Summoner: Broken or Awesome


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 305 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

ericthetolle wrote:

Aww, is the fighter feeling outmatched and underpowered?

My mage astral projects from his private dimension, casts Time Stop, Gates in four Solars, casts Bigby's Middle Finger at the fighter, and leaves to do something more interesting.

So you were talking about Summoners being broken? Please continue.

Seriously, the problem as always, isn't that commoners are overpowered our unbalanced. The problem lies with fighters and rogues.

You made me laugh, you get a cookie!

*Cookie!*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Funky Badger wrote:
Ilja wrote:
while at the same time being about as skilled as a rogue and the hands-down best non-full-caster in the game.

I'd dispute that, and discount it entirely if they didn't have Haste as a level 2 spell.

Bards are much more useful, in my experience.

Bards are useful because of performance. When you look at their actual spellcasting, they're blown out of the water by a synthesist since the synth can maximize charisma completely, has many strong combat spells apart from buffs, and has much more out-of-combat utility.

If comparing the the bard's spells+performance vs the summoners spells I'd fully agree, but the low DC the bard's spells will have (unless it gimps it's defenses and combat viability) make offensive spellcasting very unreliable. That isn't true for synthesists which can have excellent defenses and good combat viability while rocking 20 Cha at level 1 on a 15pb.

ericthetolle wrote:

Aww, is the fighter feeling outmatched and underpowered?

My mage astral projects from his private dimension, casts Time Stop, Gates in four Solars, casts Bigby's Middle Finger at the fighter, and leaves to do something more interesting.

So you were talking about Summoners being broken? Please continue.

Seriously, the problem as always, isn't that commoners are overpowered our unbalanced. The problem lies with fighters and rogues.

Yes, wizards are very powerful when they ignore the rules and limitations of their spells.

(Hint: Cannot use Gate to call creatures while under time stop, the solars are immune to your spells).

If you're going to show the uberness of wizards (which I agree is there) it'd be quite a bit more interesting if you didn't spend 6 ninth level slots AND break the rules to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the wizard is deemed to be the most powerful class, comparing every single class to a wizard is just bad design, but even so the summoner does get access to some nifty spells earlier than the wizard and they aren't even summoning spells per definition, they do have decent hitpoints, BAB and fair combat ability.
It does not really matter that much which is more powerful since it is about party dynamics but the summoner overtakes the role of the martials and offers much more on the side, summoner simply does too much, too well.
You are right though, the wizard should be taken down a notch, but that would offend the wizard fanboys too much.


Full casters are FLEXIBLE not broken - when their ready for a single event and pre-warned they are broken.

The summoner always has all his bits.

If someone thinks summoners aren't broke throw a couple against them or the party - make them lower level but have more of them. After the PCs get killed or severely weakened and get little or no XP for the effort they will likely agree summoners are too powerful. You don't even need to put effort into the builds to make them dangerous.


Ilja wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
Ilja wrote:
while at the same time being about as skilled as a rogue and the hands-down best non-full-caster in the game.

I'd dispute that, and discount it entirely if they didn't have Haste as a level 2 spell.

Bards are much more useful, in my experience.

Bards are useful because of performance. When you look at their actual spellcasting, they're blown out of the water by a synthesist since the synth can maximize charisma completely, has many strong combat spells apart from buffs, and has much more out-of-combat utility.

If comparing the the bard's spells+performance vs the summoners spells I'd fully agree, but the low DC the bard's spells will have (unless it gimps it's defenses and combat viability) make offensive spellcasting very unreliable. That isn't true for synthesists which can have excellent defenses and good combat viability while rocking 20 Cha at level 1 on a 15pb.

From my own experience of playing a Summoner (not Synth) - the spell list is rather meh (Haste aside) - not many spells (barring the Pits) grant saves so I don't see that much point in maximising CHR (different for a Synth, clearly).

Having played *with* bards and Summoners, I've found the bards to be far more useful - not sure how much of that's to do with the song (which is awesome), but yeah... Hideous Laughter at 1st level though. Demands respect.


Funky Badger wrote:


From my own experience of playing a Summoner (not Synth) - the spell list is rather meh (Haste aside) - not many spells (barring the Pits) grant saves so I don't see that much point in maximising CHR (different for a Synth, clearly).

Having played *with* bards and Summoners, I've found the bards to be far more useful - not sure how much of that's to do with the song (which is awesome), but yeah... Hideous Laughter at 1st level though. Demands respect.

Agreed that standard summoner spellcasting isn't as good as synthesist spellcasting (ignoring action economy), but compare a synth to a bard: At 1st level, the synth will have 3 spells per day with a DC of 15 while the bard will have 2 spells per day with a DC of 13 or maybe 14 if casting-focused.

Hideous Laughter at 1st is incredibly powerful, but it's also really the only spell that stand out on the bard list; most others are gotten at best when the wizards/sorcerers/druids get them.

And while hideous laughter is powerful, the amount of creatures it works on is very limited. At later levels, bard casting is still useful but can't really do anything that special. They do have easy access to Persistant Confusion, which is very powerful though, and I think is comparable to the summoners easy Quickened Black Tentacles (comes a bit earlier and has more powerful effect, but has smaller area and many, many are immune to it)

I'd say that in a campaign focused heavily on humanoids and where undead/constructs/others immune to mind-affecting are rare, bards might be equal. But in a campaign where undead etc are at least semi-common, bards will more often than not have no offensive spellcasting to speak of while the summoner has loads.


Ilja wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:


From my own experience of playing a Summoner (not Synth) - the spell list is rather meh (Haste aside) - not many spells (barring the Pits) grant saves so I don't see that much point in maximising CHR (different for a Synth, clearly).

Having played *with* bards and Summoners, I've found the bards to be far more useful - not sure how much of that's to do with the song (which is awesome), but yeah... Hideous Laughter at 1st level though. Demands respect.

