But why a double fix?
Why not just change the eidolon and not the casting. People found the eidolon a problem in PFS regularly not the spell-casting.
But why a double fix?
Why not just change the eidolon and not the casting. People found the eidolon a problem in PFS regularly not the spell-casting.
Because the spell list was a problem in general. It made a 6th caster, basically a 9th caster, and "apparently" the version in APG was actually the wrong version of the spell list.
Two-Birds. One Stone.
I was going to quote the same guy but floatinghead said it better. except the last paragraph, tons of people post their house rules and they can be quite extensive. In fact, most of the usuals you see have a large list of house rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It amounts to saying "We don't like this concept, so we're going to try to get rid of people playing it"
Which is not true, because this comes from Unchained, the Big Book of Houserules(TM). Adopt what you'd like. It's the same as being deeply, personally offended by a Revised Action Economy.
Just understand that as far as I'm concerned, that opinion is flatly ludicrous
I'm glad you find my opinion ludicrous. Bad rhetoric isn't easy to hide behind complex verbiage if you're aiming it at people who speak the language. Your argument here boils down to nerd-rage that an option--again, an optional option, in the book of optional options--has somehow stepped on your ability to make unique and wonderful creations a la an extraplanar Willy Wonka.
As a wholesale replacement they are a farce, a pale shadow of the limitless options players had before, and it's frankly dishonest to pretend that this is a universal "good thing".
Oh, awesome, "farce." That word always comes out when you want words to make your argument sound authoritative, instead of working to make your argument sound authoritative. Anyways, the summoner before didn't have "limitless" options, they just had an extra two evolution points at level 1, and some pricing was slightly different.
Let's be clear - the Summoner was not the most powerful class by a long shot
Oooh, I dunno, they were pretty decent. And still are. They have 3/4 BAB, which isn't great in itself, but it's better than a wizard. They get a customizable companion that can get resistances, extra arms, wield weapons, cast spells, etc.. Their nasty spell list could easily be abused by the summoner him/herself, and in a single campaign they could be the one crafting their level 2 potions of haste and making wands of black tentacles at a fraction of the cost.
That, and they get a scaling class ability to summon creatures and break the action economy in half, for free, as a standard action if they don't want their eidolon out. I'll take 1d4+1 gorillas as an attack at level 7, thanks! Oh, and I can use it 3 + Cha times per day? On top of my spells and whatever my eidolon can do? And be greater invisibility'd pretty much permanently with my much cheaper and more efficient wand? Where do I sign up!?
...the fact that the spread of the prevailing sentiment on these boards has made it harder for me to find the kind of games I like...
Inherently false, because these are still optional options that you have the option of using. You use a lot of quotation marks; I imagine you air-quoting a lot.
Unchained has raised the prohibition against APG Summoners so high that I think it's likely that I will never again be allowed to play one myself. Sure, I can let people play them when I GM, but they will be playing THEIR concepts, not mine, so some of my favorite character ideas will simply wither on the vine.
That's truly a tragedy, and I feel for you, but I also think you might need to take the edge off a little. This is getting histrionic. Work with a DM and see if you can't houserule something into the houserule book that lets you have an amorphous blob. For other DMs (like me. I haven't been the player in a game of Pathfinder or D&D in almost 12 years, so many of my favorite character ideas have withered on the vine. I'm not crying about it) it's nice to have a much simpler and easier to check class. It progresses more smoothly, and the baseline archetypes are easy to use as a starting point. It's especially nice that new players can look at summoner, go "Gee whiz Puna'chong the DM!" and not have their hopes crushed by my frown since I've played that game before; I ended up being the caretaker of that character sheet because the player couldn't figure out how the hell to level up the summoner and eidolon legally.
Your post makes it sound like you, personally, are under attack. You aren't. Nobody who likes the APG summoner is under attack. The Unchained summoner is a tool, an optional tool, which should (and in many cases has) take a class that was pretty disliked by many DMs and turn it into a rehabilitated one that's allowed to join in the fun. If your DM won't let you bring your snowflake of an APG eidolon with you to a session, then have some backups. There are a lot of classes in Pathfinder, and if the DM won't work with you it's not the game's fault, it's the DM's.
