Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Friendlyfish's page

58 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

QuidEst wrote:
Aberrant eidolons can select other unchained evolutions as normal, provided those evolutions don't list alignment subtype or a particular type of eidolon (like claws and many other natural attack options do). The aberrant base form also removes any base form-dependent options. That said, tentacle mass is a good deal for natural attacks. (I forgot to check if that was primary or secondary...) It works much better than the fey or shadow eidolons, since it gets its own additional evolution options.

I should be more precise. I'm reacting to the fact that for any other natural attack evolution, the aberrant eidolon is unlisted and therefore, de facto, the only attack mode legal for the aberrant eidolon is the tentacle mass.

I doubt this was intended. Even the model Aberrant base form has a bite attack listed, yet apparently this is not legal.

Clarifications on legal natural attack evolutions for the aberrant eidolon would be useful as I think they were inadvertently omitted.

Aberrant Eidolons:
On my read of the book, I'm not sure how aberrant eidolons are supposed to interact with the vast majority of published evolutions. Not clear that they can select any evolutions not published in this specific book. Any guidance available?

It's still worth it by far. What you lost is your ability to chew up all of your lowest level spells for nice high-level summons. It's just a little better balanced of an archetype now. Now you have to lose higher levels slots.

Start with 16 INT, 16 CHA. That'll pretty much guarantee you 4 standard-action summons, mins/lvl per day if you chew up three of your 2nd-highest level slots every day. In return for those 3 slots, you get 4 of the best spell line in the game, in the highest slot available, one level early half the time.

The trade is definitely in your favor.

Your other option is Academae Graduate conjurer wizard for standard action summons. You have to make a fort save, and you're trading highest-level slots for highest-level summons...not quite as favorable a trade.

Somebody tell me about the Mutation Mind! Will I be able to devolve into a disgusting Akira-style biomass?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
It's not about how people feel about mythic. It's about how it sells.

All the same. I'm not privy to their financials and forecasts; that's their business and their problem. I'm putting my vote in as a consumer with disposable cash that I'd appreciate basic mythic support for psychic characters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What about mythic support for these classes?

Regardless of how people may or not feel about the mythic rules/mythic AP, it would be irritating to have a mythic campaign that doesn't well support these characters as a viable choice.

For instance, take the psychic- although it'd best fit into the Archmage mythic path in terms of analogous function, it can't go simply because it's not "arcane".

Hopefully this gets cleared up quickly for mythic fans.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

4) Dunno. At this point I'm not too keen on doing another mythic PC Adventure Path at all though.

This was disappointing to hear, I must admit. I really enjoyed the rule set and that style of play. May we know the reasons behind why you would not wish to do another mythic PC Adventure Path?

I thought I'd take a moment to give my specific thoughts on the psychic-only spells in the playtest.

Mind Thrust: Unfortunately made necessary, if only because it's the only way to deal hit point damage at most spell levels. Otherwise, it's just second class damage for most of its lifespan. Not multi-targeting, it's mind-affecting- pretty weak stuff for damage dealing when benchmarked against what sorcerers get at similar spell levels.

Ego Whip: At 6th level, would I take Ego Whip I, or would I take Haste or Slow? No question in my mind that Ego Whip is not a compelling offering at levels where it becomes available. Benchmarked against a comparable sorcerer, would I rather have Ego Whip to stagger a single enemy for a single round, or Stinking Cloud to nauseate multiple enemies simultaneously for rnd/lvl? Or use Dazing Spell metamagic with a fireball at higher levels? The choice is, again, unfortunately clear. My suggestion: Make it a swift action spell.

Id Insinuate: Would I rather take Id Insinuate, or Confusion at 8th? Clearly, a spell that affects an indeterminate amount of enemies in a radius for rnd/lvl is superior to a concentration only effect that hits a single foe. Id Insinuate becomes a bit more compelling at higher levels, because of multi-targeting and because of favorable confusion rolls- but I'd have to think very hard about taking the spell if I had Confusion in my spells known list in order to stretch my meagre spells known resources. My suggestion: Make it a swift action spell.

