| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's been a number of threads on this.
The Summoner is not Over powered, but the Master Summoner may be.
The Summoner is a huge spotlight hog, and takes a lot of table time. This can be reduced by rules such as you must have the summoned monster ready to go, etc. Still, extra work for the DM, takes table time from the other players. "Not cricket, wot?"
The Eidolon is very easy to mis-calculate, almost every build I have seen is wrong, and 90% of the time wrong in favor of being over-powered. More work for the DM.
The class gets some of the best spells a level early, which hugely offsets it's "only" 6 level casting.
The synthesist is a rule nitemare, more FAQ & errata than any similar class. Not for beginners, and a lot of extra work for the DM.
And I agree with James Jacobs in that it's flavor is off. It should not have been a "build your own monster' so much.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
(1) The eidolon is super easy to min/max to be an amazing combatant.
(2) the summoner is easy to min-max to be a good support/skill character because it never needs to engage in combat because the eidolon is up front.
(3) The Summoner gets to cast summoning spells as a standard action - which is pretty crazy good.
(4) The Summoner get access to some pretty powerful spells earlier than any other class (Haste, Black Tentacles).
(5) Between the Eidolon and the Summoner they get a lot of Feats and skills, more than most casters and full BAB classes.
It's class that is neat in concept and can be fun to play, but if someone puts in the time they can really make an exceptionally strong and versatile character that outpaces many other classes. I don't mind a Paladin being better than my Fighter, but when a class feature is better than my Fighter I get a little frustrated.
I'll take a shot.
Summoning is recognized as a strong tactic due to multiplying a user's action economy, which is seen as an effective underlying premise in combats. The Summoner gets more summons (via spell-like ability) that have a significantly longer duration (i.e. better summons).
Additionally, the Summoner's spell list contains multiple highly rated spells that are allowed to him as spells of a lower level than normal, offsetting the class's slower casting progression in many instances. This also leads to potential abuse when it comes to crafting magic items, the pricing of which is often spell level and caster level dependent.
When it comes to gameplay, a less than prepared Summoner can slow the game to a halt as he has to assign actions and consider tactics for a sometimes large number of creatures.
And the eidolon doesn't seem to suck too much.
But I'm no Summoner expert by any means.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The eidolon is way better than a animal companion
The summoner has a 9 level spell list masquerading as a 6 levels spell list (he get 9th level spells as 6th level spells) and existentially get all the "must have" spells in his list.
Playing two characters almost all the time. While a AC is an animal, a eidolon is a fully intelligent creature managed by the player.
It don't pay anything for that. BAB 3/4, as all other classes with 6 levels of spells but it get 9th level spells, able to use light armors, proficient with simple weapons, between his skill list and that of the eidolon he cover all the needed skills and he get 6 skill level between his two characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
but when a class feature is better than my Fighter I get a little frustrated.
Quoted for truth
- Torger
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My explanation is that no matter what your hot-button issue is, the summoner is almost sure to touch on it at some point.
Do you dislike:
- Characters who take more time per turn than others (with equally good players)?
- Save-or-suck spells?
- Superpowerful melee?
- Builds that can't be easily understood by anyone at the table?
- Overlap of class abilities with existing classes?
- Increased chance of honest mistakes resulting in overpowering builds?
- Dump stats?
People can (and do) argue about whether any or all of those items are true but if you have something that you think is "not how the game should be played" you are going to find something to point at in the summoner class as an example.
To simplify things the summoner itself played by an average player is fine. Most of the issues. Lie with the eidolon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been noticing a little on here some Summoner-bashing. Particularly from one of the Pathfinder designers. What I don't get is why? Can someone give me an in-depth list of reasons why? I have yet to see what the issue is on them?
1. Synthesist is borked. Obscene AC and Damage far outclassing anything reasonable close to level with it.
2. Master summoner is basically unplayable do to turn length. Spamming summons is less broken as it is a complete drag on play. A very conscious player can keep the turns short, but this is an exception.
3. General summoner's spell list is REALLY good. To the point that they can tangle with fullcasters. Magic item abuses do to the 6th level casting are also a problem.
4. The eidolon outclasses most martials while being extremely expendable. Even if it does die you can replace it as a standard actions with a summon monster spell of appropriate level. "reviving" the eidolon is cheap(free) and easy.
