Should the Synthesist be banned?


Advice

101 to 118 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
Don't use the word "fixed" when talking about an animal companion.
You mean 'around an animal companion', right?

Can't it be both?

Grand Lodge

Ringtail wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
Don't use the word "fixed" when talking about an animal companion.
You mean 'around an animal companion', right?
Can't it be both?

Mine has adamantine neuticles of endure elements. So he's cool.


Synthesist? Wasn't that the nerdy guy who played the Moog in 80's new wave bands?

Ban it because the name is even lamer than "summoner." (Sorry Paizo...I love ya guys, and most of your stuff is brilliant...but who is naming these classes??)


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:
Druids pet do not get Evolutions. Besides, nobody in our group ever plays a druid. We had to beg one of the new players to play a cleric, because nobody seems to want to play divine casters in our group. We've got arcane casters up the wazoo (half the group are arcane casters.)

Druids can pick any animal they like and at first level there companion is tougher than an Eidlon (starting with 2HD).

It sounds like your group might need to broaden your experience before banning classes. (If you've never tried a cleric or a druid you may want to test out a concept or two before dismissing it totally - your call I guess, it's your game).

Personally, it's been great fun playing a Druid and a Cleric...

Why not try out a concept in PFS - something you might not try at your home game.
Put a character together turn up for a local game day and see if you have fun. You might be surprised, Playing though the classes gives you a better understanding of the economics and mechanics of the game and also helps make you a better GM (if that's something you want to do).


lastblacknight wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:
Druids pet do not get Evolutions. Besides, nobody in our group ever plays a druid. We had to beg one of the new players to play a cleric, because nobody seems to want to play divine casters in our group. We've got arcane casters up the wazoo (half the group are arcane casters.)

Druids can pick any animal they like and at first level there companion is tougher than an Eidlon (starting with 2HD).

It sounds like your group might need to broaden your experience before banning classes. (If you've never tried a cleric or a druid you may want to test out a concept or two before dismissing it totally - your call I guess, it's your game).

Personally, it's been great fun playing a Druid and a Cleric...

Why not try out a concept in PFS - something you might not try at your home game.
Put a character together turn up for a local game day and see if you have fun. You might be surprised, Playing though the classes gives you a better understanding of the economics and mechanics of the game and also helps make you a better GM (if that's something you want to do).

I enjoy playing druid and cleric myself. But I've been trying to get my players to be more adventurous and try out some of the other new classes in PF, (which is why I'm rolled up a magus, so they can see a different class in play) but since I am the GM, most of the time, I don't get the opportunity to play much. Really, I've been struggling to get my players out of what I see is a rut. One player for example plays a psionicist every time, even when I don't have rules for psionicists in game. Right now he is playing a wizard/psionicist, which is as close to something different (meh), as he has in a long time. I mean the last 20 years of playing, he's always a psionicist. The same pegged holes can be applied to the dual class fighter/caster, whose played basically the same character for 30 years. We have one girl who doesn't like complicated decisions, so has played a fighter only in 3 different campaigns.

So I'm all for variety, but my players are not, and I won't force them to play something else, but I really wish they did.

I have run one-shots with pregenerated characters, none having the pegged roles the party normally plays, which turned out to be fun and they enjoyed them, but when we go to a full campaign, they return to the same PC rut as always.

Also the closest LGS doesn't play PFS, and the next nearest LGS is 70 miles away, so it's unlikely we'll ever get the chance for organized play.

Grand Lodge

I noticed too that the OP has one thread, and one post. This thread, first post. No others.


A troll of course, but the point of the thread deserves discussion, even if the OP is no longer a concern (never had been).


Morgan Shay wrote:

Synthesist? Wasn't that the nerdy guy who played the Moog in 80's new wave bands?

Ban it because the name is even lamer than "summoner." (Sorry Paizo...I love ya guys, and most of your stuff is brilliant...but who is naming these classes??)

My guess is people with a vocabulary.