Psychic Crush: Here's something worthwhile to take. A real save-or-die spell. I really like this beast at higher levels- and frankly, it replaces Mind Thrust at those levels. Finally, here is something where I can't point at the sor/wiz list and go "why would I ever want to take this, given the alternatives?"

Thought Shield: I like the immediate action to use, but the difficulty is the extreme situational nature of the spell. Within its narrow niche, effective. I would perhaps take this as a late-level pick for its spell level, otherwise I'd give it a pass.

Mental Barrier: These are great spells. Immediate action to cast, very high bonuses to AC. What's not to love here? Here's another spell I'd take over some comparable offerings at their levels.

Intellect Fortress: Another suite of spells that are difficult to recommend. Very situational and specialized: an area-affect thought shield. Deals only with mind-affecting effects. The Immediate action to use is its major saving grace. As with thought shield, I would perhaps save it only for a late-level pick at its spell level.

Tower of Iron Will: As with intellect fortress and thought shield, these are very situational and difficult to recommend without a heavily psychic campaign. Immediate action to use is good. Perhaps a late-level pick- but by the time you get access to these, you are already at late levels. So probably would get a pass from me entirely.

Where is Psychic Blast, by the way, if we're adhering to the 10 classic modes? Mind Blank is in the list.


I think that these spells, in general, suffer from a spell-list comparables problem wherein the spell does not match favorably with other spells available at that level. I'd keep current with Mind Thrust, but only because I am pretty much forced to- where else is my damage dealing capability? And I'd keep current with Psychic Crush, because that's a bone fide nasty spell. Mental Barrier is also strong, but I'd probably give the rest of these spells a miss due to weaksauce problems.

That brings me to a crucial point- how exactly is the psychic supposed to deal damage? The psychic cannot deal area damage at all, and only weak single-target damage. I don't know of too many other classes in the entire game so entirely dependent on the presence of party members who can actually kill monsters. Obviously Pathfinder is a team game, but must I point out the incongruity of a 20th level psychic that sadly got locked in a room by himself and eaten by that mindless dung beetle?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am of a mind with TwoWolves here; I think the class should emphasize the classic 5 attack forms/5 defense forms more. As it is, the psychic can't really indulge himself with all of them without giving up a lot else. Since the psychic doesn't really have any other way of dealing damage, these should be gratis.

I have to agree with a lot of other posters as well, regarding the bland nature of the class. It really feels like this guy came out half-baked. I'd like to send it back to the kitchen for some more critical thought about how this class can be made to be more original/standout and also effective in a variety of situations.

TwoWolves wrote:

First impressions, all IMHO of course.

Spells? No thanks. Name them Powers or Talents or Abilities or something else. They can behave exactly like spells and interact exactly the same with Spell Resistance etc, but not spells. Psychics shouldn't be using wands and staves.

Undercasting? Ugh. Why not make them scaling UP instead of DOWN? When you have what is effectively a spontaneous full caster, why make them burn their limited higher level "spells known" for weaker effects?

Speaking of weaker effects, it sure seems like the attack/defense "spells" are woefully underpowered for their levels.

All of the classic attack/defence forms should not be "spells" at all. They should be like Magus Arcana. Start with 1 attack and 1 defense at 1st level, then pick from a list every 3 levels. They should be scaleable, not undercastable. They could be powered with "phrenic pool" points, which could be increased to pay for escalating costs of upscaled "spells". The current uses for the phrenic amplification could be moved to feats or another mechanic ("uses/day" or something), or have their costs adjusted to account for the greater number of available points.

Psychic Disciplines. Call me old fashioned, but I had hoped this would more closely mirror the classic disciplines, rather than be like Sorcerer bloodlines. Currently, this class is (again, IMHO) a poor-man's sorcerer. Telepathy, Precognition/Object Reading, Mind Control, Psychoportation, etc etc. instead seems more in line with what I think people might be hoping for. Lore? That just looks like an attempt to make a psychic themed sorcerer look more like a psychic themed wizard. Pain? Make an archetype instead.

