So... is anyone going to admit they were wrong?
Only if someone admits being willfully obtuse and adhering to the specific words, rather than the very obvious meaning behind them...
Turns out it's not off the table. Saying "but it's much harder than it should be" is a pretty clear case of moving the goalposts, don't you think?Only if you're being willfully obtuse and adhering to the specific words, rather than the very obvious meaning behind them.
I'm definitely not being wilfully obtuse.
I thought it was really obvious what Ravingdork was saying and in my opinion he overstated his case. I don't think he meant "it's really hard to build a dragon mount with breath weapon, flight and natural attacks without devoting unreasonable character resources". I think he thought it was impossible.
I honestly can't understand how you could read ravingdork's challenge as more general than that (presumably he does have broad objections, however that seems to me an "obvious" specific one).
Maybe it was hyperbole, but that doesn't seem to be his style.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eidolons aren't uncustomizable, their just harder... as they should be.
...why should they be harder to customize? Why does that make sense? I liked the old summoner because it was customizable, not because it had forced templates on it that included things I would never take normally. I can't make it into an infinitely mutable creation, I can only try to diverge from the cookie cutter builds that have been put out in front of me, and that feels like it goes against the customization that the class was built on.
Old summoner, I could get a dragon by about 9th level, although aethetically it only took until 5th, and throw on other stuff as I wanted to make it more dragony like spell resistance or spell-like abilities or a breath weapon (which is a GARBAGE evo), but I could do it if I wanted without going Half-Elf and burning feats on it.
This new summoner feels like it goes against the flavor of the old one, and that's just a shame, as the original summoner felt more fun and overall was just a more enjoyable class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately old summoner was tried and banned by three different GMs I play with. We gave Paizo the benefit of the doubt, but old summoners were just disruptive. I have yet to see a GM allow the summoner twice and many have banned unchained summoner just by association.
As cool as old summoner was, it had mediocre homebrew quality of design, which can be very fun.
Unchained lost some fun but left an actual class. Compromises were made because a better way to design it was not thought of.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, but they are if they want to make a complex eidolon. Dragons or no dragons, that is what most people are after....
That was a 10 minute attempt at showing it could be done.And your attempt required a half-elf spending half his feats. Evolution points just aren't that easy to come by. If you need to come up with specific builds just to handle that simple limitation, you haven't overcome the limitation at all.
In other words, if specialization is needed to gain flexibility, there's not really any flexibility.
Redjack_rose's build wasn't solving some overarching flexibility problem. It was a response to a specific challenge:
"Good luck making an iconic dragon steed with a breath weapon, flight, and a bunch of natural attacks. That's just right off the table if you're stuck with the unsummoner!"
Turns out it's not off the table. Saying "but it's much harder than it should be" is a pretty clear case of moving the goalposts, don't you think?
... (borrowing this from Redjack, since it seems to be how he communicates with me)
I am getting really tired of people nitpicking over blanket statements.
It surfaces everywhere. In the #notallmen tag. In the debate over global warming. Someone makes a carelessly worded statement and, rather than work with what the poster probably meant ("it's a pain in the ass to accomplish simple eidolon concepts"), we spend valuable time proving how, no, see, there's this one exception to what they said. Or two exceptions. Or three. Like I said, the very fact that a workable number of EPs is the exception and not the rule is the problem.
If the "response to a specific challenge" can't be used in any other part of the discussion, it's just pointless competitive hairsplitting targeting only a single other poster in the whole thread. And since I am being criticized for commenting on problems with the "response to a specific challenge", I must assume that this is the case.
Sadlyyour "response to a specific challenge" serves no purpose save to "beat" one other poster, it is pointless and wasting people's time. So don't act surprised and confused when people try to fit it into the overall narrative—it is your own fault for going off-topic and trying to prove something nobody was seriously denying.
Yes, a dragon eidolon can be made. And there's probably been some contaminated vaccine somewhere that did cause someone to get the flu. The question is, is that one exception meaningful enough to contest the overall issue?
The three of us seem to agree: No. So let's stop wasting time on digging up exceptions.
So... is anyone going to admit they were wrong?
... (still not sure why we have to do this!)
I didn't even see this remark when I started this post. It certainly syncs up uncomfortably well with my little monologue up there. This really was just about proving someone wrong, even if it was about the most insignificant thing.
