Can't stand "optimized" ANYTHING. Too many glass cannons. They die way too easily.And here is your problem, you dont deliberately optimize. Which is fine ofcourse. But the reality is that an optimized druids animal companion can ALSO show up the party's fighter if they too are not optimized. The summoner is just really really easy to optimize because the choices are so obvious. If the eidolon isnt given as many attacks as it can hold, made larger, stronger and deal energy damage with each attack, it wont show up the party fighter either. Its very easy to make an eidolon that is all utility and barely fights, but no one seems to consider that when they are dealing with a non-optimized party.
"And here is your problem," Optimization should take place not between a PC and some grand design intent on "winning" but instead on what you face in game. I've noted time and again that if a player takes their PC, and crafts it to match what's happening in game, they end up having a LOT of fun.
Really wish I could run some of you "optimizers" in a few of my encounters. I'm betting I'd watch you fall apart. It's not about beating one or two encounters, it's about surviving and protecting your buddies over the long haul.
Yea... you totally missed my point, and mislabeled me. I am not saying people must or even should optimize. I am not saying there is one true way to 'win' at pathfinder. I in fact generally dont optimize in the traditional sense since i like characters with a broad set of abilities (usually this means they will be less capable at any one thing) that are interesting to play and fit an interesting back story. I also ted to alter my 'plan' for a character based on what happens in a campaign. For instance, in a current campaign we just hit level 4. I am puting my +1 to a stat into my charisma, which was a 9, certainly not from an optimization stand point as a melee combatant, but because its representative of an initially socially akward character with strange looks starting to learn to fit in with society. But my preferences are secondary to this discussion.
Let me be clear. Every class, particularly really flexible classes, like the druid, have choices they make as they are put together. The druid decides which spells to prepare, which animal companion to use, which form to wild shape into, which feats to take and what to equip his animal companion and his self with. Some of those choices are better in combat then others. If you scoure all possible sources including 3rd party material, you could probably make just about every option a druid (or most classes) takes help them be more effective at combat (by taking archetypes or replacement features, choosing the most powerful animal companiosn and wild shape forms etc).
That takes alot of mental effort though. Most people dont do it. Some do, but I am not worried about them, I'm worried about the average player, and the roleplay heavy player/group. They tend not to put alot of effort into making thier character powerful. I imagine based on your statements that you are such a person. Consequently their characters are of average power in combat. Thats well and good since it makes the DM's life easier and keeps everyone at the table relatively even with eachother assuming they are like minded individuals.
The summoner trashes this plan. Where as most classes take effort to optimize and make 'stronger', the summoner does not. The options to make the eidolon a badass are obvious in plain sight in the class description and require no hunting through spelllists, alternate class options or achetypes to sort out. Simply by taking what seem like normal evolutions, you can make a really powerful eidolon and summoner, because you choose just about everything the class gets and there are lots of powerful options.
This creates a disparity in groups that dont optimize for combat, usually unitentionally. Its not that the summoner is 'better' then everyone else (particularly the druid) its that it requires the least amount of energy to be the 'best' it can be. So the people most concerned about 'overpowered' characters (groups that prefer to play and average or low powered game and focus on things other then optimization and cobat prowess) get hit the hardest, because people who normally dont put alot of effort into making their character a badass, do it either unintentionally, or just out of proportion from their usual characters.
In a group of optimizers it works out ok, because the fighter is already doing a bagillion damage (and thus not made to feel irrelavant by the eidolon), the wizard is batman (and thus doesnt feel irrelavent because of the summoners small but potent spell list) and the druid already has a baddass pet AND is eating someones face as a baddass wildshaped combatant.
I am rather new to PF, but doesn't the eidolon go away if the summoner goes unconsious for any reason and is then lost until the next day?
How awesome would a summoner be if he used his SM SLA instead of his eidolon most of the time?
the eidolon can come back if the summoner is ko'd and revived. it cannot come back til next day if it is destroyed.
also: healing an eidolon is not easy, even more so for a synthesist. magic circles can block some of an eidolon. banish/etc works. and a level 1 spell, potentially can remove the eidolon. or a poison.
true, the summoner is incredibly rule intensive for both player/dm, but very few things are truly broken.
control summoned creature, summoner's conduit, terrain, can all control a summoner's oomph... banish on a synthesist can be kinda fun too...or dismissal...
|
I'm a bit biased since summoner is my favorite class. But my personal experience is their slightly overpowered, but not to the point of brokeness. Since real life experience is better then theory crafting, and I can speak of a real combat experience I had in a large group with some heavy hitting classes (ie. overpowered classes) the druid & witch.
In total we had a Paladin, Druid, Cavalier, Rogue, Witch, Oracle/Fighter(multi), inquisitor, and myself as a summoner, we were all 12th level and in a large battle against some sort of vampire lord and two devil things (can't remember might have been barbed) and a many, many varieties of undead, most with a paralyzing/level draining/con lowering touch attacks. As I remember the stars of the show where the druid and witch, with a surprise showing from the cavalier. The GM being cleaver neutralized the paladin quickly, but otherwise he should have dominated as well. My eidolon keep alive pretty well, but I did have to heal him several time due to paralysis, and I had managed to catch one the weaker undead in a pit spell, which is a great spell. The druids dire bear wreaked half the encounter, allowing her to concentrate on healing and the witch keep summoning teleporting spiders and was nearly impossible to hit. Basically the two together defeated 80% of the opponents, with the vampire lord himself being taken out by a joint effort of the inquisitor and cavalier. The rogue was killed (the only casualty) :(
Now keep in mind I'm terrible at optimization, but that well placed pit spell certainly helped, however nothing I did stood out as overpowered by comparison.