5. Rules bloat. Addressing the above 4 requires a lot of rules discussions if you want to avoid ad'hoc house-rules. And even after perfectly understanding all the rules the summoner may still end up being far too strong for your party.
NOTE: Synthesist is the only class that I would outright ban. I don't have a problem with Master summoners because the player would just lose actions if they took to long just like anyone else at my table.
I think one of the summoner's other issues is that it's very easy to optimize one since most of the best options for a melee eidolon are pretty self-evident. Give it lots of hard-hitting attacks, make it big and strong, pump its armor. Very simple, and very powerful.
Plus, as other people have mentioned, the class can get a bit complicated and easily bog down the game if the player doesn't have all the rules straight. Combine that with easy to optimize, and you have a class that can really mess up games unless everyone at the table has good system mastery and planning skills. Otherwise, you end up with a character whose way more powerful than the rest of the party, and whose combat actions eat up a ton of table time. Bad combination.
Even some of its 'weak/trap' archetypes have hidden depths. The first worlder archetype is generally considered weak since it turns the eidolon into a fey (1/2 BAB rather than the full of normal eidolons) and it switches out Summon monster for summon nature's allies with a few weak fey additions....
Until you realize that it gives you pugwampis on the SNAII list. Those things are mostly seen as low level annoyances... but the fact still remains- they have an unluck aura going out to 20' (so a circle of 45' with it at the center) that is basically an automatic AoE Mistforunte hex. Yes, it forces everything sentient to roll twice and take the worse result on attacks, skills, saves...pretty much everything important. And this is from some weak creature that you can spam 2-4 of by level 5...which means that everything is affect the whole battlefield with unluck.
And it has an absurdly easy loophole so it doesn't affect allies: luck bonuses protects you from it. Half-orcs, archaeologist bards, people with luck stones or the Jingasa of the Fortunate soldier, etc. can all act normally while everything else has to reroll. And that is if you even need to do rolls in the first place. Imagine a Save or Suck wizard in this environment! And the other major loop hole, animals, are also an asset since you still have SNA as your SLA... meaning that your lap-dog people can go around riding T-rexes without any problems.
And even if the enemies target the pugwampis with their base 6 HP... well, those are turns they are not trying to deal with your party. These things are disposable nodes that hamper and distract enemies, not combatants. They spread out and then just sit there taking potshots with its shortbow for all it matters. And unlike a witch, you don't have to go up into the fray yourself for your 'misfortune' to work.
With all this, you turn into a no risk, one (very good) trick pony witch with your '6 spell levels'. Moral of the story- some of the summoner's features might not have been ENTIRELY thought through. The class is just filled with hidden gems that should have been given much more weight and attention.
Even some of its 'weak/trap' archetypes have hidden depths. The first worlder archetype is generally considered weak since it turns the eidolon into a fey (1/2 BAB rather than the full of normal eidolons) and it switches out Summon monster for summon nature's allies with a few weak fey additions....
Until you realize that it gives you pugwampis on the SNAII list. Those things are mostly seen as low level annoyances... but the fact still remains- they have an unluck aura going out to 20' (so a circle of 45' with it at the center) that is basically an automatic AoE Mistforunte hex. Yes, it forces everything sentient to roll twice and take the worse result on attacks, skills, saves...pretty much everything important. And this is from some weak creature that you can spam 2-4 of by level 5...which means that everything is affect the whole battlefield with unluck.
And it has an absurdly easy loophole so it doesn't affect allies: luck bonuses protects you from it. Half-orcs, archaeologist bards, people with luck stones or the Jingasa of the Fortunate soldier, etc. can all act normally while everything else has to reroll. And that is if you even need to do rolls in the first place. Imagine a Save or Suck wizard in this environment! And the other major loop hole, animals, are also an asset since you still have SNA as your SLA... meaning that your lap-dog people can go around riding T-rexes without any problems.
And even if the enemies target the pugwampis with their base 6 HP... well, those are turns they are not trying to deal with your party. These things are disposable nodes that hamper and distract enemies, not combatants. They spread out and then just sit there taking potshots with its shortbow for all it matters. And unlike a witch, you don't have to go up into the fray yourself for your 'misfortune' to work.
