|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoners are a problem. the feedback has come in from all the players and GMs that find the class problematic or downright confusing. Unchained! is a response. No one is requiring you to change the way you play the class if you and your table are happy with it.
The Eidolon does not need to be a spellcaster. The Summoner is a pretty potent caster as it is.
Ah, but Chaining something in a book called Unchained is a little bit confusing, no?
I mean, that is what the Devs have said they might do. Chain the Eidolon.
Ah, you misunderstand. They aren't Unchaining the Summoner.
They're Unchaining *Pathfinder*, which has been chained up by the evil, over-powered Summoner*.
* I have no actual opinion on whether or not the Summoner is over-powered, having never been in a game with one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the biggest issues with the Summoner is that you get two PCs for the price of one: in terms of Tark's guidelines, a very effective hammer that can outplay a modestly built fighter fighter that has conditional immortality couples with a caster who can play the debuffing Anvil and the buffing Arm mostly in one great package.
My biggest concern with the Unchained take on Summoners is turning the Eidolon into a sort of bland, mindless puppet. Spell list could get hit, most likely will, but there's a lingering fear that Eidolons will be turned into blander things with less customization.
My gut tells me that the Unchained version will become the standard for PFS if it turns out to have better balancing. I'll be playing with a few fun Summoner ideas to get them grandfathered in just in case.
In the past James Jacobs has stated that he would have preferred the summoner companion be from a list of predetermined outsiders and to rework the class spell list.
Someone in the Ask thread today asked "Is the Summoner variant in Pathfinder Unchained, the version you wanted to see in print in the first place?"
He said it is.
So I think it is safe to assume that the variant summoner is loosing the eidolon and getting a variant spell list.
If that is true the result might even be something that is not auto-ban in most groups. Sounds good.
Edit: And about the flavor and fluff: Any sensible gaming group will allow you to have an eidolon that looks different. It just has to use the premade rules.
I'm actually a bit concerned now. I would like to see an official rebalancing (i.e. nerf) of the summoner and a more easy to understand eidolon building system would be fine too, but if it is at the expense of the creative freedom that you had with the eidolon so far. For me that would make it an entirely different class. At least it would remove the very reason why the summoner is my favourite class.
cherry-picking always clashes with balance because there always are abilities which are ok for themselves but become too strong in combination with other abilities.
That way a main problem with the eidolon. And because of that reducing the cherry-picking helps reduce the balance problems.
Off-topic: I am more concerned about what they are going to do to the poor barbarian. The only martial class at least partly able to hold his ground in a world of spell-casters and it gets a rework? Sounds like they want to draw him down where the other martials are.
I'm a bit nervous about this myself, but if I can still go around with a mega-sized Chikorita or a Flygon I'll still be okay with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While eidolon's are strong they conflict with the summon monster SLA. And the SLA is stronger than the eidolon most of the time, implying that eidolons are not too strong.
My problem with eidolons is that they just have too many odd rules. And that they overly favor multi-attack, which feels limiting.
If Balazar remains the iconic Summoner (Unchained or otherwise), then the pregen stat blocks already exist.
If Balazar remains the iconic Summoner (Unchained or otherwise), then the pregen stat blocks already exist.No they do not. There is no approved PFS Summoner Pre-Gen. What you see in the books is not approved as a PFS pre-gen. There isn't a Magus one either.
For PFS to use an iconic block that differs from what's already published would be a very bizarre thing to do.
What I find funny is that people are "worried" that the Unchained (X) "Replaces" the original Class, like it would forever alter how they're handled hereafter
Haven't the Devs said that nothing about the Unchained classes out-and-out "Replaces" the original Classes? That they instead present an alternate form of those classes, allowing players to choose either the base Rogue or the Unchained Rogue, for example?
The only question is how Archetypes will work or not with the Unchained versions of these classes.
Since Paizo isn't in the habit of invalidating its own products, doesn't it make more sense to NOT assume "the sky is falling!" and instead assume that the Unchained classes are probably going to be Alternate Classes just like the Ninja, Samurai, and Antipaladin?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo doesn't have to decree something officially replaces something else for that to become the default assumption when the system is approached and utilized in daily play.
But there's a big difference in officially replacing something and putting out a new option that people like better.
Invulnerable Rager didn't actually replace the Barbarian. You are still able to play non-IR Barbarians to your heart's content, even if IR is by far the most-popular version of the Barbarian.
People are acting as if Unchained retcons the original classes out of existence, instead of being another Archetype (or, like I said, closer to an Alternate Class).
Player preference isn't to be taken as producer policy, and vice-versa.
Even if Unchained Monk/Rogue/Summoner/Barbarian become more popular for players than the original classes, the assumption on Paizo's part will still be that the original versions are the baseline, and Unchaineds are simply permutations of the those classes.