How awesome would a summoner be if he used his SM SLA instead of his eidolon most of the time?
That is pretty much the primary premise of the Master Summoner Archetype.
It is also how I have been playing my Synthesist. I have contributed effectively to the party's combats. I would do better with a rank in Animal Handling so I could have a bit more 'control' over my summons, but I do alright. Not OMG, not 'broken', not 'Awesome'; I do alright. I stay out of the direct combat when I am not 'suited up' & I provide a measure of field control/flanking buddy for the frontliners. On the other hand we are all 1st level so we are all kind of squishy.
It just seems to me that other than the synthesist, I would just low blow summoner if I thought the pet was a problem. Take out the squishy caster and the party is down two members. Otherwise the pet doesn't heal so it could end up a big drain on the party.
Meh. Love em, hate em, ban them in YOUR games.....but my summoner will live on and I will continue to love playing her! =)
again, synthesist almost has to kill the eidolon to heal it...oooh bane weapons....and Maraxous, why other than synthesist?
@ Maraxous there's a harness they can wear for under 3k that will keep them around for a round or 2 while the summoner is ko-ed.
As to low blows ect, at least for my master summoner good luck getting close enough to him. Even aside from the summoning a high degree of handle animal and a little time means at low levels I had a war trained horse, war dogs ect.
@ Marthkus see any master summoner build for the most part. You can also use the spell summon eldion and have the summons out at same time as eldion. 2nd level spell goes great in a wand.
@ IejirIsk eldions are resistant to those tactics there's specific errata on them having the ability to resist. Not sure if that applies to the synth.
@GM)Solspiral. for the spell 'summon eidolon' it functions as mostly a standard summon as far as weaknesses/countering, regardless of synth/vanilla. generally they wont work, but can effect a synth with things like channel vs outsider, outsider bane, sometimes a synth is in more trouble because of the eidolon.
any other class, is as powerful as you want to build it. If someone builds one in the most powerful way it is entirely possible to show up a poorly built fighter. That does not mean that the fighter is bad or the summoner is too good. It means that one character is optimized and another is not. The same is true when people argue a summoner can solo entire encounters by himself or blows away the expected numbers for level. That can be done with any class. The fact that it is easier with one than another does not change the fact that it is a choice.
The point is, the eidolon shouldn't have that capacity in the first place. Not even close. Worse, most of the people I read about who use the class happily hose over the party warrior without thinking. It shouldn't be any more potent than a NPC cohort.
Heck, if you think about it, a Wizard Conjurer with the Leadership feat and perhaps Improved Familiar does basically the same thing as a Summoner, and doesn't break the game.
How about a master summoner with lots of summons, a half progression eidolon, leadership for a cohort on a class that actually uses charisma, and a familiar via Eldritch Heritage?
If you scoure all possible sources including 3rd party material, you could probably make just about every option a druid (or most classes) takes help them be more effective at combat (by taking archetypes or replacement features, choosing the most powerful animal companiosn and wild shape forms etc).
That takes alot of mental effort though. Most people dont do it. Some do, but I am not worried about them, I'm worried about the average player, and the roleplay heavy player/group. They tend not to put alot of effort into making thier character powerful. I imagine based on your statements that you are such a person. Consequently their characters are of average power in combat. Thats well and good since it makes the DM's life easier and keeps everyone at the table relatively even with eachother assuming they are like minded individuals.
The summoner trashes this plan. Where as most classes take effort to optimize and make 'stronger', the summoner does not. The options to make the eidolon a badass are obvious in plain sight in the class description and require no hunting through spelllists, alternate class options or achetypes to sort out. Simply by taking what seem like normal evolutions, you can make a really powerful eidolon and summoner, because you choose just about everything the class gets and there are lots of powerful options.
This creates a disparity in groups that dont optimize for combat, usually unitentionally. Its not that the summoner is 'better' then everyone else (particularly the druid) its that it requires the least amount of energy to be the 'best' it can be. So the people most concerned about 'overpowered' characters (groups that prefer to play and average or low powered game and focus on things other then optimization and cobat prowess) get hit the hardest, because people who normally dont put alot of effort into making their character a badass, do it either unintentionally, or just out of proportion from their usual characters.
In a group of optimizers it works out ok, because the fighter is already doing a bagillion damage (and thus not made to feel irrelavant by the eidolon), the wizard is batman (and thus doesnt feel irrelavent because of the summoners small but potent spell list) and the druid already has a baddass pet AND is eating someones face as a baddass wildshaped combatant.
Judging by the above post, my opinion still stands. First off, I am not interested in 3rd party publishers, as they tend to put out either overpowered or underpowered material. Second, "being powerful" is not the name of the game. You should have picked that up in my last post.
Third, mental effort is literally of no consequence for me. I don't mind thinking at all. You've gravely underestimated me.