Speaking personally, the biggest problem I had with APG eidolons is the fact that they were a blank canvas in a class that had other very powerful options, and so it was easy to min-max the hell out of a character and his mutant terror-fist. Some of that stuff's been toned down, and the new archetypes are also something I like because they make sense to me from a perfectly valid, rational, and not-ludicrous flavor perspective opinion, which I can have, because I have an opinion. Because of this, as a DM, I would probably allow for there to be an eidolon option that was just an amorphous blob if the player really had their heart set on something that needed those extra two evolution points from day one. That's fine, and it's about having fun.
But don't pretend that you're the only one affected by this, and that anyone who doesn't think that this is woefully, shamefully ludicrously farcical in a way that squelches the limitless creativity of all of the genius summoner-builders out there-- wholesale--because of Paizo's treacherous machinations is some kind of toady or someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on against the raw might of your righteous and indignant nerd-rage.
Away from book, ATM.
Does the Unchained Summoner's Eidolon's Evolution points effectively add up to the same amount as the APG Summoner's? I.e., except for the alignment (and other) subtypes and the restrictions on base forms, is the only real difference between the two the fact that some of the Unchained Summoner's EPs come pre-selected (the the obvious exception of certain evolutions that got repriced, of course)?
Because my inclination is to just use the revised spell list and use the Unchained Eidolon if it conceptually fits the Summoner in question and to use the revised spell list and the APG Eidolon if it doesn't. But only if it otherwise still adds up.
Away from book, ATM.
Does the Unchained Summoner's Eidolon's Evolution points effectively add up to the same amount as the APG Summoner's? I.e., except for the alignment (and other) subtypes and the restrictions on base forms, is the only real difference between the two the fact that some of the Unchained Summoner's EPs come pre-selected (the the obvious exception of certain evolutions that got repriced, of course)?
Because my inclination is to just use the revised spell list and use the Unchained Eidolon if it conceptually fits the Summoner in question and to use the revised spell list and the APG Eidolon if it doesn't. But only if it otherwise still adds up.
Depends on the base eidolon. Azata get martial weapon proficiency for free at level 1, which costs 4 evolution points in either the APG or Unchained versions. Agathions get the ability to LoH as a paladin of their HD at level 8, which an APG summoner eidolon can't get as an evolution to the best of my knowledge. Archons get extra evolution points, so they're more blank canvas than other types if you want a humanoid. And those are just some of the good-aligned options. All of it's up on the SRD, too, if you want to browse away from the book.
In general, the new eidolons get things by default that do add up to a fair number of evolution points, and since they have a progression as they level there's a sense of them evolving on their own. I don't think the alignment restrictions should be enforced (I think that is a little bit limiting), but I do think that the difference in alignment can be a fun thing to roleplay. An evil summoner that enslaves an angel could be a creepy opponent, and a chaotic good summoner with a devil eidolon could be a funky moral issue.
The only big limitations are that different subtypes have different base form requirements. Otherwise they're about tied in initial evolution points if you go by the value of what the base gets by default if you were to try to replicate the same thing from scratch.
Away from book, ATM.
Does the Unchained Summoner's Eidolon's Evolution points effectively add up to the same amount as the APG Summoner's? I.e., except for the alignment (and other) subtypes and the restrictions on base forms, is the only real difference between the two the fact that some of the Unchained Summoner's EPs come pre-selected (the the obvious exception of certain evolutions that got repriced, of course)?
Because my inclination is to just use the revised spell list and use the Unchained Eidolon if it conceptually fits the Summoner in question and to use the revised spell list and the APG Eidolon if it doesn't. But only if it otherwise still adds up.
I think I saw a post by Ravingdork implying they're generally beneath the APG summoner throughout all 20 levels.
I would have far preferred a variation of Eidolon rules that allows it to scale with how PCs are made.
10 point buy, have a weaker Eidolon.
35 point stat array, have a stronger Eidolon.
Dice rolling stats, roll stats on the Eidolon too.
Want to know the funny part? In my home game, APG Summoner is allowed. Guess what? My players usually stick to core classes anyway. I kick the UC Summoner to the curb simply because the only Summoners seen in my home game are NPC antagonists to the group.
