[Unchained] "Unchained Summoner" vs "APG Summoner" FIGHT!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

wraithstrike wrote:

The druid is not the class feature however. He is the actual character. A summoner can also be built to do it at higher levels.

The problem with the summoner/eidolon combo was that they made it too easy to optimize. If it required more effort then less players would be giving their GM's headaches.

Fair enough, a wizard casting spells like Dragon Shape on a Mauler familiar would a more apt example.

Yet it is true that it's far easier to cheese the eidolon just with the base material


Entryhazard wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The druid is not the class feature however. He is the actual character. A summoner can also be built to do it at higher levels.

The problem with the summoner/eidolon combo was that they made it too easy to optimize. If it required more effort then less players would be giving their GM's headaches.

Fair enough, a wizard casting spells like Dragon Shape on a Mauler familiar would a more apt example.

Yet it is true that it's far easier to cheese the eidolon just with the base material

I have heard of this mauler familiar, but I have yet to see a build for one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
<snip>

That is a fair point. And further egg on my face for gross mis-readings.

Now stop bringing up UA; it had so many good ideas people now ignore. Which is saddening.

Quote:
I have heard of this mauler familiar, but I have yet to see a build for one.

RD had one a while back, under the *ahem* amusing thread title "Behold my might battle cock". While not mass optimization (I mean, a chicken familiar?), it's a starting ground.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Standard action summons are a pretty large part of why the summoner is busted, IMO. The action economy benefits are too great and allow the summoner to play the full caster and full martial roles with equal aplomb.

I don't allow Sacred Summons either, for the record.

That...doesn't really add a massive change in the rate of power for playing a conjuration character, however. At least, no more than having an extremely high initiative (which that playstyle already demands). On the round you summon, you still aren't going to be attacking anything. Thusly, whether summoning is a full round or a standard action for you makes little difference to fulfilling roles.

In terms of differences made...you can move up to the enemy as well? A charge or vital strike would have allowed that. And since you're playing a 3/4 BAB class that gains martial competence by buffing, you're already facing a swathe of moving parts before the transfer from full round to standard action becomes big.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Physically Unfeasible wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
<snip>

That is a fair point. And further egg on my face for gross mis-readings.

Now stop bringing up UA; it had so many good ideas people now ignore. Which is saddening.

Quote:
I have heard of this mauler familiar, but I have yet to see a build for one.

RD had one a while back, under the *ahem* amusing thread title "Behold my might battle cock". While not mass optimization (I mean, a chicken familiar?), it's a starting ground.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Standard action summons are a pretty large part of why the summoner is busted, IMO. The action economy benefits are too great and allow the summoner to play the full caster and full martial roles with equal aplomb.

I don't allow Sacred Summons either, for the record.

That...doesn't really add a massive change in the rate of power for playing a conjuration character, however. At least, no more than having an extremely high initiative (which that playstyle already demands). On the round you summon, you still aren't going to be attacking anything. Thusly, whether summoning is a full round or a standard action for you makes little difference to fulfilling roles.

In terms of differences made...you can move up to the enemy as well? A charge or vital strike would have allowed that. And since you're playing a 3/4 BAB class that gains martial competence by buffing, you're already facing a swathe of moving parts before the transfer from full round to standard action becomes big.

Summon Monster and Summon Natures ally are not full round actions to cast.

They are Casting time: 1 round.

In other words you begin casting on your turn, then your turn ends, then it goes through initiative, then the summoned creature pops up at the beginning of your next turn before you do any actions.

Why does this matter? Because you're going wiggity woo during the enemies turn and they can do plenty of stuff to stop you. Ranging from counter spells, shooting an arrow and forcing a concentration check, disabling you, or killing you.

Standard action summoning is a huge advantage compared to that.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

Summon Monster and Summon Natures ally are not full round actions to cast.

They are Casting time: 1 round.

In other words you begin casting on your turn, then your turn ends, then it goes through initiative, then the summoned creature pops up at the beginning of your next turn before you do any actions.

Why does this matter? Because you're going wiggity woo during the enemies turn and they can do plenty of stuff to stop you. Ranging from counter spells, shooting an arrow and forcing a concentration check, disabling you, or killing you.