With all this, you turn into a no risk, one (very good) trick pony...
Did you mention how that archetype allows for both the eidolon and an unlimted amount of SLAs out at the same time?
First worlder is far from weak.
My favorite 'trick' is master summoner with the neutral summons feat. They can summon a stirges with a level 1 summon. As a 3rd level summons with the right feats it summons 1d4+2. That's 1d4+2 +9 touch attacks that drain 1 Con. That dragon is auto-hit on anything but a 1 for 1d4+2 con loss with no save. And if it doesn't waste some kind of area attack on itself it's taking the same con damage next round...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The summoner is extremely easy to make overpowered, and even those who think it isn't by default OP admit to this as well. It's to the point where you can honest-to-god accidentally make an OP summoner. That's very hard to do with other classes.
It steals the spotlight too easily, due to having a *great* spell list for a 6th level caster, as well as by default having a creature that is on par and most of the time better than a fighter at doing damage.
If their eidolon goes down, they have the best backup ability in the game: Summon Monster as a SLA. And it doesn't dip into the spells-per-day, like a Druid's does. And SM is better than SNA anyhow.
I think what is best for my games is to limit this class to specific player types. The types that want something efficient but are not the type to number crunch. I have a player who would enjoy this class, not take too long on his turn, and not bother min-maxing as he is the type to just want to dive into the action and could care less on number crunching. But he is capable enough to handle the customizing at least, as well.
It seems like min-maxers turned this into a nightmare, though again, I have min-maxers that have turned gish-types into real nightmares at the table. I have one player that makes everyone groan when his turn comes up. Heck, he even takes forever taking his Fighter 8/Warblade 5 turn due to the extensive set of feat combos and martial maneuvers.
I think what everyone is trying to say is that it is not hard to break a summoner and can be done acidentally.
Synthesist epitomizes this. One of my GMs wanted to use a synthesist BBEG, but he is having to spend extra time underoptimising it to make it remotely fair and beatable.
Lets just not bring up the Half-Elf+Wild Caller summoner... ALL THE EVO POINTS!!!!
Did you mention how that archetype allows for both the eidolon and an unlimted amount of SLAs out at the same time?
First worlder is far from weak.
It does? Are you sure you aren't thinking of the master summoner?
Hmmm... reading it, I can vaguely see what you mean, depending on the interpretation. I always just assumed it worked like the regular summoner... but because its replaces the normal summoning SLA, and goes to nowhere near the same length in describing itself, it might work that way (Both good and bad though).
So... I guess this issue and line of questioning is part of the problem, huh? They put just a bit too much there for them to properly handle everything properly. Overambitious, basically. I got this impression from the eidolon rules too: they tried to make a set of rules for players to make monster like the designers would... but couldn't distill all the considerations into an intelligible form (the chaos that the claws evo did on the rules forums; so many Half-orc raised Catfolk Barbarians were born from that...)
Did you mention how that archetype allows for both the eidolon and an unlimted amount of SLAs out at the same time?
First worlder is far from weak.
It does? Are you sure you aren't thinking of the master summoner?
Hmmm... reading it, I can vaguely see what you mean, depending on the interpretation. I always just assumed it worked like the regular summoner... but because its replaces the normal summoning SLA, and goes to nowhere near the same length in describing itself, it might work that way (Both good and bad though).
So... I guess this issue and line of questioning is part of the problem, huh? They put just a bit too much there for them to properly handle everything properly. Overambitious, basically. I got this impression from the eidolon rules too: they tried to make a set of rules for players to make monster like the designers would... but couldn't distill all the considerations into an intelligible form (the chaos that the claws evo did on the rules forums; so many Half-orc raised Catfolk Barbarians were born from that...)
Starting at 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. Drawing upon this ability uses up the same power as the summoner uses to call his eidolon. As a result, he can only use this ability when his eidolon is not summoned. He can cast this spell as a standard action and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level). At 3rd level, and every 2 levels thereafter, the power of this ability increases by one spell level, allowing him to summon more powerful creatures (to a maximum of summon monster IX at 17th level). At 19th level, this ability can be used as gate or summon monster IX. If used as gate, the summoner must pay any required material components. A summoner cannot have more than one summon monster or gate spell active in this way at one time. If this ability is used again, any existing summon monster or gate immediately ends. These summon spells are considered to be part of his spell list for the purposes of spell trigger and spell completion items. In addition, he can expend uses of this ability to fufill the construction requirements of any magic item he creates, so long as he can use this ability to cast the required spell.
