not anymore anyway. It's ridiculous to compare an optional feat to a druid's shape-shifting.

It's a feat, sure, but it's one you can only take if you have the required class feature, and one that is powered by your cleric level to boot. It's not available to everyone.



And now you're comparing a sorcerer's spellcasting ability to an optional cleric feat. :smallconfused:

Your argument was "Class X gave something up to do Ability A, it should be just as good at Ability A as Class Y." I was bringing up other examples (Dirge Bard vs. Cleric, Magician Bard vs. Sorcerer) to show that this isn't necessarily the case.



And clerics aren't particularly good at undead control necromancy compared to specialist wizards unless they go out of their way to get enervation and command undead via domain spells.

Enervation has nothing to do with undead control in PF. Negative levels don't even create wights anymore.

And again, I fail to see what is so show-stopping about the command undead spell. The save DC doesn't scale automatically, your range of control is limited, you can only affect one target at a time, it's subject to SR etc.

[Sception]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/create-undead

If I'm reading correctly, enervation is required for the creation of Skeletal Champions and Juju zombies, which, from what I can tell so far (admittedly I'm still working my way through the lists), are the only undead worth creating via the create undead spells. Like skeleton and zombie (and variants), skeletal champion and juju zombie are templates, so they scale with your necromancer's level and can always create meaningful minions, while the other undead you create are all fixed leveled monsters which, while they have a few potential utility uses, are all basically pointless for adventuring use by the time you can make them. I mean, ghouls at level 11 aren't going to intimidate most monsters or enemies you fight at that level. Neither are mummies at level 15.

Even more significantly, skeletal champions and juju zombies, if I'm reading correctly, maintain their class levels? Which would turn 'create undead' essentially into 'craft cohort'. You still can't use your Command Undead pool for chain spawning shadow, wight, or wraith armies like you could in 3.5, since eventually the original creater will roll a nat 20 on their daily save and turn on you, and the first thing they'll do is release the entire army. But one dude with class levels as a useful caster or some such? Yeah, they'll eventually turn on you, too, but at least it will be more manageable when it happens than an entire army of shadows turning on you, so I think it's worth the bother.


Anyway, the point is that if you want your create undead spell to be meaningful, and thus your aggressively limited Command Undead control pool to be meaningful without relying on random encounters to supply useful undead to Command, then you want to make skeletal champions and juju zombies, and if you want those, then you want enervation. Yeah, you can make them with energy drain, which clerics and oracles get anyway later on - but that's at ninth level, a whole six or seven levels after you could have been making them with enervation. And honestly, when do campaigns really ever make it far enough to be casting ninth level spells?

[Dalebert]

I'm just pointing out that the options are evolving and that's a good thing.

I also feel the need to point out that, even if Paizo fixes the Gravewalker, it's still nowhere close to being as good a package as a cleric necro. It's just the bare minimum to fix a broken archetype.

Bonethrall seems intended to mimic Command Undead, but they don't have negative energy channeling to go with it and that is huge. The two are a great package deal. It's an AoE heal for potentially a small army of undead minions. On top of that, the Undead Master feat, while still helping a Gravewalker, would not help Bonethrall RAW because it's not the feat; it's only mimicking it. It would still help her casting of command undead and animate dead and the save DCs, making it worthwhile to take as it already is for any casters of those spells, but not nearly as nice as it is for a cleric.

EDIT:
Bad news. Really bad news for everyone, I think. In this thread (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p1hs?Does-a-Gravewalker-Witchs-Bonethrall-have-a#1), Sean K Reynolds replied and he has the title of "Designer, RPG Superstar Judge". That sounds very official. I don't know. But if you read that thread, it introduces even more complications.

1) He's saying bonethrall works like command undead (the spell).
2) That means it has a duration, albeit long, but of course it's a hex and can be spammed so not particularly relevant. That's what the thread is all about. Basically the conclusion: "If it doesn't specify otherwise (and it doesn't), the duration is as the spell."
3) Command Undead (the feat) does not specify a duration. It says it works like control undead (the spell), which has a duration of 1 min / level.

The wording is slightly different and you could infer that the feat is intended to last until intelligent undead break out of it, but that is purely from inference. It does say "as if under the effects of control undead" whereas bonethrall says "as if she had used command undead". It also says intelligent undead get a new save every day, which again implies longer effect. But if you want to look at what the rules imply, let's look again at the Gravewalker description which everyone agreed seems over-inflated:

"Unlike the creations of standard necromancers, a gravewalker's creations remain forever tied to her will"

Confusing, because she can't create anything differently than anyone with access to the creation spells, but if you interpret bonethrall and Command Undead (the feat) strictly per RAW, bonethrall would be weaker control on intelligent undead, but it would be a long-lasting effect that she can spam whereas Command Undead would only control undead for 1 min per level. If she used it on an intelligent undead of her creation, it could be used to "forever tie it to her will" versus a 1 min / level ability. Both of them essentially give the classes a way to cast a particular spell effect with limitations using either a hex or a channeling. That would mean clerics have been nerfed in this respect.

This all feels pretty sloppy IMHO, leaving way too much to interpretation and inferences. Maybe it's the side effect of trying to crank out so many options and archetypes instead of just going with mutli-classing for variety like 3.5.

[Psyren]

Yes, SKR is a dev. And yes, it looks like he previously ruled that it uses command undead as the spell. But they've changed their minds before.

It's really not that big a deal either way though.