Standard action summoning is a huge advantage compared to that.

So it makes summoning monsters not an almost trap?

Dark Archive

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Standard action summoning is a huge advantage compared to that.

Going to second this. Standard action summons adds a lot of potential. Your movement adds to its short range, for one. Heck, a 5 foot step followed by dropping a wall of bodies is a great way to get an unwanted brute out of your face. Full round summoning is still amazingly powerful but it requires a bit of preparation, such as great positioning or Invisibility. SA summons are much more reactive.

Also, the more I think about it, the more I actually enjoy the idea of Eidolon templates. Assuming there's a decent variety to choose from, most if not all of the dozen or so Eidolon concepts floating in my head should have a place. Plus, as long as the fluff and description for each one isn't too restricting, I don't see how someone couldn't just drape their own special backstory and visuals over the skeleton of any particular base form's mechanics.
But I worry about the one I have in PFS. Anyone know bow the Protean Eidolons work? As a concept that one seems to fit her backstory the most.


Just out of curiosity, what are the Eidolon types in Unchained?


Rosc wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Anyone know bow the Protean Eidolons work? As a concept that one seems to fit her backstory the most.

+1


Entryhazard wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what are the Eidolon types in Unchained?

+1 +1 +1


The one question I have about the Unchained Eidolon is this:

Can i still make a four armed, two-tailed abomination with two tentacles growing from he left half of its face and a third one from its lower right armpit?

In other words, aside from the smaller evolution pool, has the cosmetic customizability of the eidolon suffered?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Entryhazard wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what are the Eidolon types in Unchained?

According to this post, agathion, angel, archon, azata, daemon, demon, devil, div, elemental, inevitable, protean, and psychopomp are the eidolon types.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luthorne wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what are the Eidolon types in Unchained?
According to this post, agathion, angel, archon, azata, daemon, demon, devil, div, elemental, inevitable, protean, and psychopomp are the eidolon types.

No kyton or aeon? that sucks :c

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

I can't stand the fact that if my 20th-level unchained summoner makes his eidolon huge, and increases a single ability score by 2 points, he only has 1 evolution point left over.

They cut the evolution points in half, but didn't adjust the evolution prices at all.

That means every single huge eidolon is going to be DAMN BORING. Large ones too.

As usual you're presenting a distorting picture. By making your Eidolon Huge, you're giving it a major package of attribute adjustments, reach, and other bonuses. Cry me a river over your budget, and that's from a fellow Summnoner player.

Eidolons are ALREADY boring. The one's on this board BEFORE Unchained! were usually the same package of pouncing cuisinarts.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Eidolons are ALREADY boring. The one's on this board BEFORE Unchained! were usually the same package of pouncing cuisinarts.

Just because you see it a lot on these boards doesn't mean that's the wider trend in games everywhere. I don't think I've ever made a "pouncing cuisinart" eidolon, personally.

And yes, huge eidolons do get a pretty nice package, but all of it together is no longer worth the cost now that the total EP has been effectively cut in half. The new static options do make up for it somewhat, but not enough. (And it would never be enough since it's conceptual versatility that is being limited rather than mechanical power level.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
The problem with the summoner/eidolon combo was that they made it too easy to optimize. If it required more effort then less players would be giving their GM's headaches.

I've seen multiple comments like this. Taken to the extreme, this would result in something like:

Sorry, you don't know the system well enough so your character will suck.

Making it easy to optimize isn't a problem, if anything it is an advantage.

Putting up barriers to new characters is a problem. It should be easy to make an effective character, regardless of class.

Allowing trade-offs that are unbalanced is also a problem.

There are problems with the APG summoner. Many of the abilities are unclear, easy to get wrong, and cause confusion. Audits of the class can be quite time consuming. Pricing of some combat abilities are off, and they needed better control over maximum number of attacks.

I have not seen the new version in Pathfinder Unchained, so I don't know how much of this is fixed.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Threeshades wrote:

The one question I have about the Unchained Eidolon is this:

Can i still make a four armed, two-tailed abomination with two tentacles growing from he left half of its face and a third one from its lower right armpit?