Starting at 1st level, a first worlder can cast summon nature’s ally a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. At levels where a summoner would gain a more powerful summon monster spell as a spell-like ability, he instead gains the equivalent summon nature’s ally spell (at 19th level, he can use summon nature’s ally IX or gate). When a first worlder gains a summon nature’s ally spell as a spell-like ability, he adds it to his class spell list (he must still select it as a spell known if he wants to cast it as an actual spell).This ability otherwise replaces the summon monster ability of a normal summoner.
Notice the admissions in the first worlder ability.
Also:
The synthesist archetype causes all sorts of problems, though. If you feel that the combination causes too much problems or complexity... then simply don't allow those two sets of rules to mix.Really. That does some VERY disgusting things to action economy when combined with the synthesist archetype (which is what balances synthesist archetype, kind of...)Does the First-World Summoner's Summon Nature Ally work like Summoner's Summon Monster (reduced casting time, increased duration, no eidolon) or is the RaW implication (standard casting time/duration, but can cast with eidolon out) intentional?Intentional.
EDIT: TIL that apparently you can combine first worlder with synthesist. *shudders*
Did you mention how that archetype allows for both the eidolon and an unlimted amount of SLAs out at the same time?
First worlder is far from weak.
It does? Are you sure you aren't thinking of the master summoner?
Hmmm... reading it, I can vaguely see what you mean, depending on the interpretation. I always just assumed it worked like the regular summoner... but because its replaces the normal summoning SLA, and goes to nowhere near the same length in describing itself, it might work that way (Both good and bad though).
So... I guess this issue and line of questioning is part of the problem, huh? They put just a bit too much there for them to properly handle everything properly. Overambitious, basically. I got this impression from the eidolon rules too: they tried to make a set of rules for players to make monster like the designers would... but couldn't distill all the considerations into an intelligible form (the chaos that the claws evo did on the rules forums; so many Half-orc raised Catfolk Barbarians were born from that...)
Actually it is very clear. You can summon both your Eidolon and your summon monsters at the same time. But, unlike a master summoner, you do not get an increased number of summons.
This is really the only way to look at it... if you prohibit the eidolon and the SNA to happen at the same time (despite the rules never mentioning they are, unlike a base summoner), then the First Worlder would literally be a strictly worse summoner in every way shape and form.
Actually it is very clear. You can summon both your Eidolon and your summon monsters at the same time. But, unlike a master summoner, you do not get an increased number of summons.
This is really the only way to look at it... if you prohibit the eidolon and the SNA to happen at the same time (despite the rules never mentioning they are, unlike a base summoner), then the First Worlder would literally be a strictly worse summoner in every way shape and form.
Well, my problem (and the deeper problem most people find with summoners in general) is that it is not 'clear' (although JJ's comment did help Marcus, thank you). It lacks the restrictive language of the normal summoner, but it also lacks the permissive language of the master summoner.
Essentially, it is so bare bones that it just came naturally to me to think that it meant 'like normal, but slightly different'. It doesn't help that you could make it literally say that by changing out the word 'replaces' with something like 'replicates' (or maybe a less awkward phrase) in the last line of the text Marcus posted.
Also, I went on a rather long discussion about how first worlders have a rather weird advantage with just the addition of pugwampis alone to their summoning list. Rather than the master of monsters like most summoners, it acts more like a wannabe witch with that trick.
Here is why I don't allow summoners at my table...
1) Spell list is really off. Keystone spells are listed at levels that break many assumptions of the game. Before I'd allow summoners, I'd have to re-write their spell list.
2) Players of summoners effectively have two characters at the table, and will hog almost twice the spotlight of the other players. That's just not fair to the other players.
3) I don't like the "build your own monster" part of the eidolon mechanic. At all. I believe that monster design should be the exclusive purview of the GM. While I like the concept of "a spellcaster that always summons the same extraplanar helper," I would have much preferred that it worked more like a druid's animal companion: A list of outsider types that increase in power in standard ways.