Agreed that standard summoner spellcasting isn't as good as synthesist spellcasting (ignoring action economy), but compare a synth to a bard: At 1st level, the synth will have 3 spells per day with a DC of 15 while the bard will have 2 spells per day with a DC of 13 or maybe 14 if casting-focused.

Hideous Laughter at 1st is incredibly powerful, but it's also really the only spell that stand out on the bard list; most others are gotten at best when the wizards/sorcerers/druids get them.

And while hideous laughter is powerful, the amount of creatures it works on is very limited. At later levels, bard casting is still useful but can't really do anything that special. They do have easy access to Persistant Confusion, which is very powerful though, and I think is comparable to the summoners easy Quickened Black Tentacles (comes a bit earlier and has more powerful effect, but has smaller area and many, many are immune to it)

I'd say that in a campaign focused heavily on humanoids and where undead/constructs/others immune to mind-affecting are rare, bards might be equal. But in a campaign where undead etc are at least semi-common, bards will more often than not have no offensive spellcasting to speak of while the summoner has loads.

Bard gets loads of spells that beat a wizard's level, mainly enchantment spells, of course it has to to get spells earlier or roughly the same time as a wizard but that is no different for the summoner.

Hideous laughter, heroism, suggestion, charm monster, confusion, scrying, terrible remorse, break enchantment, dominate person and more..
certainly not the worst spells.

Just like the summoner there are a good number of spells the wizard does not get, bladed dash, lesser confusion, sound burst and some healing spells come to mind.

I still think the summoner has a much superior list for what it is doing though, bard's main gig is performance, spells are more secondary even compared to the summoner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
insaneogeddon wrote:


Full casters are FLEXIBLE not broken - when their ready for a single event and pre-warned they are broken.

FYI Flexibility IS power... Imagine if a barbarian could change his feats or rage powers EVERY DAY.


Ilja wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:


From my own experience of playing a Summoner (not Synth) - the spell list is rather meh (Haste aside) - not many spells (barring the Pits) grant saves so I don't see that much point in maximising CHR (different for a Synth, clearly).

Having played *with* bards and Summoners, I've found the bards to be far more useful - not sure how much of that's to do with the song (which is awesome), but yeah... Hideous Laughter at 1st level though. Demands respect.

Agreed that standard summoner spellcasting isn't as good as synthesist spellcasting (ignoring action economy), but compare a synth to a bard: At 1st level, the synth will have 3 spells per day with a DC of 15 while the bard will have 2 spells per day with a DC of 13 or maybe 14 if casting-focused.

Hideous Laughter at 1st is incredibly powerful, but it's also really the only spell that stand out on the bard list; most others are gotten at best when the wizards/sorcerers/druids get them.

And while hideous laughter is powerful, the amount of creatures it works on is very limited. At later levels, bard casting is still useful but can't really do anything that special. They do have easy access to Persistant Confusion, which is very powerful though, and I think is comparable to the summoners easy Quickened Black Tentacles (comes a bit earlier and has more powerful effect, but has smaller area and many, many are immune to it)

I'd say that in a campaign focused heavily on humanoids and where undead/constructs/others immune to mind-affecting are rare, bards might be equal. But in a campaign where undead etc are at least semi-common, bards will more often than not have no offensive spellcasting to speak of while the summoner has loads.

Fairly standard practise for Bards to have 18 CHR, I would have thought - so 15 DC?

Has the Summoner really got that much offensive stuff? There are the pits, and black tentacles (which I tend to discard as I've never really been inconvienienced with it as a player), is there much else? I remembered it mostly as buffs.

Shadow Lodge

It is mostly buffs. Because of that, in my experience, summoners tend to have something like a 15-17 cha at first level. In that frees up points for other things, like making your summoner either skilled or somewhat effective in combat in such a way that works well with the eidolon.

But doing that means you're less effective compared to a typical 18 Cha 1st level bard when you do anything involving saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Funky Badger wrote:

Fairly standard practise for Bards to have 18 CHR, I would have thought - so 15 DC?

Has the Summoner really got that much offensive stuff? There are the pits, and black tentacles (which I tend to discard as I've never really been inconvienienced with it as a...

Sorry, meant 14+spell level DC, so 15 for level 1 spells. Summoners will have 16. Unless the bard/synth picked spell focus ench/conj that is.

Summoner has many good offensive spells, and nearly all are conjurations. Many bypass spell resistance, many work on lots of different targets and quite a few ignore saves or have partial effect;
1 - Grease (fantastic) and Ray of Sickening (drops everything including saves)
2 - Create Pit (pit spells as you noted), Glitterdust (fantastic), Slow
3 - Aqueous Orb (fantastic spell), Black Tentacles, Summon Monster IV (can be quickened with lesser rod), Spiked Pit, Obsidian Flow
4 - Baleful Polymorph, Acid Pit, Hold Monster
5 - Tar Pool, Summon Monster VII
6 - Greater Planar Binding, Dominate Monster, Summon Monster VIII (note that this can be rod-quickened starting somewhere from 16 to 18; summoner is the only class that can reliable get to hasten something so powerful).

Nearly all non-buff spells that bards get early are mind-affecting, limiting their usefulness against a lot of enemies.


Kerney wrote:

It is mostly buffs. Because of that, in my experience, summoners tend to have something like a 15-17 cha at first level. In that frees up points for other things, like making your summoner either skilled or somewhat effective in combat in such a way that works well with the eidolon.

But doing that means you're less effective compared to a typical 18 Cha 1st level bard when you do anything involving saves.

Most summoner builds I see start with 18 cha, except synthesists who tend to start with 20. Since most summoners tend to be half-elves, gnomes or humans, their racial is usually put into Cha. The exception is charging summoners mounted on their eidolons, who tend to have lower Cha to allow for more strength, but those don't seem to be the norm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Kerney wrote:

It is mostly buffs. Because of that, in my experience, summoners tend to have something like a 15-17 cha at first level. In that frees up points for other things, like making your summoner either skilled or somewhat effective in combat in such a way that works well with the eidolon.