I apologize. I was wrong, and I apologize for trying to add relevance to your post. Your post was off-topic, and had no meaningful point, and it should have been treated as such. I was wrong, and it will not ever happen again.
By the way, if you wanted to get across that having flexible Evolution Point pools was easy, it probably would have been more effective to list multiple routes from the get-go. You could still do that now, in fact, though leaning on magic items is iffy. Only martials are supposed to need those! :P
Plus, it makes the character feel illegitimate. It's not innately a dragon, it's just a flying newt you gave teeth with a ring. If you lost the ring, it would go back to being a flying newt. And while that's not terribly likely to come up, it does hurt the feel of the character. Kind of like claiming your character is the smartest man in the world when he really just wears a +6 Int headband, or like claiming your character is a rogue/mage when he's really just a rogue with a necklace of fireballs.
Reskinning doesn't always fly, and it shouldn't be required.
No, but they are if they want to make a complex eidolon. Dragons or no dragons, that is what most people are after....
That was a 10 minute attempt at showing it could be done.And your attempt required a half-elf spending half his feats. Evolution points just aren't that easy to come by. If you need to come up with specific builds just to handle that simple limitation, you haven't overcome the limitation at all.
In other words, if specialization is needed to gain flexibility, there's not really any flexibility.
Redjack_rose's build wasn't solving some overarching flexibility problem. It was a response to a specific challenge:
"Good luck making an iconic dragon steed with a breath weapon, flight, and a bunch of natural attacks. That's just right off the table if you're stuck with the unsummoner!"
Turns out it's not off the table. Saying "but it's much harder than it should be" is a pretty clear case of moving the goalposts, don't you think?
... (borrowing this from Redjack, since it seems to be how he communicates with me)
I am getting really tired of people nitpicking over blanket statements.
It surfaces everywhere. In the #notallmen tag. In the debate over global warming. Someone makes a carelessly worded statement and, rather than interpret what the poster clearly meant, we spend valuable time proving how, no, see, there's this one exception to what they said. Or two exceptions. Or three. But like I said, the very fact that a workable number of EPs is the exception and not the rule is the problem.
If the "response to a specific challenge" can't be used in any other part of the discussion, it's just pointless competitive hairsplitting targeting only a single other poster in the whole thread. And since I am being criticized for commenting on problems with the "response to a specific challenge", I must assume that this is the case.
If your "response to a specific challenge" serves no purpose save to "beat" one other poster, it is pointless and wasting people's time. So don't act surprised and confused when people try to fit it into the overall narrative—it is your own fault for going off-topic and trying to prove something nobody was seriously denying.
Yes, a dragon eidolon can be made. And there's probably been some contaminated vaccine somewhere that did cause someone to get the flu. The question is, is that one exception meaningful enough to contest the overall issue?
The three of us seem to agree: No. So let's stop wasting time on digging up exceptions.
Perhaps the two of you have some history, but the "seems to be how he communicates with me" thing is lost on me.
I'm really not interested in who is right but rather in understanding what people mean. Ravingdork generally has a talent for eking out every last bit of effectiveness, so when he says an option hampers choices too much I will take it seriously - nonetheless, here I thought he was making a very specific point. I don't really see why everyone in the thread has to be in one of two camps - I don't consider that there's one "overall issue". My personal view is that there's no such thing as a bad optional rule, just rules you don't like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's used the "..." preface on both his posts replying to me on this thread. It's a fairly patronizing device.
"Bad optional rule" or not, Unchained was something a lot of us were hoping would fix the summoner. You say there are only rules you don't like—I am frustrated because we currently have no rules I do like. Paizo made both good and bad changes and lumped them all together to make just another version I don't really want in my game.
He's used the "..." preface on both his posts replying to me on this thread. It's a fairly patronizing device.
"Bad optional rule" or not, Unchained was something a lot of us were hoping would fix the summoner. You say there are only rules you don't like—I am frustrated because we currently have no rules I do like. Paizo made both good and bad changes and lumped them all together to make just another version I don't really want in my game.
Yeah, I can see your point. I can safely say that I'll never play either summoner.
I just don't really want to be lumped in with some pre-existing dispute. I'm not taking sides, I generally took something very different out of ravingdork's post than you did (even though I suspect he agrees with your broader point - I was more interested in the specific).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, eidolons lack customization for more reasons than the Evolution shortage. In fact, that's arguably the least important of them. I'm just going to sum this up. This will be my last post on this thread.
