Swivl's page

Teamwork feats.

Sorry, haven't thought much about the archetype to give advice.

No.

My players make whatever they want. Levels are an abstraction for development. Mechanics are simply the means they use to do the cool stuff. Each of the GMs at my table feel this way (3-way rotation).

Case in point: my tengu has 2 levels in monk, but is wearing full plate, and nobody really cares.

While using Panther Style, your retaliatory

unarmed strikes are resolved before the triggering attacks.
If your retaliatory unarmed strike deals damage to an
opponent, that opponent takes a –2 penalty on attack and
damage rolls with the triggering attack of opportunity.

This is the very definition of interception in PF, which is why I push for it. Otherwise, I'm with everyone that Dragon Style is badass.

I agree that losing flurry is probably bad for this.

Flowing Monk is also quite good for this idea as well ("Be water, my friend").

Sacred Mountain... I can take it or leave it for this idea. If Dragon Style, take this, if Panther Style, don't take this, and other styles or archetypes, maybe. Just remember you lose evasion with it.

Certainly the Dragon fits the flavor, but I was thinking of Jeet Kune Do mechanically. After all, he was not at all about "styles" anyway. Besides, most of what dragon style does is make you hit harder, but Bruce not only hit hard but was also extremely fast.

If this is still a point of contention, just make him a Master of Many Styles and he can do both.

Panther Style. Bruce's own style was the intercepting fist, so this fits pretty nicely.

I make a LOT of stuff up, but mostly because I want the game to be more fun. I follow the rules plenty, but especially with APs, I change things up for my games to make them run smoothly and overall keep the players' attention (not that I always succeed, but that's the idea). If the players need help figuring stuff out (hardly ever), I remind them of the stuff that they've already been up to that would lead them in the direction most helpful.

Are you referring to programming, or laws?

I'm quite familiar with the Bank Secrecy Act, having to enforce its use every workday. I work at a casino.

That said, most people are incredibly paranoid about it, and are very much misinformed regarding its use. Many of them think its about taxes, and actually go out of their way to avoid the paperwork. What they don't realize is how much employees already know ahead of them actually cashing anything out, and how efforts to avoid reporting only makes things worse.

[rant]

It's like the guy trying to get money out of his credit card, and when it's declined, talks like he pays the electric bill of the casino with how much he gambles. No you don't, and you're making a spectacle of yourself saying you do.

[/rant]

I can't really help you if the BSA is your problem; we need that to curtail financial crimes, and is probably the least invasive method of discovering them.

OTOH, transparency of banks themselves, especially the largest ones isn't at all a bad idea. But, for the US at least, one of the biggest issues is enforcement and punishment of violations, not discovering them.

My Fighter/Monk/Alchemist uses Power Attack when his mutagen is up. Even then, not the entire time, but certainly a majority of the time.

Thing is, after even a single successful adventure, a 5-use limit per pouch won't really be a big deal, money-wise. And on that first adventure, you're gonna be reduced to flinging ineffectual cantrips way before you get beyond the uses of even a couple of pouches.

This is much worse than you realize. Five wizard cantrips have material components.

Dr Grecko wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

And I find it ridiculous that you can command the infinite powers of the universe and yet b@%&$ about needing to take the time to gather rare and exotic spell components if your DM sees fit.

I also find the spell component rules ridiculous because all non cost are taken care of at 1st level with a 5gp purchase and yet you are assumed to be gatherimg components from things you may not have ever of.

Whar if I said there were no exotic component merchant dealers in a 1000 mile radius nor are there any dragons about to your knowledge?

Who's to say that that one spell component pouch doesn't have as many uses of a given spell in it to cover the entire career of the wizard? Why are you assuming that a wizard would ever need to "replenish" his pouch of any negligible cost component.

prd wrote:

Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

I understand that you want to house-rule the pouch to make the game harder on your players and possibly a bit more "realistic". But in RAW, that 5g pouch has every non-cost component the wizard could ever need.. ever.

Nobody is talking about how RAW is implemented, we already know. We are talking about how the RAW doesn't fully make sense.

Sorry if it breaks some sense of immersion for you, but this is a game. As a game, it makes many (and many more) abstractions to simulate something that models a fantasy adventuring life.

In short, it's the rule of cool: if it's fun, have at it. If it's not fun, do whatever you can to de-emphasize it or get rid of it entirely. What you propose seems to get in the way of the "game" part of this.

Another issue I see with enforcing spell components is that the DM also has to give players the opprtunity to buy the more common items and go adventuring for the less common to rare components. If the Cleric and the Wizard in the group are missing at least half of the components the party is not going to continue on the standard quest the DM wrote up. That gets put on hold until at the very least the Cleric is full up on the components he needs to cast all of his spells. So that adventure the DM spent two weeks writing up is not going to happen until the necessary compnents are found. So that means a change in focus. More likely sidequests to get the missing components. That's the thing DM forgot who make players track everything. Adventuring groups imo want to go on a adventure fully loaded up. Who wants to take a wizard along who can't even cast the majority of his spells. Or a cleric who can't raise dead.

This is the sort of thing I'm thinking about when looking at this thread.