4) The whole "build your own" concept of summoners is too abuseable by players who know either too much or too little. The last thing I want to do as a GM is to constantly double-check my players' math. Because no matter what happens when you check your player's math, someone gets insulted.
Bottom line: the summoner causes far more problems at the table than just about any other class. It's far easier to just say "no summoners" than to try to fix the class.
I'm looking forward to Pathfinder Unchained to see the alternate rules for the summoner. If the alternate rules address my issues, I will reconsider the class at my table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 7th level Summoner who saves 14,000 GP can single-handedly end three PFS encounters per day.
At 7th level, the Summoner learns Wall of Fire as a 3rd level spell.
14,000 gold gets you a Lesser Rod of Dazing Spell good for 3rd level spells.
At 7th level, your SLA is Summon Monster IV. You can summon 1d3 Dretches.
Cast Dazing Wall of Fire. Target takes damage, target has to make a Will save. If the save is failed, the target is dazed in the space they took the damage in...for 3 rounds. Each round the target is dazed, they take damage and have to make a new save; each failed save re-sets the duration of the Daze.
Summon Dretches into the ring of fire. Let them burp their nausea clouds and eat the dazed opponents. Since Dretches have Resist Fire 10, they don't take damage from the Ring of Fire, and they don't have to make a save against the Dazing effect. The dretches will try to grapple anyone who isn't Dazed and play goalkeeper.
Two rounds of actions, the rest of the fight is "Eh, let's see if anything makes it out."
(Dazing Metamagic SERIOUSLY needs to be fixed so that it only applies to spells with an Instantaneous duration, and only dazes for 1 round. We refer to Dazing Wall of Fire as Dazing F##!wall when it shows up at the table.)
|
|
To simplify things the summoner itself played by an average player is fine. Most of the issues. Lie with the eidolon.
You realize that that translate to: "The summoner alone is at least as strong as the weakest classes and then he get an extra body"?
BTW, that extra body is immortal as long as the summoner exist. It is slain? tomorrow it will be back. Or a 2nd level spell can call it back for 1 minute level (albeit with some lingering damage for having been slain).
Here is why I don't allow summoners at my table...
1) Spell list is really off. Keystone spells are listed at levels that break many assumptions of the game. Before I'd allow summoners, I'd have to re-write their spell list.
That is easy to fix, reset the spells to their original levels.
2) Players of summoners effectively have two characters at the table, and will hog almost twice the spotlight of the other players. That's just not fair to the other players.
This goes for anyone with an animal companion or a familiar.
3) I don't like the "build your own monster" part of the eidolon mechanic. At all. I believe that monster design should be the exclusive purview of the GM. While I like the concept of "a spellcaster that always summons the same extraplanar helper," I would have much preferred that it worked more like a druid's animal companion: A list of outsider types that increase in power in standard ways.
Nothing to be done. It's the central mechanic of the class.
4) The whole "build your own" concept of summoners is too abuseable by players who know either too much or too little. The last thing I want to do as a GM is to constantly double-check my players' math. Because no matter what happens when you check your player's math, someone gets insulted.
This goes for almost anything in Pathfinder. If you know what feats or spells are powerful, which animal companions or familiars are strong, you can pick those. If the summoner's eidolon mechanic is to be singled out, it must be because of some specific option it gets. And the one culprit I can think of is the high number of attacks combined with pounce. Even the strongest animal companion does not go beyond 3 attacks with pounce. If it's really that, there is a simple solution: Never allow more than 3 attacks. If you do this, though, better allow players to buy back the default evolutions of their eidolons, so they can have some options regarding what attacks to use.
Bottom line: the summoner causes far more problems at the table than just about any other class. It's far easier to just say "no summoners" than to try to fix the class.
In addition to those two rulings, I would probably kick the summon monster ability for a slow scaling bonus to hit and damage when near the eidolon, +1/+1 at 5th, 11th and 18th maybe. Something to entice summoner meele and not too powerful for a 3/4 BAB class.
The eidolon is too strong when compared to similar options like animal companion, mount, familiar and it is much, much too versatile.