In other words, aside from the smaller evolution pool, has the cosmetic customizability of the eidolon suffered?

No, but they didn't include "Qliphothic" in the subtypes, so that might be a limitation on your concept.


BretI wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The problem with the summoner/eidolon combo was that they made it too easy to optimize. If it required more effort then less players would be giving their GM's headaches.

I've seen multiple comments like this. Taken to the extreme, this would result in something like:

Sorry, you don't know the system well enough so your character will suck.

Making it easy to optimize isn't a problem, if anything it is an advantage.

Putting up barriers to new characters is a problem. It should be easy to make an effective character, regardless of class.

You are misunderstanding my point or taking it out of context on purpose. I don't know which so I will just clarify.

When I say "too easy to optimize" I don't mean "too easy to make valid". I mean the class is made so that you can "accidentally make it too powerful".

PS:There is too much "taking things to an extreme" on these boards already.


Lord Fyre wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

The one question I have about the Unchained Eidolon is this:

Can i still make a four armed, two-tailed abomination with two tentacles growing from he left half of its face and a third one from its lower right armpit?

In other words, aside from the smaller evolution pool, has the cosmetic customizability of the eidolon suffered?

No, but they didn't include "Qliphothic" in the subtypes, so that might be a limitation on your concept.

Actually, that is doable: Have a daemon/demon/protean eidolon, take serpentine base form, send 4 points on arms, 1 point on the second tail, and 3 points on tentacles and you got it.

Ill be honest, I haven't seen a single build in this thread, even the huge dragon, that isn't doable with this new system. The huge dragon, take air elemental quadruped base form: 4 points large, 6 points huge, 1 point tail, 4 points breath weapon, 1 point mount. (Yes elementals get 16 pool points) And there, you have a huge flying mount with a breath weapon and a tail.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Calth wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

The one question I have about the Unchained Eidolon is this:

Can i still make a four armed, two-tailed abomination with two tentacles growing from he left half of its face and a third one from its lower right armpit?

In other words, aside from the smaller evolution pool, has the cosmetic customizability of the eidolon suffered?

No, but they didn't include "Qliphothic" in the subtypes, so that might be a limitation on your concept.

Actually, that is doable: Have a daemon/demon/protean eidolon, take serpentine base form, send 4 points on arms, 1 point on the second tail, and 3 points on tentacles and you got it.

Ill be honest, I haven't seen a single build in this thread, even the huge dragon, that isn't doable with this new system. The huge dragon, take air elemental quadruped base form: 4 points large, 6 points huge, 1 point tail, 4 points breath weapon, 1 point mount. (Yes elementals get 16 pool points) And there, you have a huge flying mount with a breath weapon and a tail.

That's true. Protean would work well for this.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

The one question I have about the Unchained Eidolon is this:

Can i still make a four armed, two-tailed abomination with two tentacles growing from he left half of its face and a third one from its lower right armpit?

In other words, aside from the smaller evolution pool, has the cosmetic customizability of the eidolon suffered?

No, but they didn't include "Qliphothic" in the subtypes, so that might be a limitation on your concept.

Actually, that is doable: Have a daemon/demon/protean eidolon, take serpentine base form, send 4 points on arms, 1 point on the second tail, and 3 points on tentacles and you got it.

Ill be honest, I haven't seen a single build in this thread, even the huge dragon, that isn't doable with this new system. The huge dragon, take air elemental quadruped base form: 4 points large, 6 points huge, 1 point tail, 4 points breath weapon, 1 point mount. (Yes elementals get 16 pool points) And there, you have a huge flying mount with a breath weapon and a tail.

I think RD's vision was for a huge dragon that also had 11 more evolution points of selectable abilities, but didn't have all the freebies from, say, elemental. Honestly, if what you want is exactly what the APG summoner gives, then of course the Unchained summoner won't be that. Just use the APG summoner.


Scavion wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Silver Surfer wrote:
Rosc wrote:


Clerics are high magic as all get out, but they have a strong connection to the divine that allows them to embody the prowess of powerful war gods, through weapon proficiencies, domains and amazing buff spells. It wouldn't make sense for them to have d6 and 1/2 BAB despite their powerful casting.
Completely disagree.... a genuine gap that has never been filled in PF is that of a D6 divine caster
D6 divine caster isn't a concept.
Divine Wizard equivalent. Take the martial out of the Cleric and give him a spell list and features that let it function without the martial backbone.