There's a lot of attention being paid to something that's not really all that fun to fuss over.

When it comes to components, and the games at my place, all that's worrisome is what components they are, and if material, a potential GP value, and nothing else.

Its untyped so it stacks with everything, plus it also grants you full attack after 15ft movement.

For the latter part, one set of boots already did that. If you don't like that, then don't allow the second pair of boots.

For the former, the movement must be through an enemy's space. Unless that is an error, that means that the enemy will be closer than 15 ft. in the first place in order for that to work. Also, as I said, it's 3 times a day. Even totally stackable, for the price, it doesn't sound too bad to me.

For 9,300 gp, what might amount to +2 to attack rolls for 1 turn 3 times a day... I say let them have it. I'd rather have more permanent bonuses for the price. 10,000 gp is the price of a +2/+2 slot item for reference.

Just got books 1 - 5, and loving them. I run this game next when I'm up (rotating GMs), but I won't be up for a little while, so I can wait on book six.

I'll post play reports, either here or a separate thread, depending on what my players want me to do with it.

Swivl wrote:

I'm not exactly trying to prove anything to you, just to tell you about what I've experienced. Take it or leave it.

I'm sorry, but what?!? Of course you are trying to prove something...otherwise why are you even wasting your breath? If all you wanted to do was provide a useless data point with no details, you were done with that goal on your first post and no more needed to be said. You continue to reply because you DO want to prove a point. Either provide what was asked for, or stop replying because honestly until you actually do give what was asked for, your not gonna prove anything to us, and you will just get more logic loop holes you post pointed back at you.

*sigh*

I was never on a mission to prove to anyone that the premise of the thread is true, only that I felt like it was. When I started to post on my experience, questions were asked. Fantastic, a discussion.

I said pages ago that posting the offending synthesist would go beyond the scope of what I intended to do here, which was simply to share and talk about it (plus, expounded on my view that theorycraft is nigh useless and wouldn't solve anything anyway). But if you really really want a build, I've given you enough information to make one just like it over the course of my posts on this thread.

Being of opposing viewpoints doesn't mean we're antagonistic, man.

Swivl wrote:

The player also helped make the other characters, too, so the same level of optimization went into them.

That doesn't actually mean they were all equally or even remotely equally optimized. I run a game for a mixed group and the casual gamers do get help. GOBS of it. But they are never nearly as optimized as the optimizer players. Your group maybe different...but the whole they got help so they are all equal isn't always the case. The only way to really show this was the case is if you post all the sheets for some peer review of the matter.

I'm not exactly trying to prove anything to you, just to tell you about what I've experienced. Take it or leave it.

Swivl wrote:

Seranov wrote:

And again, what goes at your table shouldn't have to be the law of the land for every table.

Everyone who comes in claiming that such-and-such is overpowered and should be completely neutered in the game's rules can be countered by another person who has seen it used fine in a reasonable game.

Again, I'm not here to convince anyone that I'm right and that they're wrong. What I am here to say is that there is no consensus on this topic, and arguing as if there is is not the way to go about things. Obviously I and a few other people have defended the Synthesist for not being needed to be banned/nerfed into the ground in the core rules.

No one has proven that the Synthesist is a horrific game-breaking monster in all cases that it needs to be anywhere near as heavily restricted as the example in the OP. (On a related note, I believe wearing your eidolon should qualify as wearing armor, negating the Monk AC bonus.)

** spoiler omitted **

I believe I just said that it doesn't mean everyone needs to follow suit and ban synthesists. Heck, I said just as much even earlier in the thread. I've also said that we were wracking our collective brains for most of the game seeing if everything was as it was supposed to be. That included looking up every FAQ available and retreading and rebuilding just to be sure.

You're not the only one to come to the conclusion that my group simply didn't think it through. How you guys came to that conclusion baffles me because I've had a lot to say on this topic.

It's not one experience; it's 6 months. A lot can be learned during that time. I've just tried to explain what happened, and why, and for my trouble I get a lot of accusations playing the game incorrectly, being too lazy and all sorts of stuff, and not all from one person.

I'm not at all bothered by this, but it does make me lose interest in the forum.

Swivl, I do not think that anyone here wants to dismiss your experience, at the very least I don't....

If I came across as dismissing any possible solutions to what happened in my game, it's either because I tried them and they didn't work, or I thought that what was proposed didn't make enough of a difference or made much sense from my point of view. I'm the last person that wants to come across as bull-headed.

Limited spaces weren't that big of an obstacle. His items weren't problematic. Conditions didn't change much. He was tested fairly thoroughly, and through it all, most of the damage went to his friends, and he lost more than a few of them. The player also helped make the other characters, too, so the same level of optimization went into them.

He didn't need any wands of rejuvenate eidolon; he rarely got hit.

I will freely say that a synthesist is a good choice for CC, even though, or especially because, there are plenty of non-combat encounters in the AP.

A lot of people imagine the worst sort of synthesist is the one with loads of natural attacks and a massive strength score. That's certainly one route to an offensive monster. Try giving it just one attack, but give it grab, constrict, reach, combat reflexes, and grappling for nearly every action for something I think is much worse.