[Dalebert]

My DM is leaving it as the spell. There's already an inquisitor in the group so I decided not to play my cleric. I was in a quandry, deciding whether to play a straight-up witch with the plague patron, still very necro though not right off the bat at 1st level. The DM convinced me to give it a try when I confirmed that I could retrain out of the archetype later. Here are a few other things that helped.

1) He's interpreting command undead pretty liberally. Attacking my enemies and not attacking my allies are no-brainers. They're not exactly risk-averse. Commanding a vampire to walk out into the sunlight would be another thing.
2) They're definitely my minions for the purpose of Possess Undead and they'll even be mostly okay with this unless I'm using their body in a particularly destructive way, like using it to trigger traps. (That's what the mindless ones are for)
3) I can possess the mindless ones. He sees it as an exception to the general use of magic jar as it pertains to Posses Undead.
4) He's fine with a house rule that Undead Master would raise my dice pool even though it's not the RAW. Apparently I will qualify at 3rd level which is pretty cool (instead of 4th). Hero Lab appears to be using bonethrall to meet the prereq, I guess(?), and the DM is fine with that too.

I didn't get completely satisfactory answers about things like "Can I keep a vampire from eating some random baby" (that's clearly not a personal ally of mine).

Also, I pointed out how the posses undead ability is mostly the kind of thing I would do for hours at a time while exploring a dungeon, for instance. It takes a full round to take over a creature's body. That seems like it would really piss something off that wasn't truly under your control. He seems to think even that doesn't fall under overtly threatening.

I'm willing to see how viable this all ends up being for a while since I can retrain later if it turns out to be a disaster.

[Sception]

Why would you want to posses intelligent undead anyway? You dont get the targets ex, su, or spell like abilities, and keep your own mental stats. As such, a skeleton or zombie will probably get you a better chasis than any intelligent undead you can make at a given time.

If charmed intelligent undead are actually going to act as your allies, you want them to be using their powers to the best of their abilities, acting on their own initiative with their own action pool.

[Benthesquid]

I think my personal favorite Create Undead critter is the Blast Shadow, just for this little line in their description.

"Blast shadows... are loyal to their creator."

No need for Command Undead or worrying about it breaking free- once you create it, it's loyal to you, and can be trusted to use it's 10 int and 13 Wis in your service. It's not a creature on your level (which from a non-optimization standpoint, is fine. Having "create loyal cohort equally powerful to me," has never struck me as a great idea,")

But as a thug or overseer for projects you can't give your full attention to...

[Dalebert]

Why would you want to posses intelligent undead anyway?

Because they're tough. Zombies and skeletons just can't compete. One strategy is to have my body in some kind of tall basket I can stand in, harnessed to the back of a large zombie commanded to hang back while I wade closer into the battle in a tougher body to hex and cast spells.

Also, I'm not entirely sure I can cast spells from a skeleton or zombie body. Can they even vocalize words? Probably zombies, but maybe not skeletons. I think you can make the argument that they would be able to if they were intelligent (like when they're possessed by a spellcaster) because there are skeletal-like intelligent undead who can, but I can also see a DM call to the contrary.


You dont get the targets ex, su, or spell like abilities, and keep your own mental stats.

It says you can't activate them, not that you don't have them. Some of them are automatic and it specifically says you get automatic abilities, like presumably fast healing of a vampire spawn and possibly even the energy drain, but that one's murkier, because it's something that appears to be tied to their attacks. If they had to activate it like other Su then they wouldn't be able to do it at the same time as an attack.

[Sception]

Nice note on the Blast Shadow.

Otherwise, have fashioned for yourself one or several adamantine coffins that lock on the inside to store your body while possessing, and have the skeletal or zombie giant you mean to possess carry it around. Then pretend you're this guy:

http://images2.alphacoders.com/192/thumbbig-19250.jpg

For speaking, with as lenient as your dm is being, i don't think that will be an issue, but if it is, stick to intact zombies.

[Dalebert]

stick to intact zombies.

Unfortunately, zombies kind of suck because besides not being that tough at higher levels, they're staggered all the time.

[Sception]

All zombies are fast, all skeletons are bloody.

[Dalebert]

All zombies are fast, all skeletons are bloody.

Thank you for that. I had discovered bloody skeletons and am a big fan but I wasn't familiar with fast zombies. I'll look them up.

Sidenote--can you link your magic jar thread you said you were creating? I'm interested and I think it's relevant to this discussion.

[Sception]

Not even worth it, the magic jar text itself says it works on intelligent undead but not unintelligent undead. I'm confused how I didn't catch that myself, it's right freaking there.

Not that it matters for the Gravewalker's possession ability - it says exactly who it works on, one of your undead minions, completely bypassing the whole 'targeting life forces/soul transfer' aspect of the original spell regardless.

I think there's an argument to be had over what qualifies an undead as a gravewalker's minion, but if it is a minion, you can possess it, souls, life forces, or otherwise.

[Dalebert]

Well then I have another thought on magic jar that would also apply to possess undead and I'm curious of your (and others') take on it.

It says you need line of sight to possess a creature but it pointedly only says you need to be in range to either return to the magic jar or back to your body. I think it makes sense. The latter effect is more automatic. It's like a rubber band snapping back to its normal shape.

It's relevant based on the way you suggested--putting your body in a strong coffin that locks from the inside. You might want to have your poppet in a strong box as well and maybe even keep it on your borrowed body just in case that body is killed while you're in and you've wandered a bit out of range of your body. Then at least your allies could work on getting your body and poppet back in range before the duration runs out. Or you could try to have more of your minions in range to hop into from there.

BTW, did you see my new post to the Paizo thread?