Power Creep - Are the newer options just plain better than the Core Rulebook ones?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

My point is that all associated archetypes need to be accounted for. If an archetype is so good it replaces the main class then why would you not allow for that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To the OP. In my opinion, yes. As a matter of marketing strategy it seems like a good idea to not just present more options, but superior ones as well. Plus the new-found synergy inherent with blending old an new content together encourages more cross-pollination purchasing.

And let's face it if Pathfinder didn't make money I think that many of us would using the 3.5 SRD.

Regarding the other posts on balancing and tweaking...I'm expecting that instead of outright "replacing" the core content, Unleashed will provide even more substitutes, options and tweaks.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Looks like you had a good GM.

If you could flank fairly regularly, that was the GM either playing the monsters dumb, or being nice.

If you were able to make full use of your skills, that was thanks to the GM.

He was mostly a tracker with max ranks in perception and stealth. Most of his damage came from the opening volley of TWF-ing strikes. Afterwards, he had some maneuverability options and basically used them to regain stealth via concealment and come back in for another volley or using Feint when that wasn't possible. It was fun.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Besides the name rogue, what did the class give you mechanically that you couldn't have had otherwise?

Rogue talents, mostly. Sure, you can TWF as a fighter or whatever, but it was the blend of abilities that rogue talents brought in a singular list. Plus, having a +35 or so stealth around level 9 without invisibility was nifty. Then, tack on the ninja vanishing trick + the elven racial for full move stealth made for a great infil/exfil scout. It might have been level 10 as I recall either having taken or planning on taking Hunter's Surprise. It was over a year ago at this point so the memory is hazy.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What's so broken about the summoner? I've only seen highly specialized niche builds put it through the roof, and you can do that with most any class.


Ravingdork wrote:
What's so broken about the summoner? I've only seen highly specialized niche builds put it through the roof, and you can do that with most any class.

THEY'RE UNBALANCED!!111!!!1 is the common refrain. There's little use in rationalizing that it's an OK class at this point. The public opinion is what it is.


The Summoner does everything you need the party's caster to do while the Eidolon/Summons do everything you need the party's martials to do.

Scarab Sages

The summoner's spell list is broken, more so than the eidolon or the summon monster slas.


Arachnofiend wrote:
The Summoner does everything you need the party's caster to do while the Eidolon/Summons do everything you need the party's martials to do.

Funny part is, it's generally the Synth I see banned in games, which is probably the least problematic way to play one.

Knee-jerk reactions are giggles.


I personally love the Synthesist actually, it's cool and flavorful. I'd rather have the Synthesist as a base class than the Summoner.


Throne wrote:

Funny part is, it's generally the Synth I see banned in games, which is probably the least problematic way to play one.

Knee-jerk reactions are giggles.

I finished playing one recently. I had to adjust my numbers a couple times and double check my math. Nothing was brokenly way off, maybe a +2 too high here, a +1 too high there. The funniest one was I missed 3 points of AC I was entitled to. Most of the frustration for me came from my GM. For example, he tried to dispel the eidolon even though it's not a spell effect that keeps the eidolon summoned yet that answer seemingly wasn't sufficient for him. He just kept saying "it's a summoned creature" even after having read the dispel magic spell. It took another player explicitly finding the "you can't dispel" part or else he was insisting he could. So, yeah, obstinate GM was obstinate. Really, though, the biggest enemy of the class itself is its seeming need to over-explain itself. It creates a situation where if something isn't explicitly spelled out you don't feel confident in using the preponderance of the rules to work for you and instead are left with gray areas that really aren't yet due to the write up of the class feels like it is.


Mattastrophic wrote:

If new content was designed to patch old content, it would be clearly labeled as such. But it's not. It's pretty ludicrous to say that the Core rules don't stop at the last page of the Core Rulebook.

Also, how is a player/GM supposed to know which pieces of content are "patches" and which are not? How can a "patch" be effective if we don't even know what the "patches" are?

-Matt

Maybe not patch but natural evolution or upgrade. It doesn't invalidate the old class but gives you options to use the new classes over the old class. The rogue is perfect example, a weak class but the ACG has the Slayer and the Investigator to replace the rogue with that do the rogues job much better. You can still use the rogue though but why would you if you had the ACG?