And again, what goes at your table shouldn't have to be the law of the land for every table.

Everyone who comes in claiming that such-and-such is overpowered and should be completely neutered in the game's rules can be countered by another person who has seen it used fine in a reasonable game.

Again, I'm not here to convince anyone that I'm right and that they're wrong. What I am here to say is that there is no consensus on this topic, and arguing as if there is is not the way to go about things. Obviously I and a few other people have defended the Synthesist for not being needed to be banned/nerfed into the ground in the core rules.

No one has proven that the Synthesist is a horrific game-breaking monster in all cases that it needs to be anywhere near as heavily restricted as the example in the OP. (On a related note, I believe wearing your eidolon should qualify as wearing armor, negating the Monk AC bonus.)

** spoiler omitted **

I believe I just said that it doesn't mean everyone needs to follow suit and ban synthesists. Heck, I said just as much even earlier in the thread. I've also said that we were wracking our collective brains for most of the game seeing if everything was as it was supposed to be. That included looking up every FAQ available and retreading and rebuilding just to be sure.

You're not the only one to come to the conclusion that my group simply didn't think it through. How you guys came to that conclusion baffles me because I've had a lot to say on this topic.

It's not one experience; it's 6 months. A lot can be learned during that time. I've just tried to explain what happened, and why, and for my trouble I get a lot of accusations playing the game incorrectly, being too lazy and all sorts of stuff, and not all from one person.

I'm not at all bothered by this, but it does make me lose interest in the forum.

Honestly, even if his HP isn't quite right, he was far from the kind of offensive horrific monster people have described.

Synthesists are not, as a complete whole, ridiculous to the point of needing to be banned outright. The Synthesist from that game had all kinds of fun playing the character (he was a Kamen Rider ripoff, but all that yelling about JUSTICE was pretty funny) and his miss rate wasn't really THAT bad.

I think that a Synthesist's player should sit down with the DM when they're building their eidolon, for the extra pair of eyes to look out for building it correctly, and because the DM should indeed have some say in how the character comes out. That way, the DM knows what is being put up against his challenges to the group, and the player can't just go "I have a 6 Str/Dex/Con Summoner who has ridiculous stats with his eidolon shell, aren't I so clever for gaming the system?!"

But if the DM just outright says "lol no Synthesists they're broken" while still allowing vanilla or Master Summoners, or any of the more ridiculous character builds that are totally available, it just reeks of laziness to me.

Hrm... this isn't good.

I've already stated that the synthesist in my game didn't dump his physical stats. And I misspoke earlier; he was middle age, not old.

I've allowed lots of crazy builds in my game because I could handle them, and I trust my players. I've never sat with them for building a character; we're all adults who have done this for years (save for my little brother). Don't forget, the synthesist player is on my side as well.

We haven't had any other summoners in a game, so I have no frame of reference for you there, and I can't tell you what I think of them. We're a group that emphasizes speedy turns, though, so it's not that likely that one of those other builds would actually be played at our table.

I've also already said that the synthesist posted above isn't broken; it's also not even slightly optimized. It's obviously possible to not break games, but what I've said is that it's very possible TO break games. And considering what I'm up against...

See my table is pretty much half casual half serious-optimizers, and a good majority of the time the character builds are made (or helped along) by one half of the table. There's a good mixed bag as far as decision-making goes, but nearly every character is built to win. That I manage to kill quite a few of them anyway says I can hold my own against the guys who look at AM BARBARIAN and think it's a good idea.

So what it comes down to is I can't let anyone make a synthesist, because we're nearly incapable of making a synthesist like the one posted above. Call it what you like, but our table is in a consensus.

So it's as I said; for my table, this is what works, YMMV, but for us, we can't do a synthesist again.

have you seen what a 2hand barbarian can do? or even a 2hand figher? Ignore dex and focus on strength and you'll put anything a summoner can do to shame.

I have seen what a level 20 2-handed fighter can do. It's amazing.

That was the same game (Savage Tide) I had a level 20 monk. It was amazing in its own way.

I played in a level 4-5 game with a 2H Barbarian and a Synthesist Summoner. I was playing an Archer Paladin in that game.

The Synthesist spent 90% of his turns whiffing madly, and the other 10% casting haste. The Barbarian and I were wrecking things left and right. Neither he nor I had characters built all that crazy. Let me look if I still have the Myth-weavers sheets for everybody.

My Paladin
The Synthesist (Myth-weavers must have been having a seizure the last time we played, his CMD and such is obviously not that high)
And I couldn't find the Barbarian's sheet, but he was pretty standard 18 Str, Power Attack, etc. Had EWP: Fauchard, iirc.

The synthesist's attack bonus is so close to the paladin's that bad rolls can more easily explain the whiffing than the build does itself.

That said, this synthesist looks pretty harmless as far as breaking any games. It's pretty likely I'd allow something like that at my table.

That's likely going to open a serious can of worms on the side, if what I see on the thread already is to be believed. It would go far beyond the scope of this thread.