Primarily, there's body type limitations. What if I want to make a Lawful Evil quadruped? A serpentine archon? We are pointlessly prevented from customizing something as simple as "What does my eidolon look like?" What if I want to do something really weird or inspired by other sources, like a Lawful Good Quetzalcoatl-style snake entity, or a First World fey, or a good-aligned Lovecraftian abomination? In this system, what something looks like defines what it is.
There's also the closely related limitation on flavor. I have to play within the cosmology presented here. No slaadi, no hellcats, no retrievers, no zelekhuts. Nothing Lawful Neutral unless it has two legs. Even if I make a modron with that, or some other bipedal paragon of law, I have to tolerate the "half-robot" quality. And the classic ideas of entities wrenched out of the very fabric of the planes is damaged. Now, the summoner is just an ally with some existing planar species. You say that this new version uses much more imagination, but I'm no longer allowed to just use my creativity and totally make something up. And that was half the fun!
You keep comparing eidolons to animal companions and mounts. The problem with that is eidolons were never supposed to be like animal companions and mounts. They're designed to be customization, malleable, evolving. So whether or not you think they have too much or too little customization as-is, their relation to other "pet" types as a matter of "precedent" is completely irrelevant.
Eidolons are eidolons. And now they are something else entirely. In many ways, they have lost customization (particularly with regards to the body types). In others, they've simply lost large chunks of it. And those chunks have been replaced with pre-packaged flavor, which is definitely not what I signed on for.
|
|
But, the original summoner already has what you wanted? A shapeless blob of clay to do with what you will. What would be the point of revisiting the class unless there was going to be a major change.
My number 1 desire for the Unchained Summoner was to align it more closely to the summoner a found in fiction, devil binders, angel summoners, demon cultists. This does that thing, and the class is richer for the added flavour.
I don't know what people were expecting with the Unchained Summoner, more of the same would not really be satisfying anybody who already had serious issues with the combination of boring and overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one prefer the APG Summoner, if i'm going to allow summoners you best believe they're going to be summoning Pokemon.
Then, the hunt shall begin....
|
Eidolons aren't uncustomizable, their just harder... as they should be....why should they be harder to customize? Why does that make sense? I liked the old summoner because it was customizable, not because it had forced templates on it that included things I would never take normally. I can't make it into an infinitely mutable creation, I can only try to diverge from the cookie cutter builds that have been put out in front of me, and that feels like it goes against the customization that the class was built on.
Too much customization is impossible to balance - and certain builds inevitably become far stronger than was intended. For chained eidolon - it was the bunches of nat attack pounce builds you could get at very low levels. (and likely a couple other less prevalent but still OP outliers)
It's the same reason I prefer systems with classes to point-buy. In theory point-buy is awesome. In practice - the balance always sucks if there's a decent amount of crunch to the system. It ends up with - from a practical perspective - fewer builds that people actually use than if the system had less customization.
Can you build a chained eidolon that is more fluff based and not OP? Sure. But saying that makes it not a problem is the same as ignoring the entire martial/caster disparity because your wizard tones it down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we stop calling it Unchained? It's got way more shackles than a fully stocked dungeon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we stop calling it Unchained? It's got way more shackles than a fully stocked dungeon.
it's more unchained than banned.
I do think the original eidolon was a boring blob. It had no link to anything in the campaign setting, and the lack of flavour only encouraged people to make multi-limbed, pounce beasts.
I find that restriction breeds creativity.
That is a problem with PLAYERS not class...
And as a class in a campaign neutral book IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FREE OF SETTING TIES.
|
|
I do think the original eidolon was a boring blob. It had no link to anything in the campaign setting, and the lack of flavour only encouraged people to make multi-limbed, pounce beasts.
I find that restriction breeds creativity.
That is a problem with PLAYERS not class...
And as a class in a campaign neutral book IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FREE OF SETTING TIES.
No, the hardcovers have always been supposed to support the assumed campaign setting of the Pathfinder: Campaign Setting. That's why the goblins in the bestiary have pumpkin heads.
The assumed campaign setting has a specific cosmology. The Clerics list the campaign setting gods, and not just generic knockoffs.
