Friendlyfish's page

I actually had no preconceived answer to the question. I'm also getting the notion that there are no rules to the situation. Sounds like the answer IS: DM's discretion.

You can get some wonky results if the "acts on your turn" is followed too strictly. For example, what happens if the caster then delays or readies an action? Do the summoned creatures act on the caster's original initiative or the new initiative? When does the spell expire given the changed initiative. What if a summoned creature delays or readies? Etc.

The general way I have seen this treated is to treat the summoned creatures as acting prior to the caster in initiative, following the same idea as dealing with two characters who roll the same initiative. If the caster rolled an init of 15, the creatures are on 15+ and the caster is at 15-. It's a bit of a compromise vs. the RAW of the spell, but is easier to manage and otherwise you will find some other place you have to compromise at a later time. Selecting this compromise has the benefit of sticking within the framework of rules mastery.

I recognize that OP may not like this approach, but compromises in the RAW must happen from time to time, and picking and choosing those compromises to one's own advantage has a bad reputation and is best avoided.

Note: if caster can communicate with the summoned creatures, telling them to wait for the haste (delay) is totally reasonable.

I'm sorry if this questions is answered elsewhere; I couldn't find an answer easily with the search function.

I posit a scenario:

Round 1, my wizard uses a 1-round casting time to cast his Summon Monster (X) spell.

Round 2, my Summon Monster(s) appear and act on the same initiative count as me.

I choose to use my standard action to cast Haste on my Summon Monster(s) during Round 2. According to the text, the Summon Monster(s) are acting simultaneously as me; they (all) choose full-attack actions.

The question is simple:

On Round 2, do the Summon Monster(s) gain the benefit of the Haste spell? Or only Round 3 forward?

Perhaps simply a flat bonus to hit and damage with the existing summon lists to keep them relevant, a certain flat bump per tier using a mythic summon spell. You already have the mythic augment summons feat giving your summon epic dr; now you simply need some additional hit bonus and you're good to go. I'm not thinking you even need any additional damage to maintain relevance.

It's clear that a Summon Monster/Ally mythic spell that adds Mythic Tier in some multiple to the Summons List available is in order, to a max of the SM/SNA IX list. It will cost a mythic point as an action investment, which is fair. Certainly an easy fix to keep summons relevant. Also, let the archmage have a mighty summons path ability along with the hierophant.

Summons seem popular enough that some specific attention might want to be paid to them lest the hordes of summoner gamers not want to play Mythic.

Still not sure it makes thematic sense for divine Hierophants to have a market corner on monster summoning enhancements.

Quick feedback:

Arcane summoners (conjurer wizards, summoners) exist, are popular, and would benefit topically from the Mighty Summons ability. It doesn't seem to make sense to restrict this ability to Hierophants and divine casters only. Please cross-post this ability to the Archmage path as well.

Question: Does mighty summoning stack with superior summons (i.e. 1d3 beasts of level -1 list, +1 superior summoning, +1 might summons)?

Friendlyfish, the thing about PF is damage isn't always the solution, and you can win encounters without it with the tier 1 classes. When damage isn't the solution the classes you say have "real" power fall very far short (though druid is still tier 1, i don't know why people keep putting it on tier 2, maybe they are bad at building/using them). Alchemist is barely tier 3 btw, because its not even a real caster, its discoveries are nice, but its just a skill monkey class with glass cannon ability (bomb build can go off a few times a day, but the vivisectionist requires positioning to do damage).

Even in normal play with level appropriate encounters combats don't last more than 3 rounds for any optimized group without effects in play that extend the combat (difficult environment, invisibility, spring attack/flyby attack with faster enemies, ect). A CR equal encounter is meant to be an easy encounter for the average party.

Interestingly enough, the guidelines say the GM should reduce the CR of the encounter if terrain isn't favorable to the monster. Considering how dungeon play is often run (open door, roll initiative) I would say a reduction in CR is called for unless the monster get a surprise round.

As for the reason why eidolons are so dangerous for inexperienced GMs: Eidolons add greatly to the action economy. Instead of 4 PCs, only 2 characters focused on HP damage, and 2 on buffs/control, you have 3 damage focused PCs, and 2 focused on control/buffs. The action economy is highly favorable to the party with pets (this includes druid power level pets too). Many GMs tend to just pick a monster whose CR is equal the party and throw it in combat (often at charge range). When it dies horribly before it gets to act they come here and go: my PCs Class X is OP, help me nerf.