Again, I have not studied the playtest document in depth, and all of these are just my first impressions after a quick read through. If I got something wrong mechanically, forgive me, I'll look at it more closely when time permits.

My general comment:

The psychic doesn't have many options for, well, actually hurting things in combat. Inconveniencing them mightily? Yes. Controlling them? Yes. Confusing them? Of course.

But beyond magic missile and a few save-or-die spells scattered throughout, you've got the mind-affecting only mind thrust and psychic crush lines of spells with which to actually put hurt on an opponent, and these are limited to single target and look a bit weaksauce to boot.

This is probably intended as part of the class design (otherwise why not just play a sorcerer). However, my opinion is that it'd be good to have some sort of general self-defense setup for this class.

Put this guy and a skeleton in a room by themselves together, and the psychic is going to have to bust out his belt knife and go chipping away to survive.

Another point of opinion:

This guy looks way too much like the sorcerer to be a distinct base class. Make a "psychic" bloodline, slap int-attribute casting on it, and what's really so very different here?

In Golarion, how does a character end up as an Arcanist, as opposed to a Wizard?

Is the character born an Arcanist, ala the sorcerer, or does the character decide to go to "Arcanist school" instead of "Wizard school"? The "born arcanist" vs. the "learned arcanist" hypothesis.

Or does a character initially show up for Wizard school only to find out that he tends to cast spells a different way, thereby becoming an Arcanist? Like finding out you're left-handed when the teacher sticks the pen in your right hand.

These burning questions await illumination.

The Arcanist Occultist archetype obsoletes the Conjurer Wizard summoner. It has 9 levels of casting and standard-action summons (that's unbelievably huge!). Unless you're playing the Conjurer Wizard for the non-summon spells, then I'd go with the Arcanist Occultist without further thought. Frankly otherwise, I would have little use for the Arcanist as a class in comparison with the wizard.

Since the devs have unofficially ruled (through con panel) the Summoner and related archetypes "broken" in anticipation of the Pathfinder Unchained rework, I'd say that the Arcanist Occultist is currently the strongest summoning class in pathfinder today.

My hopes for the Summoner revamp:

1.) That Thing from Beyond is one of the base types of Outsider we can summon.
2.) That summoner becomes an INT caster, because I've never been able to understand the mechanism of the summoner being a CHA caster. There was no flavor as to its being an innate caster like a sorcerer in any way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, an arcanist is definitely not stronger than a wizard.

The wizard gets a substantial amount of spells of the next highest level for 40% of levels. Another 50% of levels, they share the same highest spell level...but the wizard is strictly better at spellcasting in the sense that all the wizard has to do to equal the arcanist is to memorize the same spell N times. That's because the arcanist can only memorize 1 spell of his highest spell level 1-18.

Also, if the wizard is a specialist and has the bonded item feature as well as competitive INT, the wizard typically can cast 4 spells at the highest spell level the level he receives it.

All the hype about the arcanist is hype. All the arcanist has is an extra bag of miscellaneous tricks. He won't keep up with a well-designed wizard.

Wait, I thought there were four, including Aroden, who got there by the Starstone and two who got there by other means, including Nethys not in your list.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to strong arm a sweeping ruling from you, just trying to cadge a cool story idea from the creator of the setting.

After all, while deciding story for GMs may not be interesting, providing creative suggestions can be.

James Jacobs wrote:
Friendlyfish wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Friendlyfish wrote:
What's the fastest, most efficient, no-nonsense path for my wizard to achieve flat-out five domain deity status in Golarion? Because he totally wants to be all about that.
No such thing as a fast, efficient, no-nonsense path to that goal.
Ok, so given there is no directly efficient route within the setting, if my wizard wanted to become a deity, what would he likely be trying to do to achieve said goal?