Fourth, it's not about mental effort for your average player. It's something far simpler: Does this look like a cool or otherwise good idea to help me succeed in areas that I wasn't doing so well in before?
Fifth, the eidolon really is poorly written, and even more poorly thought out. As such, it is prone to abuse. Let me reiterate: Any class that allows for simultaneous spellcasting AND showing up the party warrior on a regular basis is ruining the fun for other players, and as such will not be tolerated in any of the games I run.
What you call "optimizers", I call flaming munchkins out to try to "win" the game. I can cite specific personality traits, but it all boils down to this: people like this think that tabletop rpgs should be identical to video game hack n slash, and are horrified and ticked off when the DM up and kicks their butts. I routinely break such players of their bad habits (as I have an endless supply living in a college town), and they end up discovering that they are actually having MORE fun than online "rpgs". On a similar note, I have listened to military soldiers complain about most online FPS games, because the lot of them do not know what they are doing, and die like lemmings. I feel the same way.
Judging by the above post, my opinion still stands. First off, I am not interested in 3rd party publishers, as they tend to put out either overpowered or underpowered material.
Mixed bag some 3PPs put out amazing and well balanced stuff. Allot of people slam 3PPs without really giving them a chance and the stuff they do read they bias themselves on because its not "official." The 3PP version of the swashbuckler is a great example I've seen reviews calling it under and overpowered. Its fine, really.
Any class that allows for simultaneous spellcasting AND showing up the party warrior on a regular basis is ruining the fun for other players, and as such will not be tolerated in any of the games I run. [/QUOTE
Have you play tested them at all or are you making assumptions here? The eldion might be a little better than a melee character until around 3rd level or so by 5th I assure you the barbarian is out damaging the eldion pretty significantly. Eldion might in fact be a little OP in the first 5 levels, easy fix they can't take pounce until 5th level not they are on par with an animal companion wasn't that easy?
Define showing up? I mean its all rolls in the end there's a variety of spellcasters that allow for simultaneous spellcasting and showing up the party warrior, the druid is embarrassingly good at that.
What you call "optimizers", I call flaming munchkins out to try to "win" the game. I can cite specific personality traits, but it all boils down to this: people like this think that tabletop rpgs should be identical to video game hack n slash, and are horrified and ticked off when the DM up and kicks their butts. I routinely break such players of their bad habits (as I have an endless supply living in a college town), and they end up discovering that they are actually having MORE fun than online "rpgs".You're making a ton of generalizations here. I like hack-n-slash video games and I like optimizing, that doesn't mean I carry over the hack-n-slash mentality to my tabletop games. In fact allot of sessions end up pure roleplaying.
There's nothing wrong with the standard summoner. Its a complicated class but so were psionics when they first came out. They are a great option for players that like monsters and tactical combat.
Define showing up? I mean its all rolls in the end there's a variety of spellcasters that allow for simultaneous spellcasting and showing up the party warrior, the druid is embarrassingly good at that.
Quote:What you call "optimizers", I call flaming munchkins out to try to "win" the game. I can cite specific personality traits, but it all boils down to this: people like this think that tabletop rpgs should be identical to video game hack n slash, and are horrified and ticked off when the DM up and kicks their butts. I routinely break such players of their bad habits (as I have an endless supply living in a college town), and they end up discovering that they are actually having MORE fun than online "rpgs".
You're making a ton of generalizations here. I like hack-n-slash video games and I like optimizing, that doesn't mean I carry over the hack-n-slash mentality to my tabletop games. In fact allot of sessions end up pure roleplaying.
There's nothing wrong with the standard summoner. Its a complicated class but so were psionics when they first came out. They are a great option for players that like monsters and tactical combat.
Showing up: When there's absolutely no reason to have a party (blank class) anymore because this other class can do it all AND still do something else to fulfill another role. If it fulfills more than one role at a time, AND completely negates the need for 2 roles simultaneously.
YOU might not have that attitude, but most of the posters on this website and even a lot of the players I've had over the years have this attitude. We are talking about people who complain and whine at the least little difficulty, constantly uber pump their characters while neglecting defenses and versatility. One trick munchkin ponies.
The standard summoner is simply broken. Too many ways to break the game, and far too easily at that. Gimme a conjurer any day over a summoner! Hell, as a DM I don't like Summon Monster because I have to keep looking up MORE beasties, but I tolerate them if necessary. Plus, having a conjurer or summoner in the party means a player becomes disturbingly well versed in the Bestiary, and that is a bad idea for maintaining player vs character knowledge/stopping metagaming.
What you call "optimizers", I call flaming munchkins out to try to "win" the game. I can cite specific personality traits, but it all boils down to this: people like this think that tabletop rpgs should be identical to video game hack n slash, and are horrified and ticked off when the DM up and kicks their butts. I routinely break such players of their bad habits (as I have an endless supply living in a college town), and they end up discovering that they are actually having MORE fun than online "rpgs". On a similar note, I have listened to military soldiers complain about most online FPS games, because the lot of them do not know what they are doing, and die like lemmings. I feel the same way.
Ironically I've seen the exact opposite. My brother was schooling military men at games like Battlefield and Modern Warfare on a regular basis, and when he asked why the hell they did stupid stuff like running out in the open shooting and not checking doors and such, they were like "kid, we're military, we're trained for this stuff", to which my little brother said "then why don't you act like it?".