So what I'll do instead, is find the sheets, post them as a post-mortem for Carrion Crown, and then go from there. This might be a while; I can't seem to find any of the character sheets from the game.

It will be there that all the speculation and finger-wagging can go on.

Swivl, without seeing your build, it's impossible to know what's going on. It's a great unknown so far that you have just said "trust me" on.

When I go from the best options available, I don't come up with anything you've described. Banning it without banning many other options is a knee jerk reaction, or a reaction you'll be having again in the near future.

No.

Banning something without thought is a knee-jerk reaction. This was 6 months of gaming.

I've already told you, we've been gaming for more than 10 years, and playing PF since the beta. We don't ban anything without thought or consideration. We are, it seems, pretty open about that.

We've allowed lots of other things other GMs seem squeemish about, and not had to ban those options at all.

I don't know what to tell you, maybe it just needs to be seen in action to get the whole picture.

In a way, I am asking you to just trust me, but only on the fact that I've had such a problem, not that you need to do the same as me and ban it at your games too.

Nope, Barbarian = most powerful at lvl 1 =P

I'm honestly not sure how the people that complain about synthesists screw it up so badly on these boards. I've rarely found anyone at my table that can't do simple addition and subtraction and can't read what they're doing.

Once the stats are written down, a eidolon (synthesist or no) requires way less book looking up than a regular spell caster.

EVERYTHING and eidolon has available is in the description and very clear. It's the people who select large and then give bonus str for only 2pts rather than 4pt, or select armor bonus more frequently than the ability allow for that "break" the eidolons.

As far as your ban pile, if this made it in but nothing else, you're playing with a odd group and are just knee jerking it.

Either that or you let the "I can't kill it" comment be the only thing you focused on. You still haven't really clarified what guidelines you let your players use to build and what they get beyond standard. Because standard wise, there's just no way this wrecks like you have claimed.

We really really want to know how this eidolon was actually built and why the other characters weren't as strong or more so in their own way.

The reason I've not mentioned any extras for characters as far as guidelines or general rules it's because there aren't any. For this game, I literally said, "20 (or 25, I can't remember) point buy, no necromancers, and it'd work better with the whole horror theme in mind." So my friend decided on a Jekyll/Hyde synthesist sort of thing, and that was that.

Odd or not, calling it a knee jerk is disingenuous. This was from 1-13, and for almost the entire thing we were trying to figure out why it was he was so much stronger than we intended him to be. Dismissing my group as a whole as being off or not playing right or simply exaggerating is not constructive. Tell me my experience is illegitimate, and I can easily tell you the same, and we'd get nowhere doing it.

I don't have the sheet handy, sorry about that, but with such freedom as some would call it, just figure some of the best options possible for what I told you already and the build is done.

One thing my roommate and I noticed is that we could, mechanically speaking, more accurately replicate a couple of our favorite characters from 3.5. Problem was, these characters, while surprisingly good, were not epic or mythic at all; they were just good for their level.

They went on to feel legendary to us, because of the stories we could tell with them, so maybe that's the point, but super powers they had not.

Even if the summoner isn't overpowered, it isn't a class that players can handle. Synthesists usually have a lot of mistakes in their build. I have the experience that "normal" summoners bog down the game a lot looking up what the monsters that they just summoned do exactly.

I can't vouch for the first part of this, but I can easily believe it.

Our table, since our time is usually limited, has pressure for quick turns. A small hourglass timer will help things move along, we found out.

Ilja, it's been stated in message board comments by SKR and maybe others that if you have the bonus for more than 24hrs you can now qualify for any feat (and if you lose the bonus, you can't use that feat until you meet it's requirements again)

I haven't seen it in the FAQ for the core rulebook nor in the errata, but it seems accepted. I disagree personally though.

Regardless of what the solution is to the problem, I was just pointing out that fatigue is present now.

We did the fatigue thing. It wasn't an insurmountable problem, much like size wasn't either.

Anyway, my game is over, has been over, and we as a group agree that the synthesist itself is an issue, and barring any rewrites/erratas, it will remain alone in the banned pile (unless something else like it manages to show itself in Paizo material).

lantzkev wrote:

yeah your age synthesist (was the second category so suffereing -3 str/dex/con) is severly hampered when he's got to sleep. Also environmental things (which can be covered by endure elements)

He isn't allowed to qualify for any feats requiring stats he doesn't possess while resting (because he game wise isn't normally allowed to stay in skin for 24+hrs.

This is also false and was covered by SKR within a certain very large synthesist thread.

Anyone can remain awake for 24 hours, there are penalties in the rules for doing so. This allows the synthesist to qualify for a feat. Now, you can't use feats during the time periods you don't qualify for them, but as soon as your stats go back up, the feat is there waiting for you.

There were also long periods of the party, but especially the synthesist being awake, but this wasn't why. It was actually because tragic things were happening while he slept, so he didn't sleep.

Yeah, come to think of it, the game was pretty brutal. In some ways.

The fact of the matter is that the vanilla Summoner is better than the Synthesist. He's squishier, yeah, but he's still effectively a full caster with a pet that is a damn good fighter.

Giving up all that action economy is a huge blow.