But doing that means you're less effective compared to a typical 18 Cha 1st level bard when you do anything involving saves.

Most summoner builds I see start with 18 cha, except synthesists who tend to start with 20. Since most summoners tend to be half-elves, gnomes or humans, their racial is usually put into Cha. The exception is charging summoners mounted on their eidolons, who tend to have lower Cha to allow for more strength, but those don't seem to be the norm.

Or halfling outrider summoners, multi-classed with fighter. What?

:-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:

Fairly standard practise for Bards to have 18 CHR, I would have thought - so 15 DC?

Has the Summoner really got that much offensive stuff? There are the pits, and black tentacles (which I tend to discard as I've never really been inconvienienced with it as a...

Sorry, meant 14+spell level DC, so 15 for level 1 spells. Summoners will have 16. Unless the bard/synth picked spell focus ench/conj that is.

Summoner has many good offensive spells, and nearly all are conjurations. Many bypass spell resistance, many work on lots of different targets and quite a few ignore saves or have partial effect;
1 - Grease (fantastic) and Ray of Sickening (drops everything including saves)
2 - Create Pit (pit spells as you noted), Glitterdust (fantastic), Slow
3 - Aqueous Orb (fantastic spell), Black Tentacles, Summon Monster IV (can be quickened with lesser rod), Spiked Pit, Obsidian Flow
4 - Baleful Polymorph, Acid Pit, Hold Monster
5 - Tar Pool, Summon Monster VII
6 - Greater Planar Binding, Dominate Monster, Summon Monster VIII (note that this can be rod-quickened starting somewhere from 16 to 18; summoner is the only class that can reliable get to hasten something so powerful).

Nearly all non-buff spells that bards get early are mind-affecting, limiting their usefulness against a lot of enemies.

You forgot Maze I really like Maze.


Wind Chime wrote:
You forgot Maze I really like Maze.

You're right! I've never played with a summoner that high-leveled so just looked through the list. My experience is two summoners and one synthesist, of which only the synth reached level 9 (one summoner died in a TPK at 4, the other retired due to OP'ness in a more humble campaign).

Shadow Lodge

Ilja wrote:
Kerney wrote:

It is mostly buffs. Because of that, in my experience, summoners tend to have something like a 15-17 cha at first level. In that frees up points for other things, like making your summoner either skilled or somewhat effective in combat in such a way that works well with the eidolon.

But doing that means you're less effective compared to a typical 18 Cha 1st level bard when you do anything involving saves.

Most summoner builds I see start with 18 cha, except synthesists who tend to start with 20. Since most summoners tend to be half-elves, gnomes or humans, their racial is usually put into Cha. The exception is charging summoners mounted on their eidolons, who tend to have lower Cha to allow for more strength, but those don't seem to be the norm.

This is the second time we've come across this difference of what is 'normal'. I wonder if it's just our local comunity or our own perceptions. I have never seen a summoner with an 18 cha to start with other than a synthesist, and I've played with a lot of them.

The problem at low levels at least spell wise is that quite a few spells known need to be 'eidolon maintence' spells, especially if your in a game like mine where there aren't a lot of magic item shops around. At 1st level, heal Eidolon is a must and mage armor is adviseable.


Very true. The Summoner gets a great selection, but can only pick a very few. Some are must haves, thus making the selections even fewer.

Mage Armor
Evolution Surge(s)
Haste
Slow
Rejuvenate Eidolon
etc...


Kerney wrote:


This is the second time we've come across this difference of what is 'normal'. I wonder if it's just our local comunity or our own perceptions. I have never seen a summoner with an 18 cha to start with other than a synthesist, and I've played with a lot of them.

Well, now I'm more talking about builds that are put forward as decently optimized in the forums. We often use far-less optimized characters and with much weirder stat arrays (had an Int 16 fighter/ranger in the last game, the one where the summoner retired), but when looking at class balance etc it's more useful to look at the builds that are hailed as good and competitive builds rather than the "shits & giggles" builds.

Quote:
The problem at low levels at least spell wise is that quite a few spells known need to be 'eidolon maintence' spells, especially if your in a game like mine where there aren't a lot of magic item shops around. At 1st level, heal Eidolon is a must and mage armor is adviseable.

That is true if you run in a low magic shop-campaign, but that isn't the base assumption of the game. It's useful to note the item reliance of summoners, but I prefer to center balance discussions on the game as it's intended to be played.

I too prefer the gaming style you do with lower access to magic shops, and as I frequently DM I usually rather give out a few powerful unique items than give the players the book and say "pick what you want"; my players like this so it works like a charm. However, it's still not what the game was designed around, and access to level 1 wands is assumed to be quite certain (small towns having a 75% chance each week of carrying them).

Veldan Rath wrote:

Very true. The Summoner gets a great selection, but can only pick a very few. Some are must haves, thus making the selections even fewer.

Mage Armor
Evolution Surge(s)
Haste
Slow
Rejuvenate Eidolon
etc...

I don't see mage armor, evolution surges, slow and rejuvenate eidolon as must-haves at all, though evolution surges are so incredibly powerful you don't wanna skip them generally.

Rejuvenate Eidolon is a 750 gp wand, as is mage armor (also, eidolons tend to have very good AC and summoners can use light armor, so mage armor isn't that necessary anyway).

I'd say Haste is generally a must-have (oh no, one of the best spells in the game one level early ;D), and having at least one evolution surge spell is more or less necessary, but for the others, not so much. I'd generally prefer Glitterdust over Slow, as it's a conjuration (and summoners like SF (Conj)+Augment Summoning), has better range, has save (partial) only, and doesn't allow spell resistance.