Ravingdork wrote:
What's so broken about the summoner? I've only seen highly specialized niche builds put it through the roof, and you can do that with most any class.

The Summoner is VERY broken.

As-is, it doesn't function properly in a great many glaring ways due to unclear wording and odd typos on the Evolutions.

Though them having a 9 levele spell list crunhed into a 6 level chassis, alongside free summons and/or a beatstick and twice the actions of most other classes is a good argument for them being OP.

I don't think they're SO OP that they require banning, though. If you don't ban Wizards and Clerics there's no real reason to ban a Summoner.


The main problems with the Summoner that makes it more ban worthy than the Wizard and Cleric are A) it's so brain-dead in play that many of the higher-level imbalances will occur in lower-level play and B) it's so absurdly complicated in building that you're almost certain to bring something illegal to the table.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread has a lot of CRB talk of fighter, rogue and monk, but not much talk of wizard or cleric.

At the same time, it has a lot of talk of arcanist and summoner, and not much talk of cavalier or samurai.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The summoner, and in particular the synthesist, is problematic to so many because it's (effectively) a full caster that steals the few things the martials have going for them: physical combat and the early levels.


Wizards... okay, well, in Inner Sea Gods we have the feat Magical Epiphany which lets a wizard prepare a spell in an empty slot as a standard action once per day. Discuss...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People generally dislike summoners because they require so little planning to be so effective. Oh, my animal companion dies, I can get a new one tomorrow, or whenever I can find one if I'm in a restricting environment. Oh, my eidolon dies, Summon Monster as a standard action every round making it like it never happened. Oh, my wizard got to 5th level, I can cast Haste finally. Oh, my summoner has been doing that since 4th. Anything on par with a Cleric, Druid or Wizard is gonna give a lot of people fits, considering how many people have fits over those 3 classes.

The existence of the pounce evolution makes many people question their decision to play anything but an Eidolon with a cool sidekick Summoner to buff them when looking for a martial character.


mplindustries wrote:
The summoner, and in particular the synthesist, is problematic to so many because it's (effectively) a full caster that steals the few things the martials have going for them: physical combat and the early levels.

Yeah, I wasn't saying I don't get why anyone has problems with summoners, just that I find it funny that the people that most often tend to just seem to have a problem with the version of the class that gives up some of its biggest advantages.

DMing, I'd much rather see a Synth at the table than a vanilla Summoner, let alone a Master.


See I'd rather not see a synth.

They make so many classes not worth playing unless you just want to be strictly worse than a teammate from an objective standpoint.

Honestly though, the whole class has problems.


Uwotm8 wrote:

He was mostly a tracker with max ranks in perception and stealth. Most of his damage came from the opening volley of TWF-ing strikes. Afterwards, he had some maneuverability options and basically used them to regain stealth via concealment and come back in for another volley or using Feint when that wasn't possible. It was fun.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Besides the name rogue, what did the class give you mechanically that you couldn't have had otherwise?
Rogue talents, mostly. Sure, you can TWF as a fighter or whatever, but it was the blend of abilities that rogue talents brought in a singular list. Plus, having a +35 or so stealth around level 9 without invisibility was nifty. Then, tack on the ninja vanishing trick + the elven racial for full move stealth made for a great infil/exfil scout. It might have been level 10 as I recall either having taken or planning on taking Hunter's Surprise. It was over a year ago at this point so the memory is hazy.

Seems like you could have just as easily played a ranger and had all of that plus some spells.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Honestly though, the whole class has problems.

Still not seeing it.


Arachnofiend wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

But is it really bad power creep when a bottom-tier class creeps into the middle tier?

I do agree that the monk is the most dramatic change in a class' viability.

Most monks are still at the bottom with archetypes such as the zen archer being an exception. Overall I still consider the monk to be at the bottom because you either need a good archetype, multiclassing and/or good system mastery to make it work.

Tier lists are constructed with the assumption that the players involved are at the absolute peak of system mastery with the classes they're playing. That you're using the Monk at the very best of its abilities is assumed so writing out archetypes like the Qinggong isn't quite fair.

After all, if you don't assume system mastery then the Wizard is mid-tier at bestm

I never saw anything about "absolute best". Do you have a citation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Honestly though, the whole class has problems.
Still not seeing it.