Step 1) Inform your GM of said character goal.

Step 2) Wait for the GM's story to begin unveiling the process.

Step 3) Become a deity.

There IS no method, currently, in the rules that specifically allow player characters to do this. In Golarion, we know it can happen—it's happened before with Aroden, Irori, Cayden Cailean, Norgorber, and Iomedae—three via the Starstone and two via other methods.

But it's left to the GM as to what method will work for any one PC. And that's not something I'm interested in deciding for GMs.

James Jacobs wrote:
Friendlyfish wrote:
What's the fastest, most efficient, no-nonsense path for my wizard to achieve flat-out five domain deity status in Golarion? Because he totally wants to be all about that.
No such thing as a fast, efficient, no-nonsense path to that goal.

Ok, so given there is no directly efficient route within the setting, if my wizard wanted to become a deity, what would he likely be trying to do to achieve said goal?

What's the fastest, most efficient, no-nonsense path for my wizard to achieve flat-out five domain deity status in Golarion? Because he totally wants to be all about that.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Hi JiCi,

I'm Stephen, and I'm a demonologist.

Okay, that's not true, but I am the guy who designed the archetype. Your bound demon is fixed to the basics stats as a demon of that type, and it does not increase with the demonbinder's stats. Instead, you can bind a number of demons to you, and steadily increase the number of demonic true names that you have and the power of demons that you can bind. The bound demon class feature entirely replaces the eidolon class feature.
I hope it helps, and I'm glad you like the demon binder.

Hey, I have another question about the demon binder. Does the demon binder continue to have access to the Summon Monster I-IX spell-like ability? If so, since the demon binder no longer has an eidolon feature, does that mean that the SMI-IX SLA can be active simultaneously with the bound demon, or should this restriction be applied there as well?

Thanks for the mechanics support.

I'd like to run the "Nascent Sphere" mythic campaign idea from Mythic Adventures for my group. What might be a good geographic location in Golarion to place the Nascent Sphere?


What is the ethnic breakdown of cosmopolitan Nex?

Is it an even mixture of Garundi, Keleshites, and Vudrani, or mostly Garundi?

Is there a sizable population of Avistani peoples living there? For instance, would a Taldan character be commonly found in Nex?

Does there exist any information about this?

Has anyone explained why the Mythos has been locked out of legal character choice for a cleric to worship? They have the Dark Tapestry for Oracles. Are they worried about Chaosium and copyright?

Hi James,

A few questions on the theme of ascending to divinity on Golarion.

1.) Must a mortal be Mythic before attaining the godhead? Or can one skip to the end, so to speak?

2.) Is there, or could there be an alchemical means of divine ascension?

3.) Excepting the Starstone and being born a godling, what are a few cool ways for mortals to become Gods?

My thanks for your cosmic wisdom.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still curious about this. Any official errata that resolves the contradiction?

Any unofficial guidance from developers?

Since so many adventures have Mythos elements in them, how about something giving character options for mythos themed characters? Id love to see an aberrant summoner ala the 3.5 alienist make a reappearance in pathfinder.

Hi James,

I'm running a Conjurer Wizard in the Varisia region. I need a mythic source for my mythic ascension. I've bought Mythic Origins and Mythic Realms, and none of those mythic wellsprings presented are quite doing it for me for a variety of reasons.

Could you see your way clear to suggest a couple of Golarion based, thematically appropriate mythic sources that would work well for a Conjurer Wizard in Varisia? In particular, it's an infernal binder (Academae).


Dear James Jacobs,

About how many magical universities exist in Quantium? The source material seems to indicate several, not just one monolithic "Quantium Arcane University".

Along a similar line of questioning: could Taldanes and other Avistani peoples, for instance, be regularly found as students at Quantium magical universities, or would such mage apprentices in the main be Garundi, Kelishites and Vudrans?