I <3 my brother.
Define showing up? I mean its all rolls in the end there's a variety of spellcasters that allow for simultaneous spellcasting and showing up the party warrior, the druid is embarrassingly good at that.
Quote:What you call "optimizers", I call flaming munchkins out to try to "win" the game. I can cite specific personality traits, but it all boils down to this: people like this think that tabletop rpgs should be identical to video game hack n slash, and are horrified and ticked off when the DM up and kicks their butts. I routinely break such players of their bad habits (as I have an endless supply living in a college town), and they end up discovering that they are actually having MORE fun than online "rpgs".
You're making a ton of generalizations here. I like hack-n-slash video games and I like optimizing, that doesn't mean I carry over the hack-n-slash mentality to my tabletop games. In fact allot of sessions end up pure roleplaying.
There's nothing wrong with the standard summoner. Its a complicated class but so were psionics when they first came out. They are a great option for players that like monsters and tactical combat.
Showing up: When there's absolutely no reason to have a party (blank class) anymore because this other class can do it all AND still do something else to fulfill another role. If it fulfills more than one role at a time, AND completely negates the need for 2 roles simultaneously.
YOU might not have that attitude, but most of the posters on this website and even a lot of the players I've had over the years have this attitude. We are talking about people who complain and whine at the least little difficulty, constantly uber pump their characters while neglecting defenses and versatility. One trick munchkin ponies.
The standard summoner is simply broken. Too many ways to break the game, and far too easily at that. Gimme a conjurer any day over a summoner! Hell, as a DM I don't like Summon Monster because I have to keep looking up MORE...
Oddly enough, you responded to his comment about generalizing with another generalization.
|
Define showing up? I mean its all rolls in the end there's a variety of spellcasters that allow for simultaneous spellcasting and showing up the party warrior, the druid is embarrassingly good at that.
Quote:What you call "optimizers", I call flaming munchkins out to try to "win" the game. I can cite specific personality traits, but it all boils down to this: people like this think that tabletop rpgs should be identical to video game hack n slash, and are horrified and ticked off when the DM up and kicks their butts. I routinely break such players of their bad habits (as I have an endless supply living in a college town), and they end up discovering that they are actually having MORE fun than online "rpgs".
You're making a ton of generalizations here. I like hack-n-slash video games and I like optimizing, that doesn't mean I carry over the hack-n-slash mentality to my tabletop games. In fact allot of sessions end up pure roleplaying.
There's nothing wrong with the standard summoner. Its a complicated class but so were psionics when they first came out. They are a great option for players that like monsters and tactical combat.
Showing up: When there's absolutely no reason to have a party (blank class) anymore because this other class can do it all AND still do something else to fulfill another role. If it fulfills more than one role at a time, AND completely negates the need for 2 roles simultaneously.
YOU might not have that attitude, but most of the posters on this website and even a lot of the players I've had over the years have this attitude. We are talking about people who complain and whine at the least little difficulty, constantly uber pump their characters while neglecting defenses and versatility. One trick munchkin ponies.
The standard summoner is simply broken. Too many ways to break the game, and far too easily at that. Gimme a conjurer any day over a summoner! Hell, as a DM I don't like Summon Monster because I have to keep looking up MORE...
In all seriousness if you take your literal definition of what you do not allow, your games would only consist of Fighter, Monk, and Rogue ( No Archetypes) Because too many of the Other classes DO do what you dislike right out of the box. I'll even go down the list. This is assuming No real thought and on the premise of what the class does. Wizard.. Casts Arcane Spells, which can be anything from protection, Battlefield control, Shutdown spells, Utility or Blasting. They even have a spell.. that makes them a fighter. Cleric, much of the Same except they can wear armor as well and heal. Ranger has 2 less skill points than a Rogue but can cast Divine Spells, ignore Feat Req's and Still Disarm Traps While having Full Bab.. oh and they can get a companion. Druid has already been discusssed, Just Add turn into a creature and own face along with various spells. Bard Is a buffer, Caster and Skill Monkey all in one, makes the rogues life hard. The list goes on.. Simply put there will be overlap in certain Roles especially if the class can inherently do more. Summoner is not the first class to do this.. They Got Wizard past editing, I'm sure they knew what a summoner was before they let it fly.
Druids with Animal Companions: Broken or Awesome?
Sorcerers with the Sylvan Bloodline: Broken or Awesome?
Rangers with Animal Companions: Broken or Awesome?
Any character with Leadership: Broken or Awesome?
Paladin with Bonded mount: Broken or Awesome?
Wizard with Improved Familiar: Broken or Awesome?
Let's keep in mind that while in some cases (like the Paladin or the Wizard), the additional creatures might not be quite as powerful as an eidolon, the classes themselves without their creatures are significantly more powerful than Summoners without their eidolons - enough so to more than balance things out.
The truth is, the only classes I've never seen a certain subset of people complain about being over-powered are the classics: Fighters, Universal Wizards and standard Rogues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having read all of the posts in this thread, I should have stopped at the second one. The poster's essential point is the correct one with respect to melee fighters, certainly (which is implied in the post), and stands unchallenged by any of the various quibbles throughout.