We've yet to find this out for ourselves, as we're hesitant after the synthesist scenario. I feel like we all want to try a summoner of some kind or another, but none of us are planning one yet.

Yeah... camp ambushes generally lead to the synthesist casting dimension door. As a spell or SLA, as he had both. And yes, I did do things that required him to concentrate. Lucky rolls, I guess. Still, one of the few ways to guarantee damage and probably kill the rest of the party.

He didn't dump physical stats as he needed a dex score for the feats he had, the grappling stuff and combat reflexes, so it was at least 13, and 14 by the end of the game.

All his age category stuff only made his defenses unreasonably strong while he was pummeling things to dust.

He toned it down at the end of the game doing bunches of sub-optimal things just so the gunslinger can use some more bullets.

Well alot of builds are relative weak the first few levels. The magus build presentend couldn't do any damage before it got dervish dance...

That's why you should look at the capstones. When does the build/class get acces to something that stands out. Like pounce, the large evolution, flight...

Low level syntesist - mage armor, a decent amount of hp's and he can still be in melee - he's just not awesome yet. A 2hw melee char will mostlikely do more dam.

I can't remember who said it - an this thread has become too long for me to check - but the offensive powers of the syntesist is unbalanced because the rules for natural attacks are unbalanced. So i don't feel the need to dig into it.

But add a vicious, flaming amulet og mighty fist, a acid hand item (deliquid what ever) and a +6 str item to the build. And yiu have +4d6+3 dam pr attack (not bite) is that enough to make you see the potientiel for damage? And well the damage from vicious is some of the only damage the syntesist is gonna get in melee so he can take it.

The unbalanced AC - well no barbarian, fighter or even paladin build have been presentend. So again syntesist win, without trying...

And no this isn't the kind of thing you end up with a concensus. Some haven't played with a syntesist, others have tried with a superoptimized build themselves, or perhaps with a 25 point buy, and perhaps a syntesist player that was more interested in making an angel eidolon, which would look cool on his paladin/syntisist even if it made the build less of a monster in melee. Might be more acceptable in society, and perhaps he spend alot of points being king of skills.
What ever the case gaming experince with the syntesist may be different from group to group so you can't expect people to agree on something so heartfelt..

I think the variability of experience with such a customizable class is the only reason I have such opposition at all. So much that it can't be the archetype, it must be the problem of something else.

Describing my game, it's been accused of everything being wrong but the archetype. Whatever went wrong, it can't be the precious synthesist that was the issue.

Since allowing leadership and undead lords seems also on the level of extra permissive to some of you guys, wouldn't way more of my games have a similar issue to what I experienced with the synthesist? Wouldn't there be more examples of things it turns out I have to ban because of super-optimizing players?

Most of the complaints about Synthesists should be leveled at overly permissive DMs and players who are trying to game the system.

Who decides what is permissible? Who decides what is too much and too little? Maybe what I do is just fine and your group is just fine, too.

The synthesist player is same guy I've gamed with for more than 10 years. He's not trying to pull one over on me every time he makes a character.

What I was getting at was that while the age rules are not meant for what a synthesist does, they are both part of the rules in the books. If the age rules can be taken advantage of to make overpowered synthesists and nothing else, it is the synthesist that is wrong, not the age rules.

So my question again becomes do I make special rules that only apply to synthesists, change them so they work better, ban them outright, or do nothing and see my next AP steamrolled by a party of them?

So do you allow leadership and Undead Lord clerics?

We do allow leadership, with occasional caveats such as picking NPCs from a pre-made list and making efforts in-game to be a leader. There were a couple of games I didn't allow necromancers because they would have been on the wrong side of the conflict. Otherwise, if they can keep all that paperwork in line and have decently quick turns there's nothing really stopping them from trying.

@swivl:

Neither should be banned :-)

This thread started with the claim that synthesists are OP by default. I have seen no evidence of this so far. I could make builds with other classes that are stronger and have less weaknesses. They would then cause problems, too, right?

If your player made an effective build, that is fine. If the others are too ineffective, you can either improve them, use the weaknesses of the synthesist, or ask the player to redesign.

And maybe it isn't even the builds, but the tactics and roles in the group?

Maybe you didn't recall my entire explanation, but the decision wasn't made lightly.

My group doesn't ban anything, except now synthesists.

We've been the same group for years; we know what to expect out of each other. This was far too much even for our optimizing player.

Swivl wrote:

Sangalor wrote:

I find it interesting that at least two of the builds that are supposed to show that synthesists are OP are multiclassed, one with paladin and one with monk. To me that does not say much about the synthesist archetype but rather about potentially efficient combinations :-)

The discussion there reminds me of barbarian/oracle or barbarian/martial artist combinations which can rage cycle at low levels: some don't like it and ban it, others are fine with it...

Regarding the grappler: I don't see how that kind of tactic works at higher levels. Too many opponents get bonuses that are too high to guarantee success, the there are flying/ranged enemies, those utilizing freedom of movement or similar effects... What level are we talking about here?