I generally think Slow is a powerful spell that can really wreck, but it's harder to pull of than Glitterdust and when it doesn't have the DC benefit wizards have for it, I don't see much use in having it compared to GD.

Shadow Lodge

Ilja wrote:
Kerney wrote:


This is the second time we've come across this difference of what is 'normal'. I wonder if it's just our local comunity or our own perceptions. I have never seen a summoner with an 18 cha to start with other than a synthesist, and I've played with a lot of them.

Well, now I'm more talking about builds that are put forward as decently optimized in the forums. We often use far-less optimized characters and with much weirder stat arrays (had an Int 16 fighter/ranger in the last game, the one where the summoner retired), but when looking at class balance etc it's more useful to look at the builds that are hailed as good and competitive builds rather than the "s@&&s & giggles" builds.

That is what I am talking about also. Thing is you can build an effective summoner/eidolon combo many ways.


Ilja wrote:


Veldan Rath wrote:

Very true. The Summoner gets a great selection, but can only pick a very few. Some are must haves, thus making the selections even fewer.

Mage Armor
Evolution Surge(s)
Haste
Slow
Rejuvenate Eidolon
etc...

I don't see mage armor, evolution surges, slow and rejuvenate eidolon as must-haves at all,...

Mage Armor on your eidolon makes him that much more of a badass. Allows you to get to L2.

Glitterdust is better than Slow for a Summoner, very true, forgot about the Conj part on that one.

My main point still stands, the Summoner has very few slots to access their very good spell list. They are not uber casters (they are really good casters though)


Veldan Rath wrote:
My main point still stands, the Summoner has very few slots to access their very good spell list. They are not uber casters (they are really good casters though)

Yes, it's clearly limited, but the spells are so general purpose (many ignoring SR, few are mind-affecting etc) that it doesn't really feel that bad.

But yeah they're not uber casters as is. They're good casters, IMO a fair bit above Bard unless the campaign is very humancentric and around equal to the druid unless the campaign is very animalcentric. A lot better than the magus, a lot worse than the sorcerer.


Ilja wrote:
Veldan Rath wrote:
My main point still stands, the Summoner has very few slots to access their very good spell list. They are not uber casters (they are really good casters though)

Yes, it's clearly limited, but the spells are so general purpose (many ignoring SR, few are mind-affecting etc) that it doesn't really feel that bad.

But yeah they're not uber casters as is. They're good casters, IMO a fair bit above Bard unless the campaign is very humancentric and around equal to the druid unless the campaign is very animalcentric. A lot better than the magus, a lot worse than the sorcerer.

I disagree, druid is not at all bad, and a better caster than the summoner in my opinion, some spells are very hard to beat and it is a prepared caster. Bard is comparable but more limited in use despite having more spells on their list. Magus is hardly as terrible as you think and magi are also prepared casters.

Sorcerer on the other hand, well they have an extensive spell list but I am not so sure it is much superior to the summoner for what you want, summoner has access to many buff and support spells that a sorcerer or wizard does not, it no doubt beats them in utility, battle control and blasting though.


AnnoyingOrange wrote:


I disagree, druid is not at all bad, and a better caster than the summoner in my opinion, some spells are very hard to beat and it is a prepared caster.

I did a comparison of level 5 and 10 spellsheets for druid/summoner above, that's an example of why I think they're about equal.

Quote:
Magus is hardly as terrible as you think and magi are also prepared casters.

Oh, I don't think magus is terrible, they're decent casters, but I think they're behind bards and that bards are behind sorcerers. If I'd rank casters on their casting merits (ignoring features not directly related to casting) I'd probably rate them wizard>sorcerer>oracle/cleric>druid/summoner>bard>magus/alch emist>ranger>paladin. Of course it also depends on the setting and campaign, but as a generalization.

Sorcerers win out on the divine casters and summoner and bard in that they have a very powerful spell list and also have enough spells to rely solely on spellcasting; clerics, oracles and druids have weaker spell lists while summoners have too little spell slots to rely completely on spellcasting (which is very well compensated in the phat eidolon and summon SLA's).


Ilja wrote:


I too prefer the gaming style you do with lower access to magic shops, and as I frequently DM I usually rather give out a few powerful unique items than give the players the book and say "pick what you want"; my players like this so it works like a charm. However, it's still not what the game was designed around, and access to level 1 wands is assumed to be quite certain (small towns having a 75% chance each week of carrying them).

I tend to run "magic shops" as the single caster in the place who only makes scrolls, potions, and MAYBE wands or arms/armor. Cheapo magic items would rule the day, unless you want to commission something, and then you have to wait for a goodly while. The nice thing about using a setting as developed as Forgotten Realms is that you know what the highest level caster in the city is, and can give creation feats to it, but there are still limitations as to what they can pull off. And having difficult travel with random encounter charts means being in a big city every now and then is important.


Funky Badger wrote:
Cpt.Caine wrote:
beej67 wrote:
The synthesist summoner with 3 dump stats is verifiably broken.
If that is the yard stick, Fighters are broken as well.

Fighters can't get Pounce, Evasion, 40ft movement, +6 NA, 3 attacks per round and Darkvision at 2nd level.

We've been through this before.

My point <<<<<

you<<<<<<.

I was only countering that 3 dump stats does not equal broken.


ericthetolle wrote:

Aww, is the fighter feeling outmatched and underpowered?

My mage astral projects from his private dimension, casts Time Stop, Gates in four Solars, casts Bigby's Middle Finger at the fighter, and leaves to do something more interesting.

So you were talking about Summoners being broken? Please continue.

Seriously, the problem as always, isn't that commoners are overpowered our unbalanced. The problem lies with fighters and rogues.

+1 internets to you sir.

Well said.


Cpt.Caine wrote:
ericthetolle wrote:

Aww, is the fighter feeling outmatched and underpowered?