The solution is designing encounters that have more enemies (2 well picked level 10 monsters are usually more challenging than the typical lvl 12 solo). The encounters I've found that challenge the PCs (and I have a fairly...

I'm not sure I agree with everything you say, really. In almost all games I've played in, killing monsters and exploring dungeons -is- the game. Sure, there's the hardcore RP game here and there, but I try to avoid THOSE people...=) Wizards are potent battlefield controllers, truth undisputable. However, they have few ways of actually KILLING the monsters efficiently, which is the stripped-out, bare-bones point of the game! I won't argue that they don't soften up the battlefield considerably at times. However, the monsters still have to be made dead and wizards, clerics, sorcerers, oracles... and all these so-called "Tier 1s" do don't do that very well (unless you're a monster summoner, that changes things, in my experience.)

When I played my high-damage alchemist or summoner, I had as much fun as the wizard. I killed the monster quickly, he inconvenienced them mightily. We both felt pretty cool. I didn't feel on a "Tier 3" compared to his "Tier 1". I think the Tiers of Power are advertising that the wizard is just simply -better- in pathfinder play, and that's in my real, at-a-table play experience just not the case.

To speak to the poster below you, I'll buy that argument regarding said interpretation of "Tiers of Utility" or "Tiers of I Wrecked the DMs Inept, Level-Inappropriate Dungeon Building". Full casters can sure ruin a DM's carefully plotted scenario with their massive utility breadbasket of spells. However, that's the DM's burden to address, and therefore counter or complement their versatility in a tactful and fun way. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

In summary - I feel plenty overpowered by 1-round smoking things at equal CR. I certainly don't feel overshadowed by my wizard debuffer buddy. Don't take that to mean that I think the alchemist is better than the wizard, but I think they coexist fine and perform nonoverlapping functions during encounters. It's just this implicit hierarchy of "power" I think is just not at all true.

I have to admit, I simply design a natural-attack based Eidolon strictly adhering to the rules and getting level-appropriate loot and buffs, and I can mow down an equal-CR monster built according to the standard monster building table stats in under 1 round on average levels 1-20 with a full-attack action.

And I'm not even a particularly sophisticated optimizer. The GM will have to throw my Eidolon an even-CR monster every encounter on top of what he already had planned just to keep him occupied for a round eating its guts out.

I also admit I can build an Alchemist that can do the same (albeit with a little more effort) leveraging infusion/bottled ally (preservationist) for monsters to hand out to my friends and my bombs.

One thing I don't understand is this "Tiers of Power" thing. Everybody says full casters are the most powerful characters. They are certainly the most versatile, but in a real dungeon-delving game, you know, around a table with people fighting DM-run monsters...the summoner's standard-issue Eidolon puts the fancy wizard to shame by chipper-shredding the encounter before it starts.

I'd put the high-damage classes such as Summoner, Alchemist, Druid and Magus near Tier I on a REAL Tiers of Power list. They mow encounters before the other PCs can even do a thing.

To the Point: the DM can nullify the Eidolon by increasing the level of difficulty of the encounters enough to give everybody something to do. Simple and straightforward. If I were DMing, I'd add another monster of even-CR just because an Eidolon is with the party.

Hypothetically, pretend I have a wizard, with the Old Cults faction affiliation. One of the faction affiliation benefits is use of the Planar Binding spell to summon up some member of the Dark Tapestry/Mythos-related monsters to interact with. In addition, the wizard himself has access to the planar binding spell.

My conundrum is that there are no available monsters that are both Dark Tapestry-related in the bestiaries and have the requisite outsider status allowing them to be brought forth by a planar binding spell, Old Cults related or not.

Is there an accepted monster list for this concept? Is there a supplement detailing alternative monsters that could be used by the Planar Binding line in this play situation?

This also impacts the Dark Tapestry oracle, which gets access to Planar Binding as a bonus spell, ostensibly to bind some Dark Tapestry horrors, but who has nothing thematic to bind.