The age thing is kind of cheesy, though. Personally I have played old (martial) characters a few times, but that was primarily for RP reasons and we froze those bonuses and penalties at the first step. "optimizing" like that monk/synthesist player apparently has done would have been difficult with my GMs... ;-)

We did the Carrion Crown AP, but we skipped a bit at the end of the last book so we went to level 13. There indeed were flying enemies. He had wings (or at the least a fly speed, I forget which). A few things had freedom of movement, which did dramatically drop his damage output, but by then the rest of the party was good enough they could make up the difference, so it didn't show up as a big weakness. Plus, he still could slam, buff, or cast any other spells while being really really hard to hit in the first place.

I can visualize the types of monsters that are made to be difficult to grapple or otherwise touch. I can't see too many of them making up the majority of any AP. Carrion Crown had a few of them; he dealt with it anyway. It just wasn't that big of a deal.

Thanks :-)

I don't know CC, sounds like it got suitable enemies for a grappler. Other APs don't always.

What you listed are...

I generally take it as the given assumption that multiclassing is always possible. Class design was certainly affected in this regard when moving to PF versus 3.5, I have no doubts about this. It is a big part of 3.x design, and is in no way in spirit of play that it shouldn't be there.

In other words, should my group ban synthesists, or ban multiclassing with synthesists? Does the latter actually solve what went wrong in CC? I'm not yet convinced that it does.

I find it interesting that at least two of the builds that are supposed to show that synthesists are OP are multiclassed, one with paladin and one with monk. To me that does not say much about the synthesist archetype but rather about potentially efficient combinations :-)

The discussion there reminds me of barbarian/oracle or barbarian/martial artist combinations which can rage cycle at low levels: some don't like it and ban it, others are fine with it...

Regarding the grappler: I don't see how that kind of tactic works at higher levels. Too many opponents get bonuses that are too high to guarantee success, the there are flying/ranged enemies, those utilizing freedom of movement or similar effects... What level are we talking about here?

The age thing is kind of cheesy, though. Personally I have played old (martial) characters a few times, but that was primarily for RP reasons and we froze those bonuses and penalties at the first step. "optimizing" like that monk/synthesist player apparently has done would have been difficult with my GMs... ;-)

We did the Carrion Crown AP, but we skipped a bit at the end of the last book so we went to level 13. There indeed were flying enemies. He had wings (or at the least a fly speed, I forget which). A few things had freedom of movement, which did dramatically drop his damage output, but by then the rest of the party was good enough they could make up the difference, so it didn't show up as a big weakness. Plus, he still could slam, buff, or cast any other spells while being really really hard to hit in the first place.

I can visualize the types of monsters that are made to be difficult to grapple or otherwise touch. I can't see too many of them making up the majority of any AP. Carrion Crown had a few of them; he dealt with it anyway. It just wasn't that big of a deal.

Aren't people saying you won't benefit from the Eidolon armor all the time? Isn't that pointed out as one of the major drawbacks of being a synth?

He wasn't up all the time. Most of the time, sure. When it mattered, almost all the time. He did cast spells. He did summon creatures. Those were still part of his toolbox, so certainly he used them when it called for it.

One part of the AP, and how I ran it, is that there were a lot of surprise encounters. Ambushes and such. The party either died or adapted (and boy were there deaths in this one). He, quite simply, was ready for nearly anything.

The other part about that is that as far as I know, PF doesn't have any other class that outright replaces physical stats like that. Druids don't in PF for, what I thought, was this very reason. In hindsight, of course.

And for the record, it wasn't like he had all 6s in physical stats or anything. He didn't try that hard with this particular character to make it very powerful, which makes it all the more insulting that it was.

So when somebody brought up fixing the synthesist, my first thought was the stat replacing madness. Second, was the HP.

EDIT: I'm also not sure what you mean by abusing the age rules. Then again, I might just be a bit more permissible as a GM.

I don't have the sheet handy right in front of me, but it wasn't that complicated. He was a grappler. He got a bunch of those grappling feats, he'd just Zangief all over the place, combat reflexes and his eidolon was big and had reach. One level in a monk, not sure about archetype, but tetori would probably make sense there. Old human. Sorry I can't be more specific, but the game was a while ago.

EDIT: I had to talk to the group for a couple of details I missed upthread, to give you guys an idea of how much we've moved on since this game.

Swivl wrote:

Having a mook run off with the hat... implies that a mook could get that close and escape. Also, that they know its value immediately, and that it's worth the risk. Further, that targeting several hats, assuming he kept replacing them, on the same character, implies that the hat is the actual problem, and it's not, when I can simply talk to my player and tell him ways in which to tone his character down (like ruling a more solid action economy for the magic item if that's really the issue, and looking back, I'm not convinced it was).

I'm not saying the hat was run just fine; I can be convinced that I needed to shore that up (and your case for that is compelling enough for me to listen), but when I look at the whole picture, the hat was hardly cause for concern considering the rest of the character.

The player who played the synthesist is on the forum; I'll let him post it if he wants to.

IIRC, he was large size for most of the AP. His size did come as a detriment at times, but not nearly an insurmountable problem. He would either work with the penalties in place or change strategies so he didn't have to melee that much. He is a pretty savvy player; he knew when he needed to crush things and when to alter tactics. And really, it's as I said before: making something come up as dangerous against him would usually mean certain death for his friends.