Certainly, we could use a bigger buffet of NEUTRAL outsiders, even TRUE NEUTRAL outsiders. Currently, my neutral conjurer has the option of summoning sugar 'n spice 'n everything nice angels, or fart-stink devil beasts that make the party Paladin look at you a little funny.

I guess I can do elementals.

With the Great Old Ones in Bestiary 4, I continue to hanker after my all time favorite prestige class. As it is, I can't summon odd melted horrors from the Beyond. Are we ever going to see some official character options with a Lovecraft focus in the game?

Hi James,

Could a Diabolist bargain with a potent devil in order to obtain Mythic Power?

Alternatively, could said Diabolist learn a mighty Infernal Duke's true name and force it to imbue him/her with Mythic Power?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Evil can play at the same table as good with zero problems. As long as the evil character is into teamwork with all the rest of the players and doesn't break the fun by ruining somebody else's fun, there's nothing wrong when a character's motivation is "rule personal empire with a tyrannical fist" rather than "feed and clothe poor orphans."

When you start sticking your Pathfinder knife into somebody else's PC's back, it stops being fun. Don't do it. That's the GM's prerogative, and you're crossing the line with your gaming group. Instead, stick your character's knife into an NPC gnome. I hear that they make great steaks.

Yeah, that is a pretty neat take...

For the other arcane classes, it seems pretty clear: wizards are made, sorcerers are born. Witches are pretty much made, by a pact; magi are made; alchemists are made.

It's not clear how summoners get to become summoners. Let's examine the data that could point us in one direction or another.

1.) They cast spontaneously, using CHA as a major stat. That seems analogous to a sorcerer, who we know are born.

2.) On the other hand, they are very analogous to the Bard class, who study at bardic colleges and such and are therefore made. They also cast spontaneously, using CHA.

Has there been any consensus on how a summoner goes about becoming a summoner? For instance, does one find an arcane ritual in a library and use it to summon an eidolon which then imbues you with arcane power? Or are you born and your eidolon appears to you as a baby?

I'd ask James Jacobs, but he hates summoners and I'd probably get a snarky answer. I like them, so I'm hoping there's some info out there to guide character background.

Dear James Jacobs,

I have a question about inner sea ethnicity and phenotype.

Currently, all described ethnicities in the Inner Sea World Guide are said to have dark hair and dark eyes with the singular exception of the Ulfen (with blond/red hair and blue eyes.) The baseline inner sea inhabitant as described seems overwhelmingly likely to be brown haired with brown eyes.

Does this imply that if a PC were to be described as blond haired, it would follow that they are almost certainly an Ulfen? Or is a broad range of phenotypes possible in the other ethnicities, such that it would be patently unremarkable to find a blond Taldan or a blue eyed Chelaxian?

Thanks for clarification. I have a player who is having a hard time finding the right ethnicity to describe a character who is "Northern European" in conception without channeling a Nordic vibe.

Dear James Jacobs,

In Golarion, does becoming a mythic character always require some sort of external agency or event as portrayed in the material? Or could a character become mythic in the setting by dint of their own volition and efforts?

Seems somewhat personally unsatisfying to at all times require some sort of Deus ex Machina in order to attain mythic ascension.

After all, some characters (e.g. sorcerers, oracles, clerics) seem to fit well with an externalist trope, while others (e.g. wizards, monks) might go well with a sort of self-deterministic origin story, in effect studying or meditating their way to superhuman stature.

Thanks for your take.

ShadowcatX wrote:
Friendlyfish wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
If it is as clear as you say it is, can I spend all 5 of my mythic powers before going to bed to be able to cast 5 spells without expending a prepared spell or slot the next day?

Apparently so.

It isn't like they specified a time limit.

And that really strikes you as being RAW and RAI over spending the mythic surge to cast the spell as a swift action?

I'm not arguing intent, I'm only saying that's how they wrote it. I don't care if it's weird or not. Frankly, both interpretations are quite weird; one's obscenely overpowered, and the other one interacts in strange ways.