The thing is, clerics already have a lot of spell casting power and are only held back by their spell list. This can be supplemented by domains and theologian. If you gave clerics a wizards spell list as well as the clerics instead of bab proficiencies and HD it would be too powerful. Mechanically d6 divine caster isn't needed. Thematically, for the divine wizard, just play a wizard or a wisdom based sorcerer (forgot the name). Then just worship avid and act like a priest,. Problem solved.

The cleric spell list is very defensive and buff oriented while the wizard spell list is normally more offensive. If you want one, you cannot have the other.


The Unchained summoner seems like it is supposed to be more useful/easier to use at low levels, and since all the imaginative eidolons described on the forums seems to involve 50+ evolution points, I think we can assume the APG summoner is the winner at high levels (and thus on the charops boards). Does anyone have any ideas how the Unchained summoner will compare to the APG one around levels 8-14?


Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
BretI wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The problem with the summoner/eidolon combo was that they made it too easy to optimize. If it required more effort then less players would be giving their GM's headaches.

I've seen multiple comments like this. Taken to the extreme, this would result in something like:

Sorry, you don't know the system well enough so your character will suck.

Making it easy to optimize isn't a problem, if anything it is an advantage.

Putting up barriers to new characters is a problem. It should be easy to make an effective character, regardless of class.

You are misunderstanding my point or taking it out of context on purpose. I don't know which so I will just clarify.

When I say "too easy to optimize" I don't mean "too easy to make valid". I mean the class is made so that you can "accidentally make it too powerful".

PS:There is too much "taking things to an extreme" on these boards already.

I was not trying to misconstrue what you said. As I said, my comment wasn't even something exclusive to your post.

I've seen a number of people make posts that suggest they believe that 'with great system mastery comes great power' and that this is an advantage. I believe it to be a disadvantage.

The smaller the gap in character 'power' between a character created by a novice or someone with moderate rules knowledge and an expert, the better in my opinion.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
I think RD's vision was for a huge dragon that also had 11 more evolution points of selectable abilities, but didn't have all the freebies from, say, elemental. Honestly, if what you want is exactly what the APG summoner gives, then of course the Unchained summoner won't be that. Just use the APG summoner.

It's not that I want more EP--which would cause as many problems as it would solve--insomuch as I think Large/Huge should probably cost a point or two less each. Also, the Ability Increase option really shouldn't double in price.

Those things were fine before when you had more EP to spend, but now it really messes with a person's ability to get any kind of concept that is both very large and remotely interesting. I've never liked binary choices. Why should I have to choose between a big monster concept, and something that is conceptually/mechanically interesting?

But rather than trying to see the problem, people just want to brush it off as nothing more than my "trying to have my cake and eat it too." I guess it makes them feel better. It doesn't, however, address the issue.


BretI wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BretI wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The problem with the summoner/eidolon combo was that they made it too easy to optimize. If it required more effort then less players would be giving their GM's headaches.

I've seen multiple comments like this. Taken to the extreme, this would result in something like:

Sorry, you don't know the system well enough so your character will suck.

Making it easy to optimize isn't a problem, if anything it is an advantage.

Putting up barriers to new characters is a problem. It should be easy to make an effective character, regardless of class.

You are misunderstanding my point or taking it out of context on purpose. I don't know which so I will just clarify.

When I say "too easy to optimize" I don't mean "too easy to make valid". I mean the class is made so that you can "accidentally make it too powerful".

PS:There is too much "taking things to an extreme" on these boards already.

I was not trying to misconstrue what you said. As I said, my comment wasn't even something exclusive to your post.

I've seen a number of people make posts that suggest they believe that 'with great system mastery comes great power' and that this is an advantage. I believe it to be a disadvantage.

The smaller the gap in character 'power' between a character created by a novice or someone with moderate rules knowledge and an expert, the better in my opinion.

Those are two different topics.