Dictionary.com wrote:

syn·the·sis

   [sin-thuh-sis] Show IPA
noun, plural syn·the·ses  [sin-thuh-seez] Show IPA.
1. the combining of the constituent elements of separate material or abstract entities into a single or unified entity ( opposed to analysis, ) the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements.


Personally, I think you should ban the class unless the following three exceptions are met:
1. The GM is pretty familiar with the class.
2. The player playing the Synthesist has a very good understanding of the general game rules.
3. The player playing the Synthesist isn't a powergaming jerk who goes out his way to break the system.

The Synthesist really isn't broken, if played according to the rules. However, it's an extremely complicated class, with exceptions upon exception to normal rules. And if the player and GM both don't have a good grasp of it, then it is easy to accidentally go outside of the rules, and as a result make a broken and overpowered character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a big problem with the synthesist is the layout which creates confusion. There are many abilities you cannot attain until level X, such as 5th, 8th, etc. Unfortunately, most of the powers only include this text at the end of their individual description, and they can be easy to miss or overlook; which threatens to cause errors when people give their eidolons abilities they don't qualify for yet (such as DR 5/Evil, when you can't give them that until higher levels).

I think the class would be better received if you tiered it, so that you listed their basic abilities under one header, 5th level abilities under the next header, and so forth.

Such as...

Basic Eidolon Abilities

  • Ability #1
  • Ability #2

    Improved Eidolon Abilities

  • Ability #1
  • Ability #2

    Greater Eidolon Abilities

  • Ability #1
  • Ability #2

    And so forth.


  • I would like it if the synthesist was rewritten as an alternate class (like the ninja and samurai) that incorporated all errata and relevant FAQ info.

    Dark Archive

    As a GM, would I disallow it? Yes. Should it be banned in PFS? No. Gunslingers and witches get pretty redic if min-maxed as well. The Synth is probably the most powerful "properly built" (most others have weaknesses), but if someone has fun overpowering a game... there are lots of ways to do it. PFS has a very LOW bar on difficulty so you can get away with weak builds, but if you have more fun killing everyone in sight? It's there for you :).


    The key to remember with the summoner in general is that is in the Advanced Player's Guide. An experienced player with a DM willing to take 5 minutes before the game to look over the eidolon's stats is not going to be a problem in a game. With the possible exception of the witch and oracle, I would not recommend any of the classes in that book to a brand new player or someone who has trouble keeping track of a lot of little abilities.


    Well for starters , I know I casually play pathfinder so I compared to many of the people whom post here may not be in the "know" .But in our little group our dm allowed it and even allowed me a little creativity le-way on how I rp'ed the charc. Which Was Me having to use an evolution point for limbs and pretty much Rp'ing the charc appearance wise think the darkness shadowy appendages and all . So at least the way I described him looks pretty awesome ( AND hehehe im making an oni mask for him !)

    Though side tracking lol , Why im posting ? I can honestly say playing summoner/synthesist has been amusing we needed a tank and pretty much got one .. .Mind you the damage my charc does for a 8th lvl charc is pretty laughable ( 1d6 ( Physical) 1d6 ( acid) +2 (Str) but what makes him shine is His Ac (37-48) have the charc sheet around here some where . But , Right now its 5 Summoner/2 monk(many styled) / 1 fighter(unarmed) .As is the class is "good" but theres plenty of things that pure classed could out do it in each of its categories The monk styles make it able to do amusing things but when put beside our titan mauler barbarian well damage wise its lacking , Or Sorc can Out spell cast it easily and i am sure people can think of / have made way better things but suffice to say broken Its not however...

    I do think several of the rules leave it Very Open to interpretation which is more than likely just means there were typo's or the expected common sense to take place ..I.E " Manufactured Attacks not counting towards your number of attacks since it spefices "natural" " Which In our group just suggested to our dm that the max. per lvl is kept at the allowed . Along with several other things we noticed while we played . Rp wise and Df wise .. Cant say the class is all that bad . Sorry if I seem like im ranting and! if any one has any suggestions or ideas for the charc or wants to toss around ideas more than welcome to Listen..well Read lol.


    sunshadow21 wrote:
    The key to remember with the summoner in general is that is in the Advanced Player's Guide. An experienced player with a DM willing to take 5 minutes before the game to look over the eidolon's stats is not going to be a problem in a game. With the possible exception of the witch and oracle, I would not recommend any of the classes in that book to a brand new player or someone who has trouble keeping track of a lot of little abilities.