ShadowcatX wrote:
If it is as clear as you say it is, can I spend all 5 of my mythic powers before going to bed to be able to cast 5 spells without expending a prepared spell or slot the next day?

Apparently so.

It isn't like they specified a time limit.

Artanthos wrote:
Friendlyfish wrote:
It says you can expend one point of mythic power, using a swift action, to be able to cast the spell without losing the slot. The distinction is crucial. It does not say that the casting time for the spell is shortened to a swift action.
You're adding punctuation that does not exist. The two components are made within a single statement, not broken up into separate actions.

I am not. Strictly following wording, there is no clause that reduces casting the spell to swift action, only adding the capability to cast one spell without losing the slot. Read what you yourself quoted. It says, "As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot."

Under your interpretation, it should have been worded:

"You can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell as a swift action without expending a prepared spell or spell slot."

Then we would have been left wondering what action is used to spend the mythic point.

Seems clear to me.

I should also mention in terms of the spirit of the thing that arguing for an Archmage to be able to sling a spell-slotless, quickened, unprepared spell of maximum castable level every round said Archmage has a mythic point available is busted to the maximals.

ShadowcatX wrote:
Friendlyfish wrote:

It's pretty clear that you spend the mythic point and swift action to potentiate your ability to cast the spell under the given conditions- nowhere does it say that casting the spell only requires a swift action.

You pay the swift action/mythic point, then the standard action for a standard action spell.

So you think the heirophant has to pay as a standard action and cast as a standard action? That seems off to me?

I'm only talking about the rules verbiage under the Archmage section. Not trying to imply or infer any parallels when there might not be any intended.

Artanthos wrote:
Friendlyfish wrote:

It's pretty clear that you spend the mythic point and swift action to potentiate your ability to cast the spell under the given conditions- nowhere does it say that casting the spell only requires a swift action.

You pay the swift action/mythic point, then the standard action for a standard action spell.

Wild Surge wrote:

Wild Arcana (Su): As a swift action, you can expend one

use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without
expending a prepared spell or spell slot.

Wild Surge says two things:

1. casting the spell costs a swift action
2. casting the spell does not expend a prepared spell or spell slot.

Arcane surge uses the same wording.

It says you can expend one point of mythic power, using a swift action, to be able to cast the spell without losing the slot. The distinction is crucial. It does not say that the casting time for the spell is shortened to a swift action.

Can you use a Planar Binding spell to capture an outsider with Mythic Tiers? Simple enough. Seems fraught with issues. Not addressed anywhere in text. Theoretically, I can do this.

Comments? Corrections?

It's pretty clear that you spend the mythic point and swift action to potentiate your ability to cast the spell under the given conditions- nowhere does it say that casting the spell only requires a swift action.

You pay the swift action/mythic point, then the standard action for a standard action spell.

Dear James Jacobs,

Would you consider a Summoner with an Old Cults affiliation binding a Mythos-themed Eidolon a thematically appropriate inclusion of the Summoner character class in the Golarion setting as a PC?

Or would such a PC be better represented by a different character class in Golarion?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dear James Jacobs,

As the author of the "Cults of the Dark Tapestry" article in Pathfinder #42, how would you go about mechanically representing cultists/wizards of the Old Cults at your table with regards to the use of Planar Binding/Planar Ally style spells?

For instance, a Cultist of Azathoth casts Planar Ally- I'm having a hard time finding creatures in the Bestiary that are thematically Mythos and yet can meet the mechanical requirements of the spell (Outsider, not Aberration). Similarly for the archetypal wizard who "knows things that man was not meant to know" and his/her Planar Binding spell.

Ditto for cultists and their Summon Monster spell line- it seems odd for the cultists to be summoning Fiends and Demons rather than Mythos entities. Can you recommend a patch-over for this?

Thanks for any advice.

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.

Howie23 wrote:

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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)?

notabot wrote:

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.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.