Power does come with mastery, and it is an advantage. I see no disadvantage to it. Now some will say he might run over a GM's game, but a player should know when to hold back, and not holding back, if asked to do so is more of a personal problem than a skill issue.

I do agree that gaps should be smaller, but the gap should be solved within the system not just having one class that gives the specific GM headaches. Now if the GM in question has no problem with the core summoner then this won't be an issue.


Ravingdork wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I think RD's vision was for a huge dragon that also had 11 more evolution points of selectable abilities, but didn't have all the freebies from, say, elemental. Honestly, if what you want is exactly what the APG summoner gives, then of course the Unchained summoner won't be that. Just use the APG summoner.

It's not that I want more EP--which would cause as many problems as it would solve--insomuch as I think Large/Huge should probably cost a point or two less each. Also, the ability increase option really shouldn't double in price.

Those things were fine before when you had more EP to spend, but now it really messes with a person's ability to get any kind of concept that is both very large and remotely interesting. I've never liked binary choices. Why should I have to choose between a big monster concept, and something that is conceptually/mechanically interesting?

But rather than trying to see the problem, people just want to brush it off as nothing more than my "trying to have my cake and eat it too." I guess it makes them feel better. It doesn't, however, address the issue.

The issue is that it is not an issue for everyone. For you it is a problem for the others it is not. You also used a very specific case instead of painting a broader picture unless I missed one of your post.

So looking at the big picture what solutions would you suggest? The unchained book is not meant to take all of the changes wholesale, even to any one class, but to take what you want. As an example you might take the new summoner spell list, but not alter the eidolon.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I feel like prepackaged eidolons do more to hurt than help tbh.

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I think RD's vision was for a huge dragon that also had 11 more evolution points of selectable abilities, but didn't have all the freebies from, say, elemental. Honestly, if what you want is exactly what the APG summoner gives, then of course the Unchained summoner won't be that. Just use the APG summoner.

It's not that I want more EP--which would cause as many problems as it would solve--insomuch as I think Large/Huge should probably cost a point or two less each. Also, the Ability Increase option really shouldn't double in price.

Those things were fine before when you had more EP to spend, but now it really messes with a person's ability to get any kind of concept that is both very large and remotely interesting. I've never liked binary choices. Why should I have to choose between a big monster concept, and something that is conceptually/mechanically interesting?

But rather than trying to see the problem, people just want to brush it off as nothing more than my "trying to have my cake and eat it too." I guess it makes them feel better. It doesn't, however, address the issue.

I don't think you're asking to have your cake and eat it too. More so, you seemed to be asking to just keep your old cake instead of the new one (by which I mean, I don't think anyone thought you were saying you should get the free 20+ evo points worth of outsider abilities and also full evos, you just seemed to want full evos without those).

If in fact that isn't what you mean, then the problem, as I see it, is that being very large is also incredibly powerful, and right now it's intrinsically linked. Now that you've made it clear that you are worried only about representing a concept for a larger size and not about getting lots of powerful abilities at a lower cost, maybe try this on for size? It slashes the costs and removes the doubling cost for ability increases by taking out all the ability increases it normally gives. I doubt any GM would give you trouble about using these, as in raw power, they're enough downgraded:

Potential Idea wrote:

2 point evolution: Large (Ex)

An eidolon grows in size, becoming Large. The eidolon takes a –2 penalty to its Dexterity. This size change also gives the creature a –1 size penalty to its AC and on attack rolls, a +1 bonus to its CMB and CMD, a –2 penalty on Fly skill checks, and a –4 penalty on Stealth skill checks. If the eidolon has the biped base form, it also gains 10-foot reach. Any reach evolutions the eidolon possesses are added to this total. The eidolon must be Medium to take this evolution. The summoner must be at least 8th level before selecting this evolution.