Essentially, wholesale robbing spotlight is lame at most tables.
Wizards usually blow fighters out of the water in pretty much every way, but for the most part they don't do it by punching opponents in the face. But Eidolons do. Unlike wizards, summoners are not only vastly more powerful than fighters but also are able to show up fighters when it comes to doing exactly the one thing fighters are meant to do.
When compared to a wizard, a fighter can at least fall back on "Well, at least I can poke things with a sword good!" Compared to an eidolon, the fighter just looks pathetic.
Druids with Animal Companions: Broken or Awesome?It's only really the big cat with animal growth which is a problem.
So you are saying the Iconic Druid is intended to be a twink Character? 'Cause Lini's AC is a big cat...
Eidolons are only a problem when the Player twinks them out. Not seeing a difference here...Rangers with Animal Companions: Broken or Awesome?Only a single archetype gets the big cat and they get animal growth very late.
See my previous rebuttal.
Any character with Leadership: Broken or Awesome?Leadership is broken, it shouldn't be a feat ... if a DM wants to allow it he should just give it for free to all the players.
Have you ever actually dealt with a twink player who takes Leadership?..
Paladin with Bonded mount: Broken or Awesome?They don't get big cats, not a problem.
The don't usually get big cats... There is nothing in the rules which says they can't.
This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable.
While it doesn't specifically say it allows big cats, it also doesn't specifically disallow them either.
Wizard with Improved Familiar: Broken or Awesome?Wizard BAB, next to no HP, poor combat forms, awkward death mechanics ... not a problem.
Lots of spells to counteract every one of those same limitations & oh wait, Wizards get a lot more spells than Summoners do...
In all seriousness if you take your literal definition of what you do not allow, your games would only consist of Fighter, Monk, and Rogue ( No Archetypes) Because too many of the Other classes DO do what you dislike right out of the box. I'll even go down the list. This is assuming No real thought and on the premise of what the class does. Wizard.. Casts Arcane Spells, which can be anything from protection, Battlefield control, Shutdown spells, Utility or Blasting. They even have a spell.. that makes them a fighter. Cleric, much of the Same except they can wear armor as well and heal. Ranger has 2 less skill points than a Rogue but can cast Divine Spells, ignore Feat Req's and Still Disarm Traps While having Full Bab.. oh and they can get a companion. Druid has already been discusssed, Just Add turn into a creature and own face along with various spells. Bard Is a buffer, Caster and Skill Monkey all in one, makes the rogues life hard. The list goes on.. Simply put there will be overlap in certain Roles especially if the class can inherently do more. Summoner is not the first class to do this.. They Got Wizard past editing, I'm sure they knew what a summoner was before they let it fly.
No, actually I am just fine with each and every class, save a few. For thematic reasons, I don't allow Alchemist, Samurai, Gunslinger, Ninja, Monk. For being broken, the only class I refuse to allow in is the Summoner. I might feel that Summon Monster spells mean more work, but that doesn't mean I ban them.
And no, the Summoner is demonstrably deficient in the editorial dept. Too many people here have noted how broken they are, especially Synthesist and occasionally Grand.
Druids with Animal Companions: Broken or Awesome?
Sorcerers with the Sylvan Bloodline: Broken or Awesome?
Rangers with Animal Companions: Broken or Awesome?
Any character with Leadership: Broken or Awesome?
Paladin with Bonded mount: Broken or Awesome?
Wizard with Improved Familiar: Broken or Awesome?
Let's keep in mind that while in some cases (like the Paladin or the Wizard), the additional creatures might not be quite as powerful as an eidolon, the classes themselves without their creatures are significantly more powerful than Summoners without their eidolons - enough so to more than balance things out.
The truth is, the only classes I've never seen a certain subset of people complain about being over-powered are the classics: Fighters, Universal Wizards and standard Rogues.
It depends on how potent the assistant creature is compared to the PC's. Any that routinely steals the spotlight from the party is a Bad Thing.
So you are saying the Iconic Druid is intended to be a twink Character?I'm saying the balance is off.
Have you ever actually dealt with a twink player who takes Leadership?No. So what's there to deal with?
There are no weaknesses to leadership, it's the best feat there is by an order of magnitude. You balance the game for a party with one extra PC, that's the long and short of it AFAICS. Which is why most DM's simply don't allow it, it should never have been a feat ... and it certainly shouldn't have the caveat about DM fiat removed in PF.
The only thing more you could do is try to target the cohort and try to get the player's leadership score down ... but that's just being a dick. Better to not allow the feat at all than allow it and then be a dick.
Lots of spells to counteract every one of those same limitations & oh wait, Wizards get a lot more spells than Summoners do...Even transformation will leave them as really poor martial combatants ... and by the time you have cast that and a polymorph on it combat is half over.
Well, personally I don't have a problem with Leadership. But then, I have some harsh rules governing it. The NPC you get? You can make it, but I control it as DM, and I have a habit of introducing traits that you don't know about, not all of which are good. The potency of the NPC? Well, you pay for all the gear the character uses, that's right, they don't get a share of the treasure. The level of the NPC? Well, on that I am torn between being dependent on the PC level, and you paying for the NPC's xp out of your own share.