Options will still be created with the original classes in mind.
If anything I think anyone using the unchained class has to worry about whether that will be allowed in PFS or in a given home game.
More than likely, the Unchained Classes will be 100% PFS-legal, and simply treated as Alternate Classes.
Whether OTHER variant rules in PFU are allowed in PFS is yet to be seen, but it seems counter-intuitive to take the time to create 4 Alternate Classes and then NOT allow them in PFS, especially since the entire point of the Unchaineds aren't to present totally-new things (compared to the Tiers of Mythic Adventures) and instead simply modify existing classes to give them power tweaks or make them more streamlined/intuitive.
Not allowing the Mythic Tiers made sense. They were operating from the get-go on an entire set of Variant rules - without Mythic rules the Tiers literally do not work.
The Unchaineds, however, sound like simple reworkings, and are not reliant at all on any of the Variant rules in PFU in order to work - they're just your run-of-the-mill Alternate Classes like those found in the APG/UC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there's a big difference in officially replacing something and putting out a new option that people like better.
Invulnerable Rager didn't actually replace the Barbarian. You are still able to play non-IR Barbarians to your heart's content, even if IR is by far the most-popular version of the Barbarian.
People are acting as if Unchained retcons the original classes out of existence, instead of being another Archetype (or, like I said, closer to an Alternate Class).
Player preference isn't to be taken as producer policy, and vice-versa.
Even if Unchained Monk/Rogue/Summoner/Barbarian become more popular for players than the original classes, the assumption on Paizo's part will still be that the original versions are the baseline, and Unchaineds are simply permutations of the those classes.
Options will still be created with the original classes in mind.
It's not about simple popularity. It's about perceptions to the effect that I, as a player, can no longer reasonably expect to get to play the current summoner class for a myriad reasons that basically come down to a gut reaction by GMs of what the summoner is. That to be able to do so, basically requires playing "mother, may I" with the GM. It transforms the question away from a simple "yes/no" to the "are summoners allowed" question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pre-Gens have some subtle differences from the Iconics in the NPC Codex, which is why the NPC Codex versions are not approved for use as PFS pregens.
Interesting. I didn't know that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Such perceptions are unfounded as far as PFS goes. As far as home games, GMs that were inclined to accept the summoner as originally given, will most likely continue to do so. GMs that have always banned the original Summoner might give the Jacobs version a look. Overall I see Unchained! as bringing more Summoners to more tables.
I don't care about PFS. In it's current implementation, the entire organized play setup of PFS can burn in a fire for all I care. I'm talking about the system as whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Such perceptions are unfounded as far as PFS goes. As far as home games, GMs that were inclined to accept the summoner as originally given, will most likely continue to do so. GMs that have always banned the original Summoner might give the Jacobs version a look. Overall I see Unchained! as bringing more Summoners to more tables.I don't care about PFS. In it's current implementation, the entire organized play setup of PFS can burn in a fire for all I care. I'm talking about the system as whole.PFS is the only case that you can generalize about. Generalizing about Home play the way you have is really just paranoia. Home play GM's are idiosyncratic, there's no hierarchy that determines how they'll run games.
BTW, a lot of us do play PFS. PFS is largely responsible for you getting access to the toys you want to use in your game. No one is twisting you to join us, but maybe you can do something about that chip on your shoulder?
No, it's a suspicion. It becomes paranoia if I were to persist contrary to demonstrated reality.
PFS is an after effect of the system I started playing well before its genesis. I owe nothing to it. I am not beholden to it. Maybe you can do something about that sense of entitlement and recognize that PFS is not how the game has, or even should, be played. The OGL was held to before PFS was even a thought. No, I have the toys I do because Paizo isn't a steaming pile of s@!~ company. For that, and ALONE, I am grateful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Such perceptions are unfounded as far as PFS goes. As far as home games, GMs that were inclined to accept the summoner as originally given, will most likely continue to do so. GMs that have always banned the original Summoner might give the Jacobs version a look. Overall I see Unchained! as bringing more Summoners to more tables.I don't care about PFS. In it's current implementation, the entire organized play setup of PFS can burn in a fire for all I care. I'm talking about the system as whole.
You DO realize that there are tons and tons of DMs that already ban the Summoner, right?
You ALSO realize that there are DMs that ban the Wizard (which is understandable to a degree - it's ability to break games is legendary), right?
There are DMs that ban the Gunslinger for being OP, despite years and years of proof that the class might actually be somewhat UNDERpowered.
There are DMs who look at any books beyond the CRB and see "OH SHI- BROKEN!!!" even though NOTHING has proven worse than a CRB-only Wizard.
There are DMs who - yes, they do exist - claim that the MONK is overpowered and ban those.