If 2 additional evolution points are spent, the eidolon instead becomes Huge. The eidolon takes a –4 penalty to its Dexterity. This size change also give the creature a –2 size penalty to its AC and attack rolls, a +2 bonus to its CMB and CMD, 10-foot reach, a –4 penalty on Fly skill checks, and a –8 penalty on Stealth skill checks. If the eidolon has the biped base form, its reach increases to 15 feet (10 feet for all other base forms). Any reach evolutions the eidolon possesses are added to this total. These bonuses and penalties replace, and do not stack with, those gained from becoming Large. The summoner must be at least 13th level before selecting this option.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That might work for me provided the cost for Ability Increases aren't doubled still. (Otherwise you go from having big boring eidolons to big physically weak eidolons.)

Designer

Ravingdork wrote:
That might work for me provided the cost for Ability Increases aren't doubled still. (Otherwise you go from having big boring eidolons to big physically weak eidolons.)

Yeah, the idea there would be that the ability increases wouldn't be doubled in cost (I removed that line).


Just curious, was the tail evolution updated so that it isn't like, completely terrible? I often wanted to pick that up on one of my eidolons for flavor, but the idea of spending an evolution point on *just* a situational +2 acrobatics bonus horrified me.


Well, you have to have the tail to add things to it.
So, it's not completely useless.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Most feat taxes aren't completely useless either. That doesn't mean it's not a tax.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Oh no, how unfortunate that the Summoner only gets a class feature instead of an entire other character now.

Sorry, but this is just a bad comparison.

It speaks MUCH more to the weakness of the Fighter than it does to the strengths of the Eidolon.
I mean, no one says that the Eidolon is better than a Barb/Pally/Ranger. Only better than the Fighter.


The barrier to entry is really low for fighters who want to command multiple characters on the battlefield. All they need is UMD and scrolls.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


Those things were fine before when you had more EP to spend, but now it really messes with a person's ability to get any kind of concept that is both very large and remotely interesting. I've never liked binary choices. Why should I have to choose between a big monster concept, and something that is conceptually/mechanically interesting?

But rather than trying to see the problem, people just want to brush it off as nothing more than my "trying to have my cake and eat it too." I guess it makes them feel better. It doesn't, however, address the issue.

The problem is the one YOU"RE brushing aside, the reason for the change in the Summoner, is that your conceptual/mechanically interesting eidolon is also the overpowered eidolon, when it's teamed with the Summoner's equally over powered spell list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


The problem is the one YOU"RE brushing aside, the reason for the change in the Summoner, is that your conceptual/mechanically interesting eidolon is also the overpowered eidolon, when it's teamed with the Summoner's equally over powered spell list.

Geez.

Yes or no, a summoner could deal with any given situation better than a wizard or cleric.

Yes or no.

I'd also like to point you to the Beastmass threads. The only summoner I saw in those was a Synthesist.

So, let me get this straight. Even though there were a number of classes that were considered to be more effective than the Summoner (Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Witch for sure with hexes, Oracle probably, Druids even just casting), and classes that did the fighting sidekick thing just as well or better (Druid, some Inquisitors, now Hunters)...

It was necessary to nerf the Summoner. Come on Druids can overmatch melee with wildshape, or overmatch melee with animal companions (minimal spell augmentation), not to mention they are full casters.

Come on. With this system any full caster rocks the world. Heck a Bard with leadership and a cohort can buff up the cohort seriously.

And Summoners were the problem. Right.


I think one problem is that the people stating that summoner/eidolons aren't overpowered are thinking very high levels. Because at the lower levels, they are totally overpowered. A summoner/eidolon combo is significantly better than any other class except maybe druid/AC (and arguably even them) up to level 10 or so. And the lower levels is where the vast majority of Pathfinder is actually played.

A level 5 eidolon can easily be rocking 33 AC with the expenditure of just 2 evolution points and 3 buff spells and STILL be doing the most damage of any melee in the party. That's not even counting the summoner into the mix who has a pretty nice spell selection plus standard action summons that lasts minutes per level as a backup.

All these discussions about class power should really be split into low, medium, and high levels instead of assuming endgame for all classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just remember: color spray, sleep, and charm person are level 1 spells

Summoners get none of them


Buri Reborn wrote:

Just remember: color spray, sleep, and charm person are level 1 spells

Summoners get none of them

Lets see

Color spray: - It requires the wizard/sorcerer to be in the frontline with his punny AC and hit points, better for oracles though.

Sleep: It is a 1 round casting.