I consider the summoner class to be fairly balanced, assuming that your characters are built using a 20-point buy and that your teammates all build characters that are suitable for the campaign.
I've played a summoner once, and it was a blast. It was a campaign where we rolled for stats and I rolled terribly (especially compared to the other characters). Playing a summoner makes up for bad stats by virtue of your eidolon's stats being set in stone and ignoring your own stats.
In a game with a high point buy or if you roll very well, you should NOT play a summoner for the same reason. Play something that can make use of multiple good stats, like a monk.
I can understand Samurai, Monk, and Ninja if you aren't doing Asian classes. I can see gunslinger as no tech but alchemist? Dude right after summoner that's a fav of mine why no love for Alchemy?
I consider the summoner class to be fairly balanced, assuming that your characters are built using a 20-point buy and that your teammates all build characters that are suitable for the campaign.
I've played a summoner once, and it was a blast. It was a campaign where we rolled for stats and I rolled terribly (especially compared to the other characters). Playing a summoner makes up for bad stats by virtue of your eidolon's stats being set in stone and ignoring your own stats.
In a game with a high point buy or if you roll very well, you should NOT play a summoner for the same reason. Play something that can make use of multiple good stats, like a monk.
High fantasy point buy? Wooh, your DM is very generous. Most get 15, some just 10, or the 4d6 method.
Your experience is highly anecdotal, as a result of the generosity of the DM's you've played with. And yes, being able to ignore all your physical attributes is one of the primary objections to the class.
I can understand Samurai, Monk, and Ninja if you aren't doing Asian classes. I can see gunslinger as no tech but alchemist? Dude right after summoner that's a fav of mine why no love for Alchemy?
Alchemy is almost as unbalanced as a class. Note Master Chymist. I also happen to know that chemical reactions do not work like that. Moreover, this is nothing more than a mad chemist concept, and as such it is very 1800's. That is beyond the scope of medieval or Renaissance fantasy, as is the Gunslinger (which I don't have access to since I don't have Ultimate Combat, which I've heard is mostly for Monks).
I'm not certain you directed that comment toward me or not, but those are my reasons.
Alchemy is almost as unbalanced as a class. Note Master Chymist. I also happen to know that chemical reactions do not work like that.
Dude you know alchemy isn't real? Come on that's like PhD-level knowledge, nobody knows that
I consider the summoner class to be fairly balanced, assuming that your characters are built using a 20-point buy and that your teammates all build characters that are suitable for the campaign.
I've played a summoner once, and it was a blast. It was a campaign where we rolled for stats and I rolled terribly (especially compared to the other characters). Playing a summoner makes up for bad stats by virtue of your eidolon's stats being set in stone and ignoring your own stats.
In a game with a high point buy or if you roll very well, you should NOT play a summoner for the same reason. Play something that can make use of multiple good stats, like a monk.
High fantasy point buy? Wooh, your DM is very generous. Most get 15, some just 10, or the 4d6 method.
Your experience is highly anecdotal, as a result of the generosity of the DM's you've played with. And yes, being able to ignore all your physical attributes is one of the primary objections to the class.
20 Point Buy is the standard for Pathfinder Society, so it's hardly some massive boon of GM generosity.
High fantasy point buy? Wooh, your DM is very generous. Most get 15, some just 10, or the 4d6 method.
Your experience is highly anecdotal, as a result of the generosity of the DM's you've played with. And yes, being able to ignore all your physical attributes is one of the primary objections to the class.
Actually, I think 4d6 averages to a pretty high point buy. I want to say around 20ish or so.
And being able to ignore your physical stats could be argued for every caster in the game. Druid, Cleric, and Oracles have the same hit die, same BAB, and larger spell lists. If the only use you think to get out of the Summoner is the eidolon, then you'd have better luck playing a Barbarian or fighter who isn't at 3/4 HD through the whole game, and if you want some casting and some martial ability, you'd likely be better off with a Paladin, Ranger, Magus, or Bard (last two being only 3/4 BAB but... the Eidolon is constantly at 3/4 HD in general, so they're actually more hardy and as likely to hit).
If you like the action economy of having a Companion, a Druid is likely better from having a larger spell list, and probably a lot better class features (if you're not running the summoner as doing any combat themselves, then Shield Ally is pretty much worthless. And if you're running a Druid as nothing but a caster, Wild Shape does much better keepaway than anything the Summoner's got). You also don't need to contend with clashing magic item slots between the two.
My thoughts on it anyway. YMMV.
Alchemy is almost as unbalanced as a class. Note Master Chymist. I also happen to know that chemical reactions do not work like that.Dude you know alchemy isn't real? Come on that's like PhD-level knowledge, nobody knows that
I do. Chemistry isn't magic. It is fun, though. And yes I know what alchemy is, and what it was supposed to be. It was supposed to be creating gold out of lower metals like lead. It was actually about chemistry, very primitive chemistry. Much of what we now know as chemistry as a science originated in the production of fireworks. The Italians took Chinese fireworks, and started monkeying around with the concept. Many explosions ensued. Also, the textile industry sponsored much research, because it wanted to produce brightly colored dyes for clothes.