I think I saw a post by Ravingdork implying they're generally beneath the APG summoner throughout all 20 levels.Away from book, ATM.
Does the Unchained Summoner's Eidolon's Evolution points effectively add up to the same amount as the APG Summoner's? I.e., except for the alignment (and other) subtypes and the restrictions on base forms, is the only real difference between the two the fact that some of the Unchained Summoner's EPs come pre-selected (the the obvious exception of certain evolutions that got repriced, of course)?
Because my inclination is to just use the revised spell list and use the Unchained Eidolon if it conceptually fits the Summoner in question and to use the revised spell list and the APG Eidolon if it doesn't. But only if it otherwise still adds up.
Yeah, I saw it too. It was not actually correct (I think maybe he made it when he had seen the book briefly but didn't have it on him at the time?), as shown by a reasonable handful of posters, but firstly Calth here. Calth's bottom line: Depending on the level, Unchained eidolons usually have more evo points worth of abilities; just some of them are set.
Pre-unchained Summoner is either always banned or at least frowned upon.Sweeping generalizations are always incorrect.
That is a sweeping generalization. Ironic no?
I may be missing something in the book, but as far as I'm aware, you can't make an undead typed Eiodolon anymore. To me, it's not enough to just say that it looks bony, I mean that they should be able to get actual undead traits (to be healed by negtive energy and harmed by positive and such). Though this is easy to add in a later book, as its' own separate subtype maybe?
Control of undead is usually a no-go/frowned upon in PFS, and as they were redesigning the summoner to take the place of the previous version... They probably intentionally left it out.
That is a sweeping generalization. Ironic no?Pre-unchained Summoner is either always banned or at least frowned upon.Sweeping generalizations are always incorrect.
I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thread, there was some banter back and forth about that already.
I may be missing something in the book, but as far as I'm aware, you can't make an undead typed Eiodolon anymore. To me, it's not enough to just say that it looks bony, I mean that they should be able to get actual undead traits (to be healed by negtive energy and harmed by positive and such). Though this is easy to add in a later book, as its' own separate subtype maybe?Control of undead is usually a no-go/frowned upon in PFS, and as they were redesigning the summoner to take the place of the previous version... They probably intentionally left it out.
That, and it kind of steps on the toes of necromancy arcane casters and evil divine casters. I think Paizo is going for outsiders as the theme for this class, like how animals are the theme for hunters. Kind of a nice symmetry, actually.
|
I may be missing something in the book, but as far as I'm aware, you can't make an undead typed Eiodolon anymore. To me, it's not enough to just say that it looks bony, I mean that they should be able to get actual undead traits (to be healed by negtive energy and harmed by positive and such). Though this is easy to add in a later book, as its' own separate subtype maybe?Control of undead is usually a no-go/frowned upon in PFS, and as they were redesigning the summoner to take the place of the previous version... They probably intentionally left it out.
They should never let PFS restrictions affect the actual RPG line.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I saw it too. It was not actually correct (I think maybe he made it when he had seen the book briefly but didn't have it on him at the time?), as shown by a reasonable handful of posters, but firstly Calth here. Calth's bottom line: Depending on the level, Unchained eidolons usually have more evo points worth of abilities; just some of them are set.
I think some of the restrictions on which forms can take which evolutions are a bigger deal than the fixed evolutions as far as limiting options, personally. For example, was it intentional that there was no Good option that could be used with Mount?
The Unchained summoner is basically a house rule written by Paizo.
So if you don't like that, you don't have to use it. And no you are not forced to choose between APG summoner or Unchained Summoner.
Use both versions to find a middle ground. How about using the Unchained summoner but with the eidolon having half again as many evolution points (rounded up) and using the base forms from APG, and none of the outsider types, if they don't fit with your setting.
But honestly there is nothing preventing you from reflavoring any of the outsider types to just generic eidolon-races, or something else more in keeping with your setting.