Charm person: It have a -5 penalty to the DC if you use it in combat.

They are all useless against a bunch of enemies. NOthing is immune to a pouncing Eidolon.

I also don't get the whole "wizards and druids are more broken so there is no need to fix the summoner". Frankly, the unchained should have have a revision to a wide variety of broken spells.


Last I checked, Sleep is completely useless after first level as well. Basically everything is immune. If you're lucky, it might be useful at level 2. Probably not though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While balancing classes with exceedingly powerful spells like the wizard/sorcerer one is hard from a logistics perspective, there's also adherence to "sacred cows". Anything which would reasonably bring the druid's class features in line with other classes' power balance would attract a lot more vitriol from a greater proportion of the community than the already commonly banned summoner, since the changes would impact a greater number of groups negatively (at least from the druid player's perspective). Sad, but true.

Humans are just proportionally more innately averse to losses than we're appreciative of gains (not saying that's the case here, I don't even have the book yet and I'm not *that* into power level discussions, just in general).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Legowaffles wrote:
Last I checked, Sleep is completely useless after first level as well. Basically everything is immune. If you're lucky, it might be useful at level 2. Probably not though.

You checked wrong.

Sovereign Court

Like it's been said many times, before, the Summoner only issue, was a well a designed class. As in , it did combine all the favorite options and spells of a conjuration specialist, which has always been considered one of the strongest option for casters. Basically the summoner used the strong options of the system already there, gave you a permanent pet that can't even die (go rest for 24 hours, meanwhile cast 1 min/summoner level - summon monster SLA scaling to 9th level, including Gate as well).

While we all know at least a few players who always use the best options for their characters all the time, but quite frankly most people don't spend time on online forums checking what is the most optimized build. Now imagine, a group full of people who have minimum knowledge of pathfinder in general, one of them plays the summoner (pre packaged solid options), most people at the gaming table feels inadequate. So basically Summoner rewarded minimum system mastery, which again isn't the biggest issue but many of the older classes suffer from many trap options and making bad choices with them will quickly make you feel weak, compared to your friend playing a summoner and being thrown all the tools , he needs without much effort. Then there are of course, people abusing the facts that summoner got spells at much lower levels but well, going to ignore that issue for now, wands of teleports...yeah.

A poorly optimized druid, cleric, wizard etc...isn't so great. The summoner even with someone with no knowledge of pathfinder, can make a solid character and most of times, get the bad looks from his buddies.

The unchained version goal is essentially, to make the summoners have more meaningful choices, so increasing the difficulty of system mastery, now whether it is a good or bad thing, that is up to you and your group to decide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
The barrier to entry is really low for fighters who want to command multiple characters on the battlefield. All they need is UMD and scrolls.

That costs a ton of gold and investing in a skill that requires your dumpiest dump stat, isn't a class skill, and competes with Perception because you have 2+Int skills.


And? UMD and Master Craftsman are the great equalizers to access to magic in the system.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Saying a skill replaces class features and a weak class means you aren't talking about a class, you're talking about a skill.

UMD has nothing to do with being a fighter. THe only way it would be relevant to a fighter discussion is if the fighter got tons of extra money to buy stuff he could use with UMD, as one of his class abilities.

==Aelryinth


Everyone gets money to spend on disposables. Scrolls, potions, wands, and so on are just that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
And? UMD and Master Craftsman are the great equalizers to access to magic in the system.

Nothing of the sort. The Fighter does not get extra money to spend on wands and scrolls, and in fact has much less money available for consumables because he's spending it on weapons and armor that the wizard does not need. The Wizard has a much lower opportunity cost for investing in UMD than the Fighter, and non-Eldritch Guardians will never be able to come close to the Wizard at using UMD simply because having a Faerie Dragon to cast from wands is so much better than wasting your own actions it isn't even up for debate.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

That's right. And that means every other class has the same UMD utility as the fighter, except Cha is his dump stat.

Which means its not a fighter discussion point at all. It's just a skill discussion. Nothing to do with being a fighter has any interaction with UMD.

==Aelryinth

151 to 200 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / [Unchained] "Unchained Summoner" vs "APG Summoner" FIGHT! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.