Generic Summoner's power stems from three things, really:

1. They specialize in spells that tend to be considered, on the boards at least, as the strongest in the game. Rightly or wrongly, summons are perceived as answers to everything.

2. They outpace even the Wizard in gains of some of the more critical spells. The Magus gets Haste at level 7. The Arcanist and Sorcerer at level 6. The Wizard at level 5. And the Summoner... at level 4. This gets repeated a fair few times with a lot of good spells, which makes the whole "sixth level caster" idea turn from a disadvantage (they get better class features than the Wizard, Wizard gets better magic) to something more like a wash (yeah, Wizard gets some stuff that they don't, and probably has a better endgame, but the Summoner can still do an early-to-mid game Wizard's job about as well).

3. Eidolon evolutions are... not well priced. Pounce is available extremely early, while every other class (save Master of Many Styles at least) is waiting until level ten for it. Building a whirling dervish of natural attacking doom is extremely easy and extremely nasty at the middling levels, which can also alienate party martials by making them feel useless-- it was the same problem as CoDzilla back in 3.5 (though not as severe by all appearances), in that a class feature can be more powerful than an entire class.

Added onto that, they centralize around abilities that tend to alienate other players, namely dominating action economy. The fact that they take two turns per round when conserving resources, and much more than that when not, means they tend to hog the spotlight. When actually attempting to flood the field they can do more, and if they're a Master Summoner with a tiny bit of prep time, they can conjure an army on a whim... which starts making the other players feel a tad wasted.

Synthesists have separate issues, but that's the standard anti-Summoner arguments in a nutshell I think.


Ravingdork wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Honestly though, the whole class has problems.
Still not seeing it.

Simply, the eidolon is too strong. It's straight better than a fighter. The fighter has problems, but getting something better than the fighter as a class feature is ridiculously strong.

The summoner himself has the best 3/4th casting in the game. You could even argue that he is better than some fullcasting classes at slinging spells.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've never seen an eidolon that was a better martial than the fighter.


Ravingdork wrote:
I've never seen an eidolon that was a better martial than the fighter.

The Eidolon has a second set full set of actions and is a partial caster that has access to the best 1-6 spell list possible.

Mind you I am of the opinion that anyone who thinks Summoner is overpowered hasn't looked at the Arcanist, Cleric, Druid, Oracle, Shaman, Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch.


I believe that the main concern is the multi-tentacled pounce monster and more reliable buffs given that some people seems to believe that a cleric buffing the fighter amounts to the martial leeching of the caster's precious resources.


Tonlim wrote:
I believe that the main concern is the multi-tentacled pounce monster and more reliable buffs given that some people seems to believe that a cleric buffing the fighter amounts to the martial leeching of the caster's precious resources.

It's not something that is believed. It's an indisputable fact. If you need someone else to spend resources on you when another character can contribute the same thing you can and *doesn't* need another class to spend resources on them... that is definitely a waste of resources. Especially if that class that spending resources on the Fighter has much better ways of spending their resources like say by resolving the encounter, rather then letting the Fighter pretend to resolve the encounter.


Sure, but a buff on a dedicated melee character is often better served there than on a cleric that won't get to use it until the next round (disregarding personal exclusive spells). This IS a team based game after all, and placing the resources where they'll do the most good seems sensible to me. *shrug*

Silver Crusade

Ravingdork wrote:
I've never seen an eidolon that was a better martial than the fighter.

Really? I could make one without breaking a sweat as long as we're talking melee since there's just so much to pick from. God I love how creative you can be with those monsters...

Eidolon and Summoners have such a high floor that it's hard not to make them good, which is what gives people the concept that they're broken.

Also on the tier system, it doesn't assume 'the best', it assumes equal levels of system mastery.


Tonlim wrote:
Sure, but a buff on a dedicated melee character is often better served there than on a cleric that won't get to use it until the next round (disregarding personal exclusive spells). This IS a team based game after all, and placing the resources where they'll do the most good seems sensible to me. *shrug*

The problem *is* that IS a team based game. Mostly because one of the team mates isn't contributing as much as the rest of the team. I don't feel obligated to pass the ball to a worse striker in soccer, when I can shoot the goal myself after all.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I've never seen an eidolon that was a better martial than the fighter.
The Eidolon has a second set full set of actions and is a partial caster that has access to the best 1-6 spell list possible.