Finally, I know it's terrible that players keep ruining the game with their munchkinry, and constant optimisation, I keep telling people that this game would be so much better without those pesky players. Sadly the one thing you cannot change is the nature of gamers. What you CAN change is the mechanics that they use to interact with the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, the hardcovers have always been supposed to support the assumed campaign setting of the Pathfinder: Campaign Setting. That's why the goblins in the bestiary have pumpkin heads.
Then why do the devs keep saying it's setting neutral? Who is mistaken (or being dishonest) here? You or the devs?
The assumed campaign setting has a specific cosmology. The Clerics list the campaign setting gods, and not just generic knockoffs.
Pathfinder is designed to support games that use Golarion as a setting, but is in no way meant to be restricted to it.
Finally, I know it's terrible that players keep ruining the game with their munchkinry, and constant optimisation, I keep telling people that this game would be so much better without those pesky players. Sadly the one thing you cannot change is the nature of gamers. What you CAN change is the mechanics that they use to interact with the game.
Yeah... How dare those players play the game the way they want! Truly they are ruining Pathfinder for everyone else, since we are all forced to play with them and using the same play style. We should ban those guys!
This is exactly what this niche game needs! Fewer players!
/sarcasm
You know what truly ruins this game? This sort of elitist holier-than-thou attitude that accuses others of "ruining the game" and says Pathfinder would be "better off without those players". I find that attitude condescending, offensive, irrational and harmful to Pathfinder and tabletop RPGs in general.
|
|
No, the hardcovers have always been supposed to support the assumed campaign setting of the Pathfinder: Campaign Setting. That's why the goblins in the bestiary have pumpkin heads.Then why do the devs keep saying it's setting neutral? Who is mistaken (or being dishonest) here? You or the devs?
The assumed campaign setting has a specific cosmology. The Clerics list the campaign setting gods, and not just generic knockoffs.Pathfinder is designed to support games that use Golarion as a setting, but is in no way meant to be restricted to it.
Finally, I know it's terrible that players keep ruining the game with their munchkinry, and constant optimisation, I keep telling people that this game would be so much better without those pesky players. Sadly the one thing you cannot change is the nature of gamers. What you CAN change is the mechanics that they use to interact with the game.Yeah... How dare those players play the game the way they want! Truly they are ruining Pathfinder for everyone else, since we are all forced to play with them and using the same play style. We should ban those guys!
This is exactly what this niche game needs! Fewer players!
/sarcasm
You know what truly ruins this game? This sort of elitist holier-than-thou attitude that accuses others of "ruining the game" and says Pathfinder would be "better off without those players". I find that attitude condescending, offensive, irrational and harmful to Pathfinder and tabletop RPGs in general.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was being facetious, of course I want lots of players with different play styles in the game. But, and I can't stress this enough:
The Original Summoner Already Exists And You Can Play One TODAY!
So the Unchained Summoner, going a different direction is a GOOD thing, because it allows for DIFFERENT PLAYSTYLES.
By doing something different you ACTUALLY have MORE options not LESS.
Most people can't play an OG summoner. GM bans it.
|
Let me tell you what bothered me with the release of Summoner Unchained.
This is Navia Grace. She's my Eidolon. She is the result of a pact made with an otherworldly, Eldritch creature that wishes to experiment with ways to further the evolution of humanoid creatures, while pushing the unspoken agenda of using Navia to give it a foothold in the material plane. She's a talented Sneak, using her rogueish skills and sharp claws to serve in the Pathfinder Society. She's excited about furthering her Summoner's power, knowing that her own body will change and evolve and grow. She's held a bit of simmering resentment after being used as a shock troop for the past half dozen missions
And when I was given the chance to convert to Unchained for free, I simply could not recreate her.
She's not evil. She's not an elemental. She's not from Heaven or Elysium. She isn't a robot. She isn't an agent of Pharasma. She isn't at war with the concept of normality. She's Navia Grace, and none of the pre-packeged subtypes do her justice. The problem isn't even the fact that half of the Evolution pool is now hard coded to abilities that range from amazing (Azatas) to disappointing head scratches (Inevitable). The problem is that each outsider subtype comes with strong implications as to its mindset and backstory that clash with my own vision of the character.
That out of the way, I do enjoy Unchained Summoner as an entity in its own right. Summon Monster SLA is still the grand powerhouse it was before, spells are a bit more balanced, and your Eidolon is a fun thing to make as long as you came into it with the mindset of "I'm going to take a type of outsider and pimp it out a little bit."
