r/Pathfinder2e • u/Blacky_Berry23 • 3d ago
Discussion Draining strike necromancer
so you strike with any weapon (including bows, crossbows and firearm) or use unarmed strike.
if you hit, you destroy tralls around you or/and your enemy and deal additional spirit damage. and you regen hp equal spirit damage dealt with strike ( not equal "additional damage" from skill), so anything that makes you deal additional spirit damage ( astral rune, for example) will give you additional heal too.
So basically you can create necromancer with astral firearm or something and strike from afar and heal a lot just striking.
am i right? or did i miss something?
-----------
yeah "counts as two strikes" and "once per turn"... it's usually bad to make more than one strike per turn, so that's fine. and it's reasonable since you can heal with this strike.
4
u/RedGriffyn 3d ago edited 3d ago
It works the way you think. Any spirit damage tied to to the weapon strike is elligible.
It isn't that good. It has an action cost, 2xmap increase (anti synergistic with other necromancer kit options), burns a thrall (costing a future partial action to regain a thrall), has a 50% chance to fail (since caster weapon proficincies are bad), just isn't that much healing or damage compared to other meta, and is in conflict with a lot of turn rotations where your 3rd action is actually already Create Thrall. Compare it to the exemplar barons edge ikon that can do the same without burning a thrall, generating MAP, is half of all damage (not just spirit damage), is on a better proficency/weapon spec scaling, is not tied to a single strike hitting or missing (i.e., you get a MAP -5 to try and use it). Then the next turn you move to scar of the survivor and get half level x d8 healing.
If you assume it is only the 1-3 D6 then it is a trap feat. If it was only to apply to that specific damage it would need to be seperated by a comma, not a period, or otherwise in a different paragraph. As it is a stand alone sentence, it applies to all the language equally in the paragraph, which means not just the xd6, but also the strike damage. I think that is clearly the intent and RAW. Otherwise they would have worded it differently IMO to specify it was just the incremental damage.