So your synth player would stick around where he dropped the hat for the ENTIRE combat? Well if he is rooted in place, I don't see how he could be even remotely be a valid threat in combat. As for powerful magical items, the mook saw him take it off and magic happens as he resizes and reforms into his normal self. Kinda easy to conclude powerful magic...even if it's powerful supressive magic...and powerful magic = money. They don't have to know exactly what it is to want free money dropped on the ground.

His constant large size should have come up more then at times. Like I said above, it's not just 5ft wide...

My overall point in that was that the hat was not the problem. Therefore, I didn't target it for removal by some idiot NPC who would simply mess with a hostile giant versus actually trying to kill it. By the way, there was a time when he rolled a 1 on a reflex save vs. a fireball and lost his hat. Not much changed, really, during the time it was gone.

And no, being large or huge wasn't that big of a problem. Penalties are in place for those situations, but not much harder to deal with than other conditions in the game (sickened, shaken, slowed etc). These are not the major drawbacks you make them out to be. In other words, we both were paying close attention to how big each room really was.

If it needs to be said, he is the best optimizer in the group. He generally does have the best characters. We have certain expectations in place for each of us. This group has been playing for years.

That said, the synthesist went above and beyond what any of us were expecting, and even the player agrees that they are too powerful. I don't at all have a problem with the player. The character was too much. So when any of us GM, including him, synthesists are banned.

Swivl wrote:

Cold Napalm wrote:

...

We have what I imagine to be a typical table, with 20-25 point buy for nearly every game, and most of the time it's all available PF material only.

That said, the greater hat of disguise was used by the synthesist at our table, but it was largely used to blend in with the people, and making it very simple to be combat-ready (a free action to lose the hat, if I remember that right), and not in any way used to work himself into tight spaces and still fight like that (not that I'm sure how that's supposed to work anyway, losing his reach and all, too).

I threw all the tricks available to me by the AP at him, and killed the rest of the party instead. His defenses were just too good, and none of what people are saying on this thread should have worked on him did. It was my deadliest game, and he barely had a scratch on him. To all of us, then, it was enough to know that we can't do this again.

Maybe it was our game that was in the margins, but thinking upon our setup, I kinda doubt that.

Umm...okay so you run a bit higher then normal point buy...no biggie.

The hat is a standard to turn off or on...not a free. If he argues that he should be able to remove the hat(a move action I would say...certainly not a free since dropping an item in hand is a free...I could see swift) and drop it as a free, why isn't a mook picking up that 6k magic item and running off with it? I suspect that a few hats later, your player may want to keep expensive magical items off the ground.

No combat in normal sized hallways and rooms and you honestly threw everything the AP had at him? Seriously, you HAVE to adjust the AP for this to happen...so no, you did not throw everything the AP had. And considering this lapse, I suspect there were many...oh so many other aspects that let your synth shine.

And I noticed you still failed to show the offending summoner still.

From what you posted, it really doesn't sound like it's a class issue...it's how you ran...

Having a mook run off with the hat... implies that a mook could get that close and escape. Also, that they know its value immediately, and that it's worth the risk. Further, that targeting several hats, assuming he kept replacing them, on the same character, implies that the hat is the actual problem, and it's not, when I can simply talk to my player and tell him ways in which to tone his character down (like ruling a more solid action economy for the magic item if that's really the issue, and looking back, I'm not convinced it was).

I'm not saying the hat was run just fine; I can be convinced that I needed to shore that up (and your case for that is compelling enough for me to listen), but when I look at the whole picture, the hat was hardly cause for concern considering the rest of the character.

The player who played the synthesist is on the forum; I'll let him post it if he wants to.

IIRC, he was large size for most of the AP. His size did come as a detriment at times, but not nearly an insurmountable problem. He would either work with the penalties in place or change strategies so he didn't have to melee that much. He is a pretty savvy player; he knew when he needed to crush things and when to alter tactics. And really, it's as I said before: making something come up as dangerous against him would usually mean certain death for his friends.

...

We have what I imagine to be a typical table, with 20-25 point buy for nearly every game, and most of the time it's all available PF material only.

That said, the greater hat of disguise was used by the synthesist at our table, but it was largely used to blend in with the people, and making it very simple to be combat-ready (a free action to lose the hat, if I remember that right), and not in any way used to work himself into tight spaces and still fight like that (not that I'm sure how that's supposed to work anyway, losing his reach and all, too).

I threw all the tricks available to me by the AP at him, and killed the rest of the party instead. His defenses were just too good, and none of what people are saying on this thread should have worked on him did. It was my deadliest game, and he barely had a scratch on him. To all of us, then, it was enough to know that we can't do this again.

Maybe it was our game that was in the margins, but thinking upon our setup, I kinda doubt that.

Swivl wrote:

Ed Girallon Poe wrote:

I actually played a synthesist, Dr. Virgil Halifax, for an AP (Carrion Crown). At one point, I felt bad because of how strong this character ended up. The core weakness of the normal summoner (i.e. the summoner) is wrapped in a nearly impenetrable monster shell.