    No, not “5 minutes”, more like several hours. The DM has to know how the class works, read and groked all the FAQ and even read a number of the threads here. It’s not a matter of “5 minutes”.


    DrDeth wrote:
    sunshadow21 wrote:
    The key to remember with the summoner in general is that is in the Advanced Player's Guide. An experienced player with a DM willing to take 5 minutes before the game to look over the eidolon's stats is not going to be a problem in a game. With the possible exception of the witch and oracle, I would not recommend any of the classes in that book to a brand new player or someone who has trouble keeping track of a lot of little abilities.
    No, not “5 minutes”, more like several hours. The DM has to know how the class works, read and groked all the FAQ and even read a number of the threads here. It’s not a matter of “5 minutes”.

    The class isn't that hard to figure out. Building and critiquing an eidolon isn't necessarily easy, but it's not rocket science either, and that's the hardest part of the class. Over the course of a campaign it could easily add up to a couple hours, but the DM doesn't have to memorize the entire class before play starts, nor does the player. The player just has to understand the pertinent parts for what is in play at that time, and it's the player's responsibility, not the DMs, to be able to explain it quickly and easily during the game. If they can't do that, they need to consider a different class or be willing to put in their own time between games reading the rules so that the next time the DM asks a question, they can answer it.

    Like I said before, it's an advanced class, and I would expect any player playing one to understand that. If the player is willing to put in the work to make it run smoothly, the DM's workload isn't any harder than it is for any other class. If the player isn't willing to put in that work, and expects the DM to do it all, they need to find a simpler class to play.


    Perhaps you're confusing the Summoner Class(not that hard) with the Synthesist Archetype of the Summoner. Read the dozens of threads with the hundreds of posts, and the many FAQ. That shows the class is indeed "that hard to figure out". It's not just "advanced"- it's so far the most confusing class PF has done by a longshot.

    There are more FAQ for the synthesist archetype than there are for the whole summoner CLASS- and ten times as many posts and threads.

    It's a broken archetype. The Summoner isn't all that bad.


    From what I've seen of the synthesist, it's still not that hard. Personally, I have yet to be in an actual game where either the base or any of the archetypes cause that much problem. In all cases, the player is responsible for knowing what they can and cannot do, and being able to explain that quickly and easily, and if they can't figure it out, they can't play the class.

    As for the FAQs, chances are most people DMing home games don't worry about the FAQ or errata that much anyway. If they have a problem with something, they fix it in a way that satisfies all parties and move on. Organized play could present problems, but it's still a case of the the player is responsible for knowing all special rules regarding their character, and having quick access to them should they be required. Also, many of the FAQ's are things like "does the synthesist's armor count when inside the eidolon?" that have common sense answers if you just stop to think about it for a minute.

    Honestly, a lot of people just don't like the idea of the summoner class and/or it's archetypes and are predisposed to nitpick them to death. It does seem to have a lot more corner cases than most classes that bear exploring and discussing, especially when you get into the archetypes, making it easier for those who want to break it to do so, but that comes back to making it clear that the player is responsible for knowing the character they are playing, and being respectful of the others at the table to not abuse it. Too many people are so focused on the issue of it's existence that they fail to look at how it actually performs in play, where it's not nearly as bad forum posters make it out to be.

    In the end, as far as the original question is concerned, no, it shouldn't be banned. Neither the class nor the archetype are perfect, and could use further refinement, but expecting the same level of refinement from a brand new class as one of the core classes that has been around for decades is silly. It does take more effort to run one, but simply writing it off as "broken," and trying to ignore it's existence really doesn't solve the problem.

    101 to 118 of 118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Should the Synthesist be banned? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.