Actually, I think 4d6 averages to a pretty high point buy. I want to say around 20ish or so.And being able to ignore your physical stats could be argued for every caster in the game. Druid, Cleric, and Oracles have the same hit die, same BAB, and larger spell lists. If the only use you think to get out of the Summoner is the eidolon, then you'd have better luck playing a Barbarian or fighter who isn't at 3/4 HD through the whole game, and if you want some casting and some martial ability, you'd likely be better off with a Paladin, Ranger, Magus, or Bard (last two being only 3/4 BAB but... the Eidolon is constantly at 3/4 HD in general, so they're actually more hardy and as likely to hit).
Well, the average result of 3d6 is 10.5, but I don't quite know how the last d6 works out, since you toss the lowest result. I've personally seen quite a lot of variance in that method, to the point where if there's more than two results that are less than 10 and nothing is decent, I just have them reroll. I once met a guy with spectacular bad luck with dice. Ended up rolling for him. Then again, I've seen people roll 18/00 Strength. I kid you not.
Actually no, you are wrong in that, most spellcasters cannot ignore their physical stats. For example, Wizards desperately need a high Dexterity, as they have horribly poor AC, must get a high Init or have to face firing into melee penalties for their ranged touch spells, a bad Reflex save, etc. And they desperately need a high Con, if only because their Fort save sucks and so does their HP.
Clerics need to either have a high Strength or a high Dexterity. Strength turns them into melee warriors and allows them to run around in heavy armor. Dexterity turns them into missile wielders, increases their poor Reflex save, and ups their AC now that they can't use heavy armor due to weight and lack of proficiency. That's not including having to get a decent Charisma for healing/turning checks, and a very high Wisdom for spellcasting, and somehow managing a decent Intelligence so they can get enough skill points to achieve competence.
I can go on, but you probably see my point.
Problem with the Summoner is that the rules are poorly worded for eidolons, they get spellcasting and they don't give a damn if their beast dies or not, plus that beast routinely takes the spotlight from the party warrior. I don't care WHAT argument you make; I ain't gonna allow the latter in any way. No NPC should do that. That's a recipe for a very short campaign.
I do. Chemistry isn't magic. It is fun, though. And yes I know what alchemy is, and what it was supposed to be. It was supposed to be creating gold out of lower metals like lead. It was actually about chemistry, very primitive chemistry. Much of what we now know as chemistry as a science originated in the production of fireworks. The Italians took Chinese fireworks, and started monkeying around with the concept. Many explosions ensued. Also, the textile industry sponsored much research, because it wanted to produce brightly colored dyes for clothes.Alchemy is almost as unbalanced as a class. Note Master Chymist. I also happen to know that chemical reactions do not work like that.Dude you know alchemy isn't real? Come on that's like PhD-level knowledge, nobody knows that
Which is why in Pathfinder extracts and mutigens are explicitly stated to be magical.
In any case, I stand by my original statement on this matter. A well optimized summoner in a low optimization party will steal the show. A low optimized summoner in a high optimized party will be overshadowed throughout. The same is true of almost every class. The only minor difference with the Summoner vs. any other class comes when low or high point buys are introduced. A low point buy disproportionately favors the summoner, while a high one favors non-summoners.
Well, the average result of 3d6 is 10.5, but I don't quite know how the last d6 works out, since you toss the lowest result. I've personally seen quite a lot of variance in that method, to the point where if there's more than two results that are less than 10 and nothing is decent, I just have them reroll. I once met a guy with spectacular bad luck with dice. Ended up rolling for him. Then again, I've seen people roll 18/00 Strength. I kid you not.
Well, I was testing it out on the boards recently, and got 20 point buy as the average out of rolling stats for a 4 person party. Admittedly one was a bit of an outlier at 9 points (the others were 22, 23, and 26). Obviously small sample size, but hey.
Actually no, you are wrong in that, most spellcasters cannot ignore their physical stats. For example, Wizards desperately need a high Dexterity, as they have horribly poor AC, must get a high Init or have to face firing into melee penalties for their ranged touch spells, a bad Reflex save, etc. And they desperately need a high Con, if only because their Fort save sucks and so does their HP.
Clerics need to either have a high Strength or a high Dexterity. Strength turns them into melee warriors and allows them to run around in heavy armor. Dexterity turns them into missile wielders, increases their poor Reflex save, and ups their AC now that they can't use heavy armor due to weight and lack of proficiency. That's not including having to get a decent Charisma for healing/turning checks, and a very high Wisdom for spellcasting, and somehow managing a decent Intelligence so they can get enough skill points to achieve competence.
I can go on, but you probably see my point.
Why does any of that not also pertain to Summoners? Everyone wants high Initiative, and adding to AC is even better. Ref is a bad save for Summoners as much as it is for Wizards. Fort is also a bad save for Summoners as much as Wizards, and I'd daresay they need Con doubly so as it also serves as extra hit points for their Eidolon (who, as you may recall, is generally behind in Hit Dice, despite acting like a Martial character in this scenario).
Clerics, meanwhile, do not need high Strength or Dexterity any more than a Summoner does. If you want them to be melee warriors (or whatever else that requires those stats), then yes, they need them, but the same is true of the Summoner, who can go for melee just as well. Clerics also have Medium armor proficiency compared to the Summoner's Light, so they're likely to actually be ahead in AC and/or need less Dex.
In general, stats for a summoner look like this (in my opinion, anyway):
Strength: Necessary if they want to engage in melee combat.