First it fully replaces a front line combatant, then, when the rogue player decides that he wants to reroll into a martial the summoner just exchanges the eidolon's abilities and replaces the rogue as skill monkey.
Apart from that the reduced spell levels cause too much trouble, be it with metamagic rods or crafted items (scrolls, wands, potions mostly).
Because of my first point the eidolon is much better at being a second char and grabbing the spotlight than any AC or familiar.
The summon monsters SLA is too much better than other forms of summoning. If you want a summoning focused pc you can't hope to match the summoner even with classes that once had summoning as their job.
In my opinion a first step to fixing the summoner would be to have them choose between eidolon and summoning SLA at first level like a wizard has to choose between bonded weapon and familiar.
Level 10 Eidolon (Biped) - 14EP +1 from class bonus
Evolution
Limbs (Arms) 2 EP
2x Claws 2 EP
Large 4 EP
Bite 1 EP
Energy Attacks 2 EP
Improved Armor II 2 EP
Ability Boost (Strength) 2 EP
____________________________________
Strength: 28 / +9
BAB +8
AC 10 + 2 (natural) +8 (Level Bonus) +2 natural (Size Bonus) -1 Size +4 Evolution (+4 magic armor) = 29 AC
5 primary Attacks, each:
Attack +17 (BAB 8 + 9 Str)
Damage 2d6+1d6(elemental)+9
And then there is the summoner also...
Sorry but for me this sounds a little bit...
3) I don't like the "build your own monster" part of the eidolon mechanic. At all. I believe that monster design should be the exclusive purview of the GM. While I like the concept of "a spellcaster that always summons the same extraplanar helper," I would have much preferred that it worked more like a druid's animal companion: A list of outsider types that increase in power in standard ways.Nothing to be done. It's the central mechanic of the class.
Exactly.
This is why I feel that the summoner class as written is irredeemable.
The only way to fix it is to completely throw it out and design an entirely new class from whole cloth.
That's why I'm looking forward to seeing what the devs come up with for the summoner in Pathfinder Unchained. If they have a new summoner class that addresses my concerns, then I'll allow the alternate version at my table.
Until then, summoners do not exist in my version of Golarion.
Level 10 Eidolon (Biped) - 14EP +1 from class bonus
Evolution
Limbs (Arms) 2 EP
2x Claws 2 EP
Large 4 EP
Bite 1 EP
Energy Attacks 2 EP
Improved Armor II 2 EP
Ability Boost (Strength) 2 EP
____________________________________
Strength: 28 / +9
BAB +8
AC 10 + 2 (natural) +8 (Level Bonus) +2 natural (Size Bonus) -1 Size +4 Evolution (+4 magic armor) = 29 AC5 primary Attacks, each:
Attack +17 (BAB 8 + 9 Str)
Damage 2d6+1d6(elemental)+9And then there is the summoner also...
Sorry but for me this sounds a little bit...
My tier 2 mythic level 10 26-point-buy fighter has 27 AC, +19 to-hit when power attacking and does 2d6+27 damage (34).
And that eidolon can hit at +14 for 2d6+1d6+15 (25.5) five times.
So to compare
Fighter:
+19 2d6+27
+14 2d6+27
Summoner Class Feature:
+14 3d6+15
+14 3d6+15
+14 3d6+15
+14 3d6+15
+14 3d6+15
NOTE: I would also say this eidolon is fairly under-optimized
How can versatility be the complaint when wizards are wizards? Clerics are arguably worse in their own way with that increased HD and BAB AND being a 0-9 caster.
I'm going to step in on this actually. Wizards have a long history, both in-game & fictionally, of being what they are & doing what they do. Everyone knew what a Wizard is/was before they even started playing one. They knew what they did, they knew what they were in the 'World'. Summoners... Not so much. When I first encountered the APG & heard the Class name, I figured it was going to be something more like what the Master Summoner turned out to be, only without an Eidolon. Then I read the Eidolon description & went 'what?'.
What I find grimly amusing about all the 'Summoners are broken' complaints is that they are almost exactly the opposite of all the 'Paladins are broken' complaints. In the one case, there are no Thematic/RP limitations on playstyle, which leads to player abuse; on the other, there are quite specific Thematic/RP limitations on playstyle, which also leads to abuse...
The problem with the Summoner is that it's an NPC class that PCs get to break.