My mage astral projects from his private dimension, casts Time Stop, Gates in four Solars, casts Bigby's Middle Finger at the fighter, and leaves to do something more interesting.

So you were talking about Summoners being broken? Please continue.

Seriously, the problem as always, isn't that commoners are overpowered our unbalanced. The problem lies with fighters and rogues.

+1 internets to you sir.

Well said.

You do realize he had to use 6 9th level spell slots AND break the rules 4 times to pull that of, right?


Ilja wrote:
Cpt.Caine wrote:
ericthetolle wrote:

Aww, is the fighter feeling outmatched and underpowered?

My mage astral projects from his private dimension, casts Time Stop, Gates in four Solars, casts Bigby's Middle Finger at the fighter, and leaves to do something more interesting.

So you were talking about Summoners being broken? Please continue.

Seriously, the problem as always, isn't that commoners are overpowered our unbalanced. The problem lies with fighters and rogues.

+1 internets to you sir.

Well said.

You do realize he had to use 6 9th level spell slots AND break the rules 4 times to pull that of, right?

Yes, but do you realize that he was refuting (with sarcasm) the ridiculous comments about anything better than a fighter is broken?

That's how I interrupted his post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

meh, the only thing Fighters need is more Fighter exclusive, and decent, feats. I'm good with them as they are. Ultimately, if Pathfinder comes out with another edition, I bet Fighters will get that. And Summoners, Ninja, and Samurai won't exist, at least not as whole classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cpt.Caine wrote:


Yes, but do you realize that he was refuting (with sarcasm) the ridiculous comments about anything better than a fighter is broken?

That's how I interrupted his post.

The thing is though that he missed the point of the discussion; it isn't about who would win in a one on one, it's about what one can contribute to a party. A fighter can be the meatshield, the wizard can't (and no, regular summoning isn't very good at it). The fighter can deal massive damage, the wizard can't unless superspecialized at it.

So in that sense, the wizard and fighter doesn't compete; they can bring different things to the table.

The summoner, however, can bring what the fighter brings _and more_. If someone asks "why play a fighter when you can play a wizard?" someone might answer "because I like to be in the thick of things and smash people's heads". When someone asks "why play a fighter when you can play a summoner?" that answer doesn't work; more or less every answer to that question will be purely flavorbased rather than gameplaybased, except if you want to make an archer (which fighters are still awesome at).


Ilja wrote:
Cpt.Caine wrote:


Yes, but do you realize that he was refuting (with sarcasm) the ridiculous comments about anything better than a fighter is broken?

That's how I interrupted his post.

The thing is though that he missed the point of the discussion; it isn't about who would win in a one on one, it's about what one can contribute to a party. A fighter can be the meatshield, the wizard can't (and no, regular summoning isn't very good at it). The fighter can deal massive damage, the wizard can't unless superspecialized at it.

So in that sense, the wizard and fighter doesn't compete; they can bring different things to the table.

The summoner, however, can bring what the fighter brings _and more_. If someone asks "why play a fighter when you can play a wizard?" someone might answer "because I like to be in the thick of things and smash people's heads". When someone asks "why play a fighter when you can play a summoner?" that answer doesn't work; more or less every answer to that question will be purely flavorbased rather than gameplaybased, except if you want to make an archer (which fighters are still awesome at).

Mind you the same could be said about why play a fighter rather than a barbarian/ranger/paladin (again sans archer) who are as good as the fighters at hitting things and can do other things.


To some, the Summoner might just be too complicated to play or in the mood for. Fighters on the other hand offer some cool versatility, and do not require the same level of paperwork at all.

Eidolons are great but they begin to lose ground compared to the Fighter as they are tied to the Summoner's progression. They get full BAB, but as they don't level every time the Summoner does, it's really 3/4. Evolutions make up for this, but then there is the lack of gear as it has to share with the Summoner.

Also, if I was playing a fighter and had a summoner in the group, I would LOVE it. Something that scary will pull the attacks in it's direction, yay for me!


Wind Chime wrote:
Mind you the same could be said about why play a fighter rather than a barbarian/ranger/paladin (again sans archer) who are as good as the fighters at hitting things and can do other things.

The difference is much much smaller though, and both the ranger and paladin are only equal to/superior to the fighter in some specific circumstances (a ranger not against a favored enemy isn't that remarkable, up until the very highest levels when they have easy access to instant enemy). Barbarian is the closest to the fighter but also doesn't have that much out of combat stuff.


Ilja wrote:


Well, now I'm more talking about builds that are put forward as decently optimized in the forums. We often use far-less optimized characters and with much weirder stat arrays (had an Int 16 fighter/ranger in the last game, the one where the summoner retired), but when looking at class balance etc it's more useful to look at the builds that are hailed as good and competitive builds rather than the "s%&&s & giggles" builds.

Down with this kind of thing. I can think of little more depressing than this kind of talk.


Funky Badger wrote:
Ilja wrote:


Well, now I'm more talking about builds that are put forward as decently optimized in the forums. We often use far-less optimized characters and with much weirder stat arrays (had an Int 16 fighter/ranger in the last game, the one where the summoner retired), but when looking at class balance etc it's more useful to look at the builds that are hailed as good and competitive builds rather than the "s%&&s & giggles" builds.
Down with this kind of thing. I can think of little more depressing than this kind of talk.

I found separating in your heads mechanics from role-playing helps because it allows you to play an interesting character with a dull sheet.


Ilja wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
Mind you the same could be said about why play a fighter rather than a barbarian/ranger/paladin (again sans archer) who are as good as the fighters at hitting things and can do other things.
The difference is much much smaller though, and both the ranger and paladin are only equal to/superior to the fighter in some specific circumstances (a ranger not against a favored enemy isn't that remarkable, up until the very highest levels when they have easy access to instant enemy). Barbarian is the closest to the fighter but also doesn't have that much out of combat stuff.

in a game system where weapon abilities are handled via feat slots for the most part, the lowly Fighter is king.


i am personally a fan of Kirthfinder. it has a lot of built in fighter fixes. the issue is that isn't published and thus lacks a lot of sway in luring players. and the rules are too long to print from a laptop.