We even had a scenario where a higher level wizard and his minions ambushed us at night. Everyone but our rogue was asleep, and he failed to perceive the Black Tentacles he cast in the surprise, then Fireball first turn. That was the only (and I mean that, ONLY) time during the entire campaign my summoner took damage. He then Dimension Doored, Summon Eidoloned, flew in, grapple-deaded the wizard, grapple-deaded his minions, and finally mourned the loss of the rest of the party. Being caught of guard won't stop a synthesist.

During the same campaign, I had 3 Dismissals thrown at me. I had to roll a 1 on my save to fail. That might stop a normal summoner, But synthesists have excellent saves.

We never had any Antimagic Fields to my knowledge, but I'm pretty sure our magus and oracle would have had the same reaction I would have had. A spell that totally neuters 3/4's to an entire adventuring party is not a spell to be thrown lightly. It will most likely cause a TPK.

...oh, and for all those summoners out there with Large/Huge size eidolons trying to fit into dungeons/cities, look up greater hat of disguise. You'll thank me!

Lol these boards... I like how everybody ignores the guy who actually played a synthesist. In an AP, no less.

An AP for 3.5 for one. Using a questionable item. Oh and finally, anecdotal evidence doesn't really do much for the board in general...but without details of how those encounters were run, details of the builds everyone else made, what changes to...

Carrion Crown is a PF AP. It came after Kingmaker and Serpent's Skull.

I also recognize that different tables are run differently, YMMV and all that, and will be the first to say anecdotes aren't science. However, theorycrafting isn't at all practical. Let me explain.

I was here on the boards when everyone was saying how broken gunslingers are (mostly because of the gun rules). There are still people here who feel that way. What I did, to find out for myself, is play one. Well, he died. Level 1. My brother decided he'd play one for my new game after losing a couple of characters of his own. His gunslinger did survive, but it didn't in any slight way break any part of the game. He was good enough, and not at all overpowered. You know which character was more than a little too powerful, though? The synthesist.

When everyone was saying how weak monks were, I played one. The BBEG of Savage Tide couldn't move past me, and didn't hit me once.

My table isn't one that likes to ban anything; depending on the GM or AP, 3.5 material might make its way in. Synthesists are banned by all GMs at my table.

I actually played a synthesist, Dr. Virgil Halifax, for an AP (Carrion Crown). At one point, I felt bad because of how strong this character ended up. The core weakness of the normal summoner (i.e. the summoner) is wrapped in a nearly impenetrable monster shell.

We even had a scenario where a higher level wizard and his minions ambushed us at night. Everyone but our rogue was asleep, and he failed to perceive the Black Tentacles he cast in the surprise, then Fireball first turn. That was the only (and I mean that, ONLY) time during the entire campaign my summoner took damage. He then Dimension Doored, Summon Eidoloned, flew in, grapple-deaded the wizard, grapple-deaded his minions, and finally mourned the loss of the rest of the party. Being caught of guard won't stop a synthesist.

During the same campaign, I had 3 Dismissals thrown at me. I had to roll a 1 on my save to fail. That might stop a normal summoner, But synthesists have excellent saves.

We never had any Antimagic Fields to my knowledge, but I'm pretty sure our magus and oracle would have had the same reaction I would have had. A spell that totally neuters 3/4's to an entire adventuring party is not a spell to be thrown lightly. It will most likely cause a TPK.

...oh, and for all those summoners out there with Large/Huge size eidolons trying to fit into dungeons/cities, look up greater hat of disguise. You'll thank me!

Lol these boards... I like how everybody ignores the guy who actually played a synthesist. In an AP, no less.

You could probably take what E6 has done and scale it up for epic play. Just every so much XP get a new feat from a specific list, which includes new ones that would do pretty much what you're asking for.

No.

To be able to pick archtype for wizard, you would actually need to have wizard levels.. and then pick the archtype.

Levels in an archetype are levels in the related class. That's how it replaces all those 1st level wizard features.

And the rules text for the archetype does indeed not specify that any spell cast through the gun must be on the wizard spell list, or that any other feature requires wizard spells to be used to activate them.

In fact, since I've played a Spellslinger, I encourage you to check out all the things you can do with the archetype, as going straight Spellslinger levels will be a bit painful in the beginning.

We're here for you, too, Ruloc. Be safe, have fun, and we'll be here when you get back. :-)

I am writing my own game system and setting at the moment. Unfortunately, not in a capacity worth sharing yet (I shared a tiny sliver of it during the ARG play-test), but I hope for it to be at least my favorite and the favorite of a few more out there when it's finished.

A genre-blending tactical fantasy RPG, with easy rules that promote tactical depth and pick-up-and-play action, a cooperative storytelling atmosphere that's easy to improvise, and a diverse setting you won't see anywhere else. At least, that's my lofty goal.

Okay. If I don't put these two up, I think I'd regret it. I have two similar but different characters I'd like to put up for illustration.

Okay. If I don't put these two up, I think I'd regret it. I have two similar but different characters I'd like to put up for illustration.