Quadruped of your choice, Claws, Tail, Tailslap, Wings, Wing Buffet. Breath attack is once per day so it's best used with Evolution Surge anyway. All of that for the low, low price of 6 evolution points. Blindsense bumps it up to 9. Elementals are generally the best, considering the free immunity to their favorite type of damage.
You'll need to be level 14 if you care about that many natural attacks at once (And do you really, REALLY need wing buffet that bad?) so you have 2 points left. Large size is nice but not too important if you want to make a younger looking dragon without all those fancy spells. Feel free to pick up color-specific tricks like swim speed, burrow, a particular skill bonus, whatever. And this is all without Half Elfery or Extra Evolutions, so you can do even better if you want to walk that path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was being facetious, of course I want lots of players with different play styles in the game.
If that's truly the case, I sincerely apologize... And blame my mistake on Poe's law. :P
But, and I can't stress this enough:
The Original Summoner Already Exists And You Can Play One TODAY!
So the Unchained Summoner, going a different direction is a GOOD thing, because it allows for DIFFERENT PLAYSTYLES.
By doing something different you ACTUALLY have MORE options not LESS.
The problem is that the original summoner isn't great either... That one is too powerful, but the unchained version is, ironically, too restrictive with the eidolon forms.
IMHO, an ideal Unchained Summoner would simply have a revised spell list and revised evolution points cost. Maaaaybe a level-based limit on number of natural attacks as well.
IMO, the UnSummoner took a step forward and 2 steps back.
No, but they are if they want to make a complex eidolon. Dragons or no dragons, that is what most people are after....
That was a 10 minute attempt at showing it could be done.And your attempt required a half-elf spending half his feats. Evolution points just aren't that easy to come by. If you need to come up with specific builds just to handle that simple limitation, you haven't overcome the limitation at all.
In other words, if specialization is needed to gain flexibility, there's not really any flexibility.
Redjack_rose's build wasn't solving some overarching flexibility problem. It was a response to a specific challenge:
"Good luck making an iconic dragon steed with a breath weapon, flight, and a bunch of natural attacks. That's just right off the table if you're stuck with the unsummoner!"
Turns out it's not off the table. Saying "but it's much harder than it should be" is a pretty clear case of moving the goalposts, don't you think?
I agree.
Nevertheless, it's much harder (that is, requires more investment) than it should be.
Next challenge: Accomplish that again, but with the Strength increase evolution. Temporary effects don't count since they aren't part of building an eidolon.
|
I know several GM's myself who ban summoners, or give them heavy homerule restrictions.
I happen to be one of those GM's as well.
I don't think the point was the original summomer was overpowered. I love it but I know dang well it was overpowered. I also know I need to know my character up and down if I'm going to play an oldstyle summoner.
I think about 80% of everyone on this thread felt that the original summoner needed a somewhat powered down version.
So this, that sense sense is an irrelevant argument. it's not about the power. It's about how they went about weakening the class.
The problem is that the Unchained Summoner feels more railroady than it needed to be to accomplish the goal of creating a more balanced summoner. I would say there was no need for that.
Can anyone explain to me why the varied types would not work as archetypes rather than a built in part of the class? Would any fans of the required fluff elements of the unchained summoner claim they might not be attracted to the the class with these archetypes?
I would say that these new required elements also only create the illusion of choice. You are still (with very the exception of some skill builds, which are harder to do with the unchained summoner) still making a DPR monster, only a less effective one.
Let me give you some examples of what real choice would look like--
Eidolon with 13 intelligence at first level and destined to be a bluff/maneuver monster rather than a dpr monster.
A ranged attack eidolon (a little easier, with the Azata, but not easy).
Magical ability using eidolons which are not overly restrictive like the options in Ultimate Magic.
Lets face it, things like this make logical sense, are not overpowering, and are interesting as opposed to the 8th interation of a DPR monster which we are more and more faced to play with the unchained summoner.
I get that some people like the new summoner, but can you see why the new class, to fans of the old class, met none of our aspirations and added layers that tied us down even more for no good reason.
Hope that makes sense.
I disliked the unchained summoner, seems like a lot of effort to nerf the class without adding customization or any exciting options. It certainly wont be used in my group.