Funky Badger wrote:
Ilja wrote:


Well, now I'm more talking about builds that are put forward as decently optimized in the forums. We often use far-less optimized characters and with much weirder stat arrays (had an Int 16 fighter/ranger in the last game, the one where the summoner retired), but when looking at class balance etc it's more useful to look at the builds that are hailed as good and competitive builds rather than the "s%&&s & giggles" builds.
Down with this kind of thing. I can think of little more depressing than this kind of talk.

The thing is, many people LIKE optimizing and like playing with super-optimized characters against super-optimized encounters. Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I've gotten the impression that Ashiel's group likes to play that way (looking at ze's demon encounter and listed characters).

For those groups, balance with optimized characters is important and ultimately, a lot of class balancing need to be aimed at that group.

Everyone else has different levels of optimization, and it's very very hard to make a system that is equally balanced regardless of optimization amount without making the game boring or the choices of powers feel non-consequential.

In groups where players don't optimize, there is often rather a social contract that if one character is severely outperforming the others, that character has to be toned down a bit either in actual power or in play style.

For groups that don't optimize much at all, what's needed when it comes to balance is just that regardless of how you build you should be capable of beating the intended CR's. And I think it's very hard not to be able to beat the standard assumptions of the game unless you're either very bad tactically or have a severely gimped character. Look at the iconics - people have taken those through adventure paths, and they really blow from an optimization viewpoint (TWF fighter with longsword/shortsword is pretty horrendous).

So ultimately, when discussing class balance, there are two types of balancing that needs to occur:
- Each class should with little effort/style sacrifice be able to be viable against the standard presumptions.
- Optimized characters of a class should have a viable role in a party and not be overshadowed by other characters completely.

I think PF has done a good job on the first type, so the second type is the one I find worth to discuss.

And I like theorycrafting, I think optimizing can be really funny. And I also like playing with and DM-ing optimized characters for short, lethal adventures (four-nighter dungeon crawl campaigns with high lethality is really fun!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
Ilja wrote:


Well, now I'm more talking about builds that are put forward as decently optimized in the forums. We often use far-less optimized characters and with much weirder stat arrays (had an Int 16 fighter/ranger in the last game, the one where the summoner retired), but when looking at class balance etc it's more useful to look at the builds that are hailed as good and competitive builds rather than the "s%&&s & giggles" builds.
Down with this kind of thing. I can think of little more depressing than this kind of talk.

The thing is, many people LIKE optimizing and like playing with super-optimized characters against super-optimized encounters. Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I've gotten the impression that Ashiel's group likes to play that way (looking at ze's demon encounter and listed characters).

For those groups, balance with optimized characters is important and ultimately, a lot of class balancing need to be aimed at that group.

Everyone else has different levels of optimization, and it's very very hard to make a system that is equally balanced regardless of optimization amount without making the game boring or the choices of powers feel non-consequential.

In groups where players don't optimize, there is often rather a social contract that if one character is severely outperforming the others, that character has to be toned down a bit either in actual power or in play style.

For groups that don't optimize much at all, what's needed when it comes to balance is just that regardless of how you build you should be capable of beating the intended CR's. And I think it's very hard not to be able to beat the standard assumptions of the game unless you're either very bad tactically or have a severely gimped character. Look at the iconics - people have taken those through adventure paths, and they really blow from an optimization viewpoint (TWF fighter with longsword/shortsword is pretty horrendous).

So ultimately, when discussing class...

Agree with everything you say.

The biggest downside of *waves hands* all this internet connectivity-ness stuff is that now all games are connected. Which means the excesses of outlying groups become critical for balancing purposes, leading to rules designed to reign them in being applied to everyone.

Dictatorship of the minority. I'm sure there are some real-world examples that could be furnished :-)


I suppose that classes which mix melee and casting effectively can sometimes upset players who opted for one or the other or just like more well defined party roles.

AnnoyingOrange wrote:
I hope you understand that part about the darkvision was a joke right ?

No, I actually thought you were serious. Funky Badger mentioned darkvision as something Fighters "can't get". I felt that implied it is part of the eidolon's "unfair advantage" and thought you were agreeing with him. Perhaps I missed some context.

Ilja wrote:
When comparing fighter to synthesist (which is what it should probably be compared to) the issue is that the synth is about as good a front-liner as the fighter (better at some levels) while at the same time being about as skilled as a rogue and the hands-down best non-full-caster in the game.

I was really thinking of Fighter vs Eidolon rather than Fighter vs Synthesist. Fighting as well as a Fighter doesn't seem special given the boards' low opinion of the Fighter. The Fighters we've seen in my home games have been effective enough at standing and trading blows but rather limited in versatility and mobility. The Synthesist is probably a lot better in those ways, but so are some other classes (Druids can fly, swim, and earth glide, for instance)

I might be failing to see the power of the Synthesist since the only one I've seen in play has been a comical failure most of the time. The player is inexperienced and perhaps a bit unlucky though, so I'm sure the archetype has more potential than I've seen. Compared to my standard Summoner I think I'd miss the action economy benefit of being able to cast (or whatever) while the eidolon does something else (or we both use wands)


AnnoyingOrange wrote:

]I was really thinking of Fighter vs Eidolon rather than Fighter vs Synthesist. Fighting as well as a Fighter doesn't seem special given the boards' low opinion of the Fighter. The Fighters we've seen in my home games have been effective enough at standing and trading blows but rather limited in versatility and mobility. The Synthesist is probably a lot better in those ways, but so are some other classes (Druids can fly, swim, and earth glide, for instance)

I might be failing to see the power of the Synthesist since the only one I've seen in play has been a comical failure most of the time. The player is inexperienced and perhaps a bit unlucky though, so I'm sure the archetype has more potential than I've seen. Compared to my standard Summoner I think I'd miss the action economy benefit of being able to cast (or whatever) while the eidolon does something else (or we both use wands)

Well, comparing a whole class to a class feature seems a bit unfair; the eidolon alone is weaker than an optimized fighter at most levels, but there's a summoner attached to that eidolon as well. Thus the synth is more appropriate to compare since it doesn't upset action economy as badly.