Saying "NOOOOO! HOMEGAME DMs WILL WANT TO BAN THIS! DON'T DO IT!" can be applied to literally ANYTHING in the game.
There are DMs - there are threads in this very FORUM - that claim that EVERYTHING in the ACG was powercreep-broken and was insta-banned, despite the fact that the most-powerful classes (Shaman and Arcanist) are widely regarded as no worse than the Cleric or Wizard, though whether they're AS GOOD or SLIGHTLY WORSE is debatable, and nearly every other class is pretty much balanced and on-par with the median-line for class power.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pre-Gens have some subtle differences from the Iconics in the NPC Codex, which is why the NPC Codex versions are not approved for use as PFS pregens.Interesting. I didn't know that.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: NPC Codex
The 1st and 7th level iconic characters found on pages 274-297 may be used in place of the downloadable pregenerated characters found on Paizo.com. The 12th level iconics are not permitted for PFS play. The text in the box on page 275 should be noted before using the iconic characters. The animal companions on pages 298-307 may be used as long as the character meets all the prerequisites to obtain an animal companion.
As for the Summoner iconic for PFS, it was never allowed in the first place, just like the Alchemist or Magus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you can do something about that sense of entitlement and recognize that PFS is not how the game has, or even should, be played.
So, the justification for your stance is that PFS is BadWrongFun.
Despite the fact that Living Greyhawk existed since the earliest days of 3.5 and was effectively the precursor to PFS.
No, sorry; Organized Play has been part of 3rd Edition pretty much since inception.
I rarely play PFS myself - my group plays with pure PRD material in home games - so I don't pay attention too much to PFS ins and outs. However, PFS does exist, is something a good percent of the playerbase uses to play (not the majority, but obviously enough to matter), and is a good litmus test for balance.
Paizo can't get feedback from every homegame group - hell, I'm willing to bet a lot of people don't even use Paizo forums for rules or advice, and instead look at GiTP or Reddit - so PFS is the closest they can get.
Accept that, accept that Organized Play is an integral part of 3.X, and kindly stop your own self-righteous whining, because your way of playing is not "the way it should be played" by any stretch of the imagination.
Maybe you can do something about that sense of entitlement and recognize that PFS is not how the game has, or even should, be played.So, the justification for your stance is that PFS is BadWrongFun.
Totally. I absolutely said no one should play PFS, or that the organization itself is wrong.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care about PFS. In it's current implementation, the entire organized play setup of PFS can burn in a fire for all I care.
Please don't let them set me on fire.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care about PFS. In it's current implementation, the entire organized play setup of PFS can burn in a fire for all I care.Please don't let them set me on fire.
I'll save you, TOZ.
Totally. I absolutely said no one should play PFS, or that the organization itself is wrong.
Maybe you can do something about that sense of entitlement and recognize that PFS is not how the game has, or even should, be played.
Yes, you did.
You kinda totally did.
In almost as many exact words, no less.
Totally. I absolutely said no one should play PFS, or that the organization itself is wrong.Maybe you can do something about that sense of entitlement and recognize that PFS is not how the game has, or even should, be played.Yes, you did.
You kinda totally did.
In almost as many exact words, no less.
No, I didn't. Look up entitlement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player preference isn't to be taken as producer policy, and vice-versa.
Tell that to Crane Wing...
Yep, Player preference in PFS strongly affected it for everyone.
Player preference isn't to be taken as producer policy, and vice-versa.
Tell that to Crane Wing...
Yep, Player preference in PFS strongly affected it for everyone.
I hate to go off on a tangent but I am curious, how did Crane Wing operate before the nerf?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sad Tac is saaaaaaaaad~.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, this continued meme of how PFS ruined it forever is why I wouldn't be surprised at the lack of explanations of further big changes.
Has Paizo actually revealed any details about the new Summoner, or is the idea that they're limiting the eidolon to a menu of a few choices purely conjecture? The ability to customize the eidolon is definitely my favorite aspect of the Summoner, so I hope they keep that core idea even if there's some sort of nerf.
I'm personally enjoying the newest FAQ version of Crane Style/Wing/Riposte. My Crane PC's big problem isn't the fact that he can only auto-deflect an attack if he uses Total Defense (which is actually still a very useful option) but the fact that you can't use Crane Style before you've had a turn in initiative. Low initiative rolls happen sometimes, and many DMs can get a little obsessed with achieving surprise.
Back to the Summoner, while it seems like "common sense" that Rogues will get boosted and Summoners will get nerfed I wonder if Paizo has actually stated anything like that. I also wonder whether folks think the Barbarian will get a boost, a nerf, or just some changes to make it simpler to play.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has Paizo actually revealed any details about the new Summoner, or is the idea that they're limiting the eidolon to a menu of a few choices purely conjecture?