I don't necessarily have a problem with a lot of the mechanics of the new summoner versus the old summoner...I mostly have a problem in that they took a very freeform game system (eidolons) and straight-jacketed them into very specific types with fixed alignments and only certain options...while not providing a whole lot of variety for those types. At present, a lot of concepts don't function well or elegantly with the new eidolon. For the unchained summoner to really shine, we need not only more types but probably also more outsider/related types to work with.They did that for a very good reason. The Summoner is no longer a caster who summons an amorphous blob and remakes it into shapes. He actually is now summoning an actual outsider and putting some shape into it.
But mostly, they did it to fix a class that was clearly out of control... to the point where it had become a problem with PFS play, and many GMs outside of PFS had gotten to the point where they were banning it altogether.
i'm just gonna point out that something presenting a problem in [paizo's houserule bonanza] shouldn't direct the entire system.
it's why crane wing was nerfed (and not the master of many styles archetype that was the root of the problem), largely because it appears they cannot into unique encounter design for the most part.
(and that since PFS is so regulated, the GMs running it there arent really allowed to adjust encounters accordingly when a player comes to the table with Murdermachine Barbarian #43859 or God Wizard #18402573372 or Pouncing Full-Immunity HalfElf Summoner #594028--they can only cry that something is overpowered on the forums and pray for an adjustment in the [houserules], but i digress)
Imo, the best solution is to take the evolution system from Unchained and adjusted Spell List and go with the normal eidolon rules from the APG. Maybe tone down the total number of evolution points slightly as well.
The subtypes work in any campaign.
And the subtypes are put in place so the Eidolon will fit into a fantasy worlds mythology not just for reasons pertaining to game balance.
Except where they really don't, which could potentially be just as many worlds as the ones that they do. Especially with the focus on outsider subtypes, my personal world is not a good fit with the new setup, as outsiders, regardless of alignment, are heavily discouraged by the remaining gods, while the old one worked perfectly given the long history of war and conflict in the world that only just recently ended. I play in another game under another DM where the same basic issues would come up if we were playing PF instead of 3.5; the old system would actually fit reasonably well while the new one would create massive headaches for player wanting to use it roleplaying wise. In Golarion through PFS play, the new one probably makes more sense, but Golarion in home games has plenty of room for the old interpretation as well.
My personal inclination is to allow either, but the choice must be made at 1st level; that way, a player could use whichever one fit their concept better, and the choice also impacts the roleplaying aspect of how the rest of the world reacts to them. Even then, I would probably allow all subtypes to be of any of the base forms and possibly ease up on the alignment restrictions. Even with expanding subtype options, the new way is not inherently any better at explaining the eidolons than the old way; they both have strengths and they both have weaknesses. Hopefully, we ever see another version of summoner again, it will find a middle ground that allows both interpretations equally well rather than absolutely forcing one over the other.
You know it was just 30 years ago that these boards were full of complaints about how OP the new "Barbarian" class was. "A D12 HP?!?! That's INSANE! He even loses his magic restrictions at high levels! No way am I allowing that kind of power at my table!" If only we had known.
|
|
I may be missing something in the book, but as far as I'm aware, you can't make an undead typed Eiodolon anymore. To me, it's not enough to just say that it looks bony, I mean that they should be able to get actual undead traits (to be healed by negtive energy and harmed by positive and such). Though this is easy to add in a later book, as its' own separate subtype maybe?Control of undead is usually a no-go/frowned upon in PFS, and as they were redesigning the summoner to take the place of the previous version... They probably intentionally left it out.
Probably not. Or at least not for that reason. The Decemvirate and other BBEGs still gotta have "evil" tools, right.
Well, can my Unchained Eidolon be an Unicorn?
... Yes. It's actually easier than with the old one, since the new one can get healing powers and magic circles against evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
I really like what they did with unchained Eidolons - it didn't make much sense before, it was just this "thing" that didn't come from anywhere. If you want character design to be an infinitely malleable anything-goes affair, this is not the game system for it. You want something like GURPS or Champions. No doubt more options will come in future books. My only complaint was the serious deflation of their spell list, which is odd anyway, since of all the complaints about Summoners being overpowered, their spellcasting abilities seemed like the one thing nobody thought was unfair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it rather ironic that the "Unchained" Summoner is the one that had its flexibility, options, and creativity massively curtailed compared to the old "chained" version.