@Majuba: Clearly not.
@Irnk: So we can't have anything new? That's really what your post says. Had summoners in their current incarnation since 1e then it'd have been okay? Wizards can still do more than any summoner... ever.
And as you know, not all 0-9 spell lists are equal. When someone is given the choice of playing an 18th level Wizard or an 18th level Cleric, which do they usually go for?
Certainly not an 18th level summoner.
My tier 2 mythic level 10 26-point-buy fighter has 27 AC, +19 to-hit when power attacking and does 2d6+27 damage (34).
You comparing "apples with pears".
The eidolon got this stats even if you play 15 pt.-buy, also it doesn't have any mythic tiers.To create a comparable character you have to use 20 pt.-buy (standard for Pathfinder) and no mythic.
Also the eidolon in my example has no feats and is far from optimized.
So level 10 fighter would be around:
BAB 10 Str. 18 +2(level up)+4 Belt = 24 / +7
Dex ~ 14 + Fullplate (10) + Ring of protection +3 => AC 25
AC 25
Attack: +20/15 (+2 training, +1 Focus, +2 Weapon)
Damage: 3d6+14 (+2 from weapon training +2 Specialisation)
Without PA etc. (like the Eidolon), and he don't have the ability to attack and in the same round cast a spell (like the eidolon/summoner has)
Sure it's a little weaker on the "on hit" side, but has more attacks and the most important part of it: you get an additional full-attack.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doohhh..
Seems I'm not used to people who agree with my opinion regarding this topic. :)
@Irnk: So we can't have anything new?
Sorry, No.
That was not actually my intent & I am sorry that it came off as such. What I actually meant was that, in my mind, the Summoner's big problem is that it gives you this incredibly vast & powerful toolbox with no instruction manual.
To digress slightly, we know that Paizo is coming out with a Character Companion later this year specifically detailing how the new Classes from the ACG 'fit' into Golarion. The Summoner never got that. I suspect part of why Paizo is doing this with the ACG is because they realized that of all the new classes in the APG, the summoner had the least 'fit' to Golarion & I suspect that if they had the chance, they would have made certain to establish the Summoner's Thematic 'niche' better.
Which was where I was going with my second statement comparing/contrasting Summoners & Paladins.
That was exactly his point. An un-optimized Eidolon is nearly as combat-powerful as a *mythic* Fighter.You comparing "apples with pears".
The eidolon got this stats even if you play 15 pt.-buy, also it doesn't have any mythic tiers.To create a comparable character you have to use 20 pt.-buy (standard for Pathfinder) and no mythic.
Also the eidolon in my example has no feats and is far from optimized.
Yes, it took me some time to understand it but that seems to be the message. And it is not a good one.
|
Level 10 Eidolon (Biped) - 14EP +1 from class bonus
Evolution
Limbs (Arms) 2 EP
2x Claws 2 EP
Large 4 EP
Bite 1 EP
Energy Attacks 2 EP
Improved Armor II 2 EP
Ability Boost (Strength) 2 EP
____________________________________
Strength: 28 / +9
BAB +8
AC 10 + 2 (natural) +8 (Level Bonus) +2 natural (Size Bonus) -1 Size +4 Evolution (+4 magic armor) = 29 AC5 primary Attacks, each:
Attack +17 (BAB 8 + 9 Str)
Damage 2d6+1d6(elemental)+9And then there is the summoner also...
Sorry but for me this sounds a little bit...
So, what is its AC and HP?
Should I compare all of its stats, including DPR, AC, Saves, and HP to what I can achieve at the same level with a Magus or Barbarian?
|
|
Yes, it took me some time to understand it but that seems to be the message. And it is not a good one.That was exactly his point. An un-optimized Eidolon is nearly as combat-powerful as a *mythic* Fighter.You comparing "apples with pears".
The eidolon got this stats even if you play 15 pt.-buy, also it doesn't have any mythic tiers.To create a comparable character you have to use 20 pt.-buy (standard for Pathfinder) and no mythic.
Also the eidolon in my example has no feats and is far from optimized.
Not even close.
A mythic fighter will destroy an eidolon before the eidolon ever gets a chance to react.
And for his second standard action, on round 1, he destroys the summoner.