The thing with druids is that if they're built for melee, their shapeshifting is about as versatile as the summoners and they're nearly as good at fighting but their casting will be worse than the summoner's. If they're built for casting, their versatility with shapeshifting is mostly useful out of combat and it doesn't stand a chance in melee.

The standard summoner is very very effective offensively, and in the hands of a skilled player against not as skilled enemies can trivialize encounters, but it has several weaknesses that can be exploited by smart enemies.

Synthesists aren't as brutal offensively, but shores up for that in having virtually no weaknesses that isn't shared by at least half the classes (I'd say it's the toughest melee build around, potentially out-deffed by a defensive paladin but then the paladin will have lousy offense - which the synth doesn't have).

Here you have an example of a synthesist at level 5.

The attacks are Claws +9/+9/+9/+9 (1d4+10+1d6), it has 75 hp, 28 AC and saves +6/+5/+8. And it's out all day.

Regardless of what class one would pick it'd be hard to match those stats in melee. Sangalor did a try with fighter but IMO it didn't go that well (the stats are in that thread). You can get 28 AC as a 5th level fighter - but have to give up most of your damage output and you'll have lousy saves. A paladin might work better both for saves and hp, but will have low damage output against anything but the very limited number of smites she'll have.


Ilja wrote:


If you're going to show the uberness of wizards (which I agree is there) it'd be quite a bit more interesting if you didn't spend 6 ninth level slots AND break the rules to do it.

1. Wizards are the most powerful class.

2. Wizards are one of the least played classes (obv. in my experience)

Why aren't all "the optimisers" playing wizards instead of archers or barbarians?

It's my conjecture that the majority of optimisers aren't actually that good at making the system work for them, so they want something nice and easy with big numbers at the end of it. So, a sorceror or an archer (the simplest of fighters, desn't even have to move).

It surely takes the best of players to make a monk that's over-powered.

/rant.


Funky Badger wrote:
Ilja wrote:


If you're going to show the uberness of wizards (which I agree is there) it'd be quite a bit more interesting if you didn't spend 6 ninth level slots AND break the rules to do it.

1. Wizards are the most powerful class.

2. Wizards are one of the least played classes (obv. in my experience)

Why aren't all "the optimisers" playing wizards instead of archers or barbarians?

It's my conjecture that the majority of optimisers aren't actually that good at making the system work for them, so they want something nice and easy with big numbers at the end of it. So, a sorceror or an archer (the simplest of fighters, desn't even have to move).

It surely takes the best of players to make a monk that's over-powered.

/rant.

1. I agree that wizards are the most powerful class at very high levels, though I don't think that they're always the most useful, depending on party composition. I'd much rather have a wizard/summoner/oracle/ranger party than a wizard/wizard/wizard/wizard party. So yeah, generally I agree, but not always.

2. I have different experience, when playing with optimizers. I've probably never been in or run a scenario for hard play with no wizards in the party.

3. Because a. if all optimizers play wizards you'll have a suboptimal party, b. because wizards aren't the most powerful at all levels and all types of campaigns and c. because people can also like a certain kind of gameplay and will then optimize within that. If they like melee combat they'll try to optimize for melee combat. And of course d. while wizards are very powerful if allowed to do what they want, a LOT can be reigned in with DM decisions and is depending on scenario design. A wizard that doesn't get much sleep won't be casting many spells at all.

The thing is that when you play in a scenario adjusted for optimized characters you'll have to be three times as good to succeed at it with a monk. I mean, when I lead scenarios for optimizers I often give them several CR+3 encounters in a day and use Tucker's Koboldish tactics on them etc. If someone where to bring a monk and survive they'd have a lot of respect, but if they brought a monk and that led to a TPK people wouldn't be as happy. I'd say rogues and monks are generally the weakest and hardest to make useful, while fighters can be useful as archers (but only as archers). I tend to mix in a lot of neutral enemies and have long adventuring days, something that has led to a decline in paladin popularity.

Then again, we rarely go beyond level 8, and the optimized playthroughs are generally level 5-6 (two sessions level 5, two sessions level 6).

But when optimisation is discussed on the boards, there seems to be a generalization of optimized games being high-level. A LOT changes in class balance and optimization approach depending on if you're level 5 or 15.


Ilja, it sounds like you've got a bigger problem with the Synthesist than with the regular Summoner. The Synthesist is kind of a weirdo. The regular Summoner is a little like a Druid with a strong animal companion. The Synthesist is something else altogether and has some special mechanics all its own. I haven't noticed it being overpowered yet, but I'd agree that it is complicated and difficult to adjudicate (which ultimately might be worse in some ways)

It sounds like you're running some scenarios which are very far from "by the book" and then cap them at a fairly low level. I'd be surprised if that didn't skew which classes seem useful to you. Our groups play mostly APs and modules with a little DM tweaking (or maybe a lot in one of our current campaigns). Maybe Summoners are especially good in these scenarios. I can see how the ability to use the eidolon as long as it lasts and then bust out the Summon Monster SLA repeatedly could be great for unusually long adventuring days. By contrast, an Alchemist with Fast Bombs is completely ridiculous on a short adventuring day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ilja talk sense... :-)


Funky Badger wrote:
Ilja wrote:


If you're going to show the uberness of wizards (which I agree is there) it'd be quite a bit more interesting if you didn't spend 6 ninth level slots AND break the rules to do it.