No one from Paizo has stated that. In fact, as a rogue eidolon myself, if evolutions no longer existed and you were unable to customize your eidolon at all beyond selecting from a menu of a few choices, I would be pretty shocked at this point. I know this is just one post, though, and the common wisdom on the internet holds the opposite view, but I would urge you to consider that I am pretty likely to be correct, as a rogue eidolon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one from Paizo has stated that. In fact, as a rogue eidolon myself, if evolutions no longer existed and you were unable to customize your eidolon at all beyond selecting from a menu of a few choices, I would be pretty shocked at this point. I know this is just one post, though, and the common wisdom on the internet holds the opposite view, but I would urge you to consider that I am pretty likely to be correct, as a rogue eidolon.Has Paizo actually revealed any details about the new Summoner, or is the idea that they're limiting the eidolon to a menu of a few choices purely conjecture?
"Never mind that I'm also a Paizo Designer and that Unchained is the first major project I've worked on." lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that's as close to an "inside scoop" as we're likely to get. It sounds pretty reassuring to me though.
The recent Weird Words FAQ bolstered my faith in Paizo's commitment to getting things right even if it took quite a while. Like Rogue Eidolon's post just now, it gave the impression that somebody is listening and posting is worthwhile.
Thanks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Never mind that I'm also a Paizo Designer and that Unchained is the first major project I've worked on." lolNo one from Paizo has stated that. In fact, as a rogue eidolon myself, if evolutions no longer existed and you were unable to customize your eidolon at all beyond selecting from a menu of a few choices, I would be pretty shocked at this point. I know this is just one post, though, and the common wisdom on the internet holds the opposite view, but I would urge you to consider that I am pretty likely to be correct, as a rogue eidolon.Has Paizo actually revealed any details about the new Summoner, or is the idea that they're limiting the eidolon to a menu of a few choices purely conjecture?
Yes, never mind that. It's my eidolon status that is important. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one from Paizo has stated that. In fact, as a rogue eidolon myself, if evolutions no longer existed and you were unable to customize your eidolon at all beyond selecting from a menu of a few choices, I would be pretty shocked at this point. I know this is just one post, though, and the common wisdom on the internet holds the opposite view, but I would urge you to consider that I am pretty likely to be correct, as a rogue eidolon.Has Paizo actually revealed any details about the new Summoner, or is the idea that they're limiting the eidolon to a menu of a few choices purely conjecture?
I'm just going off of what James Jacobs has stated. As a rogue eidolon though I hope you are right.
Incidentally, this continued meme of how PFS ruined it forever is why I wouldn't be surprised at the lack of explanations of further big changes.
That's how politicians work too; why be honest when transparency will get you in hot water? Much easier to deny or remain silent than to accept responcibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one from Paizo has stated that. In fact, as a rogue eidolon myself, if evolutions no longer existed and you were unable to customize your eidolon at all beyond selecting from a menu of a few choices, I would be pretty shocked at this point. I know this is just one post, though, and the common wisdom on the internet holds the opposite view, but I would urge you to consider that I am pretty likely to be correct, as a rogue eidolon.Has Paizo actually revealed any details about the new Summoner, or is the idea that they're limiting the eidolon to a menu of a few choices purely conjecture?
My eidolon wants to know how you became a rogue. She has been looking in vain for a way to gain class levels instead of or in addition to racial hit dice.
Step one.
Step Two???
Step Three: Profit!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Step Two???
Step Three: Profit!
I thought Step One was "Eat Your Summoner" and Step Two is Unfettered Eidolon.
Step Two???I thought Step One was "Eat Your Summoner" and Step Two is Unfettered Eidolon.
Step Three: Profit!
Well sure, if you want to get pedantic about it. SHEESH, maaaaaaaan~!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see one or two archtypes that lose the eidolon but buff the summoned monster aspect; Maybe one giving them evolutions and one giving teamwork feats
Such as: Fusionist Idea that I had
I like the eidolon as is though and will be sad if they take away the customization that it offers.
Synthesist would be an easy enough fix with slowed evolution acquisition and stat bonuses instead of replacement.
I would like to see one or two archtypes that lose the eidolon but buff the summoned monster aspect; Maybe one giving them evolutions and one giving teamwork feats
Such as: Fusionist Idea that I had
I like the eidolon as is though and will be sad if they take away the customization that it offers.
Synthesist would be an easy enough fix with slowed evolution acquisition and stat bonuses instead of replacement.
That seems like something more easily achieved with a Druid, though, or a Wizard or Arcanist.
Eidolons are the main focus of the Summoner class.
Taking away the thing the class was built around would be such a radical change that, at that point, it might as well be an Alternate Class.
Which, now that I think about it, would probably be the best answer - make an Alternate Class of the Summoner that puts all the emphasis on the monster summoning effects, and take out the Eidolon entirely.