I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate forum for this question, if not, I apologize- I considered it Golarion Dark Tapestry Conjurer specific.

Is there going to be support for the alchemist? Given the six mythic archetypes, I'm having trouble seeing where the alchemist actually fits in there.

Kinda a spellcaster, not really an archmage, not a hierophant...but not a warden, champion, trickster or marshal either. Sure, you can probably shoehorn the alchemist into one or more of those paths, but none seem to follow as a natural progression, as does archmage from wizard/sorc, hierophant from cleric/oracle, warden/champion from fighter/ranger/barb, marshal from bard/cavalier, trickster from rogue.

Hard to see where alchemist thematically fits here. Hope it isn't left out.

Put "The Test of the Starstone" in the Mythic Adventures book. Let there be an outlet for Mythic Characters who want to become Gods, Demiurges, and etc.

Beyond that, provide some guidelines/quests for methods of achieving eternal transcendence beyond simply riding the Starstone; e.g. Divine fiat, magical spell (ala Nethys), profane snuggling with the Outer Gods.

Stuff like that.

I could really use some Epic Content (and some Psionics.)

Both those systems are what I enjoy most, and while I really think Paizo's level of intricacy, creative imagination and detail is heads-and-shoulders superior to a nameless market competitor, the lack of epic rules (and psionics) is making it hard for this customer to make the change over to what is obviously a superior designed product.

I'm one of those (apparently rare) gamers that starts the campaign at level 15ish and wants to play into the high-level/epic area. From my perspective, I'm looking at a game that, no matter how cunningly crafted, is simply incomplete. My group just ain't into gritty goblin-whacking and death-by-housecat. The wizard wants to cast that Inflict Volcano spell from the Netheril boxed set and the barbarian wants to eat up an orc horde at Thermopylae.

PLEASE don't make us wait 2 years+ for Epic (and psionic, just throwing it out there) rules!

I'll stop swimming! It's my version of holding my breath!

I would appreciate, in order of desire:

1.) New Epic rules to replace the old 3.5 versions; maybe a Demigod-style game, that would be fun.

2.) Psionics rules.

3.) A third bestiary.

A lot of folks didn't really like my comparison of the Summoner to the Dread Necromancer, with the thought that the DN is suboptimal. That's fine- I'm just pointing out that they have way, wayyyyy more dudes on the table (even if they suck) than the summoner does.

But sure, let's really compare him to two classes: the druid, who can salad-shoot out as many summons as they have slots, and the sorcerer, who can do the same if they take Summon Monster X in every possible spell known slot.

It's not silly to want to tone down the number of summons on the table at one time- it IS however silly to do such a nerfing unless the entire game, including every other class, is similarly nerfed. After all, if you do this to the Summoner, I'll just go back to my Abyssal Sorcerer, who has all of these capabilities, and only lacks the eido-pet.

From another perspective, you should look at how individually strong these summons from the SM X list are. Most of the time they can't hit diddly squat (bad to-hit bonuses), and can only inflict significant damage in significant numbers. And since the enemy has the option of side-stepping all of these mooks and just sinking savage fangs into the Summoner's jugular...

...I just don't get the hue and cry.

So, in any event, if you were asking my opinion (which many of you weren't =) I would say that you should relegate limitation of summons at a time to a house rule. Some groups will be okay with multi-summoning, and others will be less patient. It's perfect house-rule territory.

As others have said, if you need to get rid of the min/lvl and standard action summoning to bring the class in-line with other similar classes, that's fair.

I feel like the nerf to the summon monster X SLA is overboard. It smacks of the senseless and imbalanced nerf to Astral Constructs for the psion class. This nerf makes no sense in context of the wizard, cleric, and ESPECIALLY druid, all of whom can still spam as many SM-Xs onto the field of battle as they want, so I feel like the summoner should have the same capability, only better.

Take, for example, the Dread Necromancer class. That class can have as many skeletal beasts as it wants on the field, decked out in as much magical swag as you can put on 'em.

So I see this as kind of a knee-jerk reaction to people noticing what lots of summons on the field can do, here. Remember that AoE spells and AoE save or sucks can be just as deadly as multiple summons, if not more so.

Now the changes to the Eidolon, those were utterly justified, so go nuts.