1. Wizards are the most powerful class.

2. Wizards are one of the least played classes (obv. in my experience)

Why aren't all "the optimisers" playing wizards instead of archers or barbarians?

It's my conjecture that the majority of optimisers aren't actually that good at making the system work for them, so they want something nice and easy with big numbers at the end of it. So, a sorceror or an archer (the simplest of fighters, desn't even have to move).

It surely takes the best of players to make a monk that's over-powered.

/rant.

wizards are not the most powerful class.

the most powerful class is the master summoner. and it's not close.

they are not played often because most GM's ban them. The people who i know and i observed saw play the class, eventually all quit thier characters, because they trivilized every encounter.


Ilja wrote:
Cpt.Caine wrote:
ericthetolle wrote:

Aww, is the fighter feeling outmatched and underpowered?

My mage astral projects from his private dimension, casts Time Stop, Gates in four Solars, casts Bigby's Middle Finger at the fighter, and leaves to do something more interesting.

So you were talking about Summoners being broken? Please continue.

Seriously, the problem as always, isn't that commoners are overpowered our unbalanced. The problem lies with fighters and rogues.

+1 internets to you sir.

Well said.

You do realize he had to use 6 9th level spell slots AND break the rules 4 times to pull that of, right?

*handwave* custom designed spells or something. Or, tell me what rules I broke, and I'll do something else. It's a wizard. They always have something else.

The real point, is that after a certain point, fighters are pretty much useless for anything other than having Dominate Person cast on them so they'll attack their own party. So comparing an actual competent class to a fighter is unfair.


Devilkiller wrote:
Ilja, it sounds like you've got a bigger problem with the Synthesist than with the regular Summoner. The Synthesist is kind of a weirdo. The regular Summoner is a little like a Druid with a strong animal companion. The Synthesist is something else altogether and has some special mechanics all its own. I haven't noticed it being overpowered yet, but I'd agree that it is complicated and difficult to adjudicate (which ultimately might be worse in some ways)

I have a problem with several design decisions for both, and think both can very easily overshadow other party members unless everyone else is a good optimizer. It's much easier to make a very effective summoner than a fighter/rogue/monk/cleric/bard/most other classes, not the least because you can retrain the whole eidolon every single level.

Devilkiller wrote:
It sounds like you're running some scenarios which are very far from "by the book" and then cap them at a fairly low level.

We generally play at quite low levels, yes, but level 8 is still over half a standard AP. And we've played through AP's too. But we mostly play with quite lowly optimized characters against enemies around the standard assumption or a little bit harder.

Quote:
Our groups play mostly APs and modules with a little DM tweaking (or maybe a lot in one of our current campaigns). Maybe Summoners are especially good in these scenarios. I can see how the ability to use the eidolon as long as it lasts and then bust out the Summon Monster SLA repeatedly could be great for unusually long adventuring days. By contrast, an Alchemist with Fast Bombs is completely ridiculous on a short adventuring day.

Agreed. But any optimized character of most classes (the exceptions would probably be rogue and monk) will blow through an AP. The thing is that the summoner is very easy to accidentally optimize. It's like a fighter (though better) where all trap feats are completely removed and all things you can choose are awesome. The difference isn't enormous if everyone is skilled and can choose the best options, but if people aren't as skilled (or don't try to optimize) the class with only good options will be far ahead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ericthetolle wrote:

*handwave* custom designed spells or something. Or, tell me what rules I broke, and I'll do something else. It's a wizard. They always have something else.

The real point, is that after a certain point, fighters are pretty much useless for anything other than having Dominate Person cast on them so they'll attack their own party. So comparing an actual competent class to a fighter is unfair.

Actually, when you cast Gate to call in Solars four times, it failed, so you have no slots left and your time stop is up, and the solars might be pissed that you bugger them so much...

But no. Fighters can be very useful and do fill a niche, especially as archers. There was an example back when there was only Core of a (core only, obviously) fighter that could quite easily beat a Pit Fiend in single combat; that's a CR+4 encounter. IIRC it one-rounded it with the bow with little issues - and that was core only.

Wizards are very powerful, but a lot of their power comes from players who think "I'm a wizard, I can ignore the rules" (as you just did) or that just write shroedinger wizards online. When used in actual play, while they are powerful, they are far from the only class that matters.

Any class, barring potentially rogue and monk (though with archetypes they too) can murder anything within the standard assumptions of the game with little issue.

And custom designed spells have little against a use-activated Bow of True Strike and Time Stop and a readied action... So there ya have it...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
ericthetolle wrote:

*handwave* custom designed spells or something. Or, tell me what rules I broke, and I'll do something else. It's a wizard. They always have something else.

The real point, is that after a certain point, fighters are pretty much useless for anything other than having Dominate Person cast on them so they'll attack their own party. So comparing an actual competent class to a fighter is unfair.

Actually, when you cast Gate to call in Solars four times, it failed, so you have no slots left and your time stop is up, and the solars might be pissed that you bugger them so much...

But no. Fighters can be very useful and do fill a niche, especially as archers. There was an example back when there was only Core of a (core only, obviously) fighter that could quite easily beat a Pit Fiend in single combat; that's a CR+4 encounter. IIRC it one-rounded it with the bow with little issues - and that was core only.

Wizards are very powerful, but a lot of their power comes from players who think "I'm a wizard, I can ignore the rules" (as you just did) or that just write shroedinger wizards online. When used in actual play, while they are powerful, they are far from the only class that matters.

Any class, barring potentially rogue and monk (though with archetypes they too) can murder anything within the standard assumptions of the game with little issue.

And custom designed spells have little against a use-activated Bow of True Strike and Time Stop and a readied action... So there ya have it...

not to mention you wasted 10,000 gold on 4 useless gate spells, a fighter could UMD an anti-magic shell and rip you apart for considerably less gold.

151 to 200 of 305 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Summoner: Broken or Awesome All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.