The summoner doesn't make a great martial combatant, and has a spell list chock full of buff and battlefield control spells (the latter of which can actually get in the way of the eidolon's melee abilities at times).

Sure the eidolon is pretty nifty in a fight, more so with the summoner backing it up, but I just don't see it being any better than combinations offered by other classes (such as the druid and its animal companion).


That's the thing though. Without buffs applied, the fighter IS a better striker than the cleric. And while the cleric certainly has a lot more to do (debuffing, offensive spellcasting, crowd control etc.), when we speak strictly about non personal-only buffs this is the difference between spending an action on making the cleric a GREAT striker and making the fighter an EVEN GREATER one. And unless the cleric quickens her spell we also get more out of the spell since the fighter gets an extra round of actions to use it with (instead of the cleric sitting on his buff until next round). Something of a corner case certainly given a casters versatility, but certainly not a waste.

Not saying that the classes contribute equally in play given optimization, given the massive gap in flexibility, utility and power, but there you go.


Tonlim wrote:
That's the thing though. Without buffs applied, the fighter IS a better striker than the cleric. And while the cleric certainly has a lot more to do (debuffing, offensive spellcasting, crowd control etc.), when we speak strictly about non personal-only buffs this is the difference between spending an action on making the cleric a GREAT striker and making the fighter an EVEN GREATER one. And unless the cleric quickens her spell we also get more out of the spell since the fighter gets an extra round of actions to use it with (instead of the cleric sitting on his buff until next round). Something of a corner case certainly given a casters versatility, but certainly not a waste.

It really is a waste. I'd rather have another Cleric over the Fighter every day of the week.


Not arguing about that, but you typically have no say in the matter and have to work with what's given *shrug*.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The crux of the matter is, would you prefer someone who takes resources, and does combat, or someone who PROVIDES resources, and also does combat?

The Cleric may not be as good of a fighter as the Fighter, but he's not behind by enough to make him a worse option when you factor in him wielding the power cosmic on the side.

Then you move up to a class like the Inquisitor, who can buff himself to at least Fighter par as a Swift action, and further boost that with a multitude of 10+ min/level buffs (Heroism, anyone? Stoneskin?) and the Fighter starts to look pretty sad considering his only edge over either of them is a couple of damage.


Tonlim wrote:
Not arguing about that, but you typically have no say in the matter and have to work with what's given *shrug*.

Even then, there are much better ways to use a spell slot then buffing the Fighter though.

Rynjin wrote:

The crux of the matter is, would you prefer someone who takes resources, and does combat, or someone who PROVIDES resources, and also does combat?

The Cleric may not be as good of a fighter as the Fighter, but he's not behind by enough to make him a worse option when you factor in him wielding the power cosmic on the side.

Then you move up to a class like the Inquisitor, who can buff himself to at least Fighter par as a Swift action, and further boost that with a multitude of 10+ min/level buffs (Heroism, anyone? Stoneskin?) and the Fighter starts to look pretty sad considering his only edge over either of them is a couple of damage.

This. Exactly this.


Anzyr wrote:
Even then, there are much better ways to use a spell slot then buffing the Fighter though.

Couldn't agree more, but what I'm saying is that I've seen MANY spellcasters essentially waste their spells with self-buffs in combat, often for several rounds only giving them a round or two to actually use them. This is, of course, a terrible way to run casters other than warpriests and maybe magi, but it's nevertheless a common occurance among the more casual crowd of gamers.


Ravingdork wrote:
I've never seen an eidolon that was a better martial than the fighter.

Really?

Not even getting into pounce, a biped does more damage, has higher AC, more skill points, and better saves. This can come just from the summoner throwing on barkskin and greater magic fang. Having tons of primary natural attacks is really really strong.

The one thing the fighter can do better is use a bow.

Then you get the synth, who makes even optimized barbars feel silly. The summoner gets a bunch of class features that work with the eidolon. As synth, you will actually use them. Having a synth in the party is like having an equal or higher CR dragon as an ally.

Liberty's Edge

My PFS rogue is currently level 10. My PFS investigator was killed (TPK in the first encounter) at level 4. I am withholding judgment for the moment.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:


Then you get the synth, who makes even optimized barbars feel silly. The summoner gets a bunch of class features that work with the eidolon. As synth, you will actually use them. Having a synth in the party is like having an equal or higher CR dragon as an ally.