Dexterity: Always necessary, for Initiative, AC, and Reflex, since we're talking strengthening bad saves as well.
Constitution: Necessary for both themselves and their Eidolons, as well as Fortitude.
Intelligence: They're a 2 skill rank class so rather helpful, though the Eidolon alleviates this to a degree.
Charisma: Their casting stat, so they obviously need at least some of this.
Wisdom: Pretty much the only thing that isn't 'necessary,' and that's true of lots of other classes too (basically any non-Wis based caster that gets Will as a good save). Considering what it's tied to, I don't think it's a good stat for anyone either though.
You seem to be assuming that the only thing a Summoner would ever want to do is cast spells, which is why I said the same is true of any other caster. But considering the Summoner's 2/3 casting progression, a limited number of spells known, and a relatively small focus for their spellcasting list (Buff/Control is pretty much the extent of it) makes for not a whole lot to do if they're built solely for casting. And if all they wanted to do is pump Cha for DC's, they'd still be struggling based on the fact that their spell progression is lower than full casters (like the Druid).
Problem with the Summoner is that the rules are poorly worded for eidolons, they get spellcasting and they don't give a damn if their beast dies or not, plus that beast routinely takes the spotlight from the party warrior. I don't care WHAT argument you make; I ain't gonna allow the latter in any way. No NPC should do that. That's a recipe for a very short campaign.
Except the Eidolon is not an NPC. It's a class feature, just as all other classes get, and in general is actually somewhat hard pressed to keep up with the party warrior (although at low levels I can understand this more, that's pretty much when Natural Attacks are at their best, and early access to Pounce if and only if they go Quadruped is nice as well). But, if the Eidolon is as good as you say here, then why would the Summoner not care if they die? Their Summon Monster SLA's are certainly in no possible way going to be showing up a Fighter or any other Martial. At best, I can only really picture them providing flanks for the martial characters.
Again, just my thoughts on it though. Also, whew, that post got long.
summoner looks overpowered on paper at first glance, but it is a spontaneous partial caster with limited slots and limited spells known. their spell list is also highly limited, even if they do get discounted spells.
and the eidolon, is a vulnerable and easily removable damage dealer. it has all the drawbacks of being an outsider, all the drawbacks of having fewer hit dice, and all the drawbacks of augmenting it's size. it devastates featureless open outdoor plains just like a cavalier does. add features, it becomes defeatable.
like any other minmaxed internet build. terrain is a highly valid weakness. as is weather, consumable abuse, or intelligent tactical choices.
|
I am shocked I do so well with my summoners.
very poor AC
Mediocre HP
Poor saves for the summoner:
Fort weak, Ref weak, even with will strong, who can really justify much wisdom to it for summoners?
It is a miracle they have not been killed or at least very often(it happens sometimes) knocked out.
My guess is that I was lucky with battlefield placement of my gnome summoner, makers call and transposition help with that.
I think the reach weapon my 1/2 elf uses leads GMs to seek other targets rather than provoke with
The eidolon itself has poor HP as it does not have a high con and less HD than PC level.
The eidolon has terrible saves since they are based on HD, which again is less then PC level. Who in their right mind would put a cloak of resistance on the eidolon instead of the summoner(well, maybe when scouting)? Alternate item slots like in 3.5 can help this but I do not find many of GMs besides myself who encourage the backwards compatibility aspect of the system. Most in my exp prefer Paizo or 3.5 exclusive to each other, not many are cool with mixing the two.
Unless you spend a bunch of points on: evolutions, items(valuable shared slots) and spells/actions, the eidolon does not have much AC either.
Maybe a good proposal for the summoner would be to have it require two days or a week to re summon a dead eidolon. Or have some sort of stat or level damage that is expensive to recover with each death. The fear of having to go a while without might give people less of a carefree attitude or willingness to use them as scouts and experiments. At the same time, prevent them from just using the spell to summon them again sooner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The summoner is just a horrible class, it looks and feels like it is designed for a different system. The mechanics are wrong on several levels and don't fit with the changes paizo made to 3.5 (especially the synthesist in that regard).
I also have trouble with this pile of amorphous goo that is an eidolon, one level you have a devil(ish) minion next level you have an angel(ish) one, it reeks of (clunky)mechanics with little flavor, even if you want to stay in the same them it is impossible to have the eidolon evolve naturally since you have to dump abilities to buy 3 and 4 point evolutions.
Personally I do not like any class feature companion x abilities, summon monster X is sort of broken already (with a fair bit of farfetched fluff) and the summoner has an odd mix of spells that make little sense, the AC is way too easy to buff up for both the summoner and eidolon even before you apply magical gear or feats to it.
I think that is most of it..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If everyone is a really skilled optimizer the eidolon will (probably) be a bit weaker than a fighter or barbarian.
However, if people aren't that well-optimized, people make bad choices. And when learning more and more of the system, the eidolon can adjust easily to that, rebuilding the whole thing every level. Fighters can retrain a few feats and barbarians are stuck with what they chose.
Also, eidolons have a very easy time getting very good defenses without sacrificing too much offense, at least in the early game.
So, I would say, summoners are very prone to be built in a way that breaks a campaign already at early levels, much more than most other classes.