My experience GMing for a runesmith and a necromancer at 3rd level

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ow-oe3VrCEh71aNb9VRhmQrNil1SgwFmCkhfPehL30I/edit

I did some more one-on-one playtesting, this time with someone other than Exocist.

The runesmith feels like the magus. The melee runesmith seems decent, probably on par with a melee precision ranger, though certainly not in the same tier as the fighter, post-remaster barbarian, post-remaster champion trio. The ranged runesmith looks significantly worse due to its poor range and action economy. Reactive Strikes and high Fortitude are an ordeal.

The necromancer, at least at this level, feels okay-ish for a spellcaster. It is nowhere close to a bard, but I do not think it needs to be. The thralls are useful for incidental damage (e.g. finishing off an enemy) and for flanking, but I have never seen them actually block off an enemy. The thralls are not so good as to warrant the necromancer being a 2-slot prepared caster.

For good or for ill, both the runesmith and the necromancer ideally want to stay immobile and turret, so that they can use their class features more often.

You can read more in the link above.