I'd still disagree that the Synth gains enough to offset the loss of being able to act independently. Screwing around with the action economy is worth a lot.

Silver Crusade

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Then you get the synth, who makes even optimized barbars feel silly. The summoner gets a bunch of class features that work with the eidolon. As synth, you will actually use them. Having a synth in the party is like having an equal or higher CR dragon as an ally.

This I've always wondered about.

Why do people think the synth is better? Like it's not. It's REALLY not better. I know I'll get people coming in here saying "But you don't have the weak Summoner", but the thing is the Summoner is about on the same ground defensively as the Bard, but no one's talking about them being weak in melee or ranged.

Sure, most people (intelligently) throw all their buffs on the Eddy, but you could just as easily use them on yourself and you still have a 3/4ths BAB light armored character who's as combat capable as anyone else. Almost makes me want to write up something on how to play a 'melee summoner' since there's this huge misconception about the Summoner being the weak link.

Really the only thing holding them back is action economy as well as lack of spells, since as stated before, the Eddy is a way better buff sponge with all of those magical attacks as well as the problem about no shared item slots (DUMB RULE).

Synth is getting rid of a problem that the class doesn't really have, but it does allow you to play a single SUPER character instead of two great characters, which is often seen as a benefit. But really, base Summoner DESTROYS Synth in my estimation.


Throne wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Then you get the synth, who makes even optimized barbars feel silly. The summoner gets a bunch of class features that work with the eidolon. As synth, you will actually use them. Having a synth in the party is like having an equal or higher CR dragon as an ally.
I'd still disagree that the Synth gains enough to offset the loss of being able to act independently. Screwing around with the action economy is worth a lot.

I doesn't have to be better. Playing with a synth completely feels like playing with a dragon as an ally. Playing with a normal summoner feels like playing with two people.

The synth is way more noticeable. A normal summoner is more like playing with a bigger party.

EDIT: It is like the difference between fighting one APL+4 CR encounter and fighting enough equal CR foes to make an APL+5 encounter.


kikidmonkey wrote:
Seems like you could have just as easily played a ranger and had all of that plus some spells.

Sneak attack + rogue talents. They don't have that or I haven't seen the archetype that gives them that.


Uwotm8 wrote:
kikidmonkey wrote:
Seems like you could have just as easily played a ranger and had all of that plus some spells.
Sneak attack + rogue talents. They don't have that or I haven't seen the archetype that gives them that.

Sneak Attack is just bonus damage and Rangers can do that way more consistently then Rogues can. Also, the vast majority of Rogue talents are literal wastes of page space, so again the Ranger isn't losing much there.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I've never seen an eidolon that was a better martial than the fighter.

Really?

Not even getting into pounce, a biped does[...]

Bipeds can't take pounce.


Anzyr wrote:
Uwotm8 wrote:
kikidmonkey wrote:
Seems like you could have just as easily played a ranger and had all of that plus some spells.
Sneak attack + rogue talents. They don't have that or I haven't seen the archetype that gives them that.
Sneak Attack is just bonus damage and Rangers can do that way more consistently then Rogues can. Also, the vast majority of Rogue talents are literal wastes of page space, so again the Ranger isn't losing much there.

Ah but he is losing some!

Rogues ftw!


Uwotm8 wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I've never seen an eidolon that was a better martial than the fighter.

Really?

Not even getting into pounce, a biped does[...]

Bipeds can't take pounce.

Neither can fighters.

Hence, not even getting into pounce.

EDIT: I talk about Bipeds because those are the one I see played.


Anzyr wrote:
Sneak Attack is just bonus damage and Rangers can do that way more consistently then Rogues can. Also, the vast majority of Rogue talents are literal wastes of page space, so again the Ranger isn't losing much there.

I prefer the excitement over the landed sneak attack for massive damage more than the more consistent slightly higher damage. Plus, rogue talents actually are an interesting mix of abilities.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Neither can fighters.

Hence, not even getting into pounce.

I'm going to say show me a build. 15 pt buy, standard WBL.

101 to 150 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Power Creep - Are the newer options just plain better than the Core Rulebook ones? All Messageboards