Biggest differences between Summoner and Unchained Summoner

I have heard people say the Summoner is much better, but why is that? What are the differences between the two classes? Thanks for your help Paizonians!

The unchained summoner is equal, or nerfed, in every mechanical aspect. The only reason for a player to choose unchained is if they are required to.

The summoner spell list has some early access (haste as a level 2 spell is one of the glaring ones, meaning they can cast it a full character level before a wizard), unchained does away with most, if not all of these.

Unchained eidolons get fewer evolution points (even considering the value of the free evolutions built into subtypes), and pounce is more expensive.

Other than those 2 bits I believe the two versions are identical.

There are a few niche abilities that the Unchained Summoner (Or rather, their eidolons) can get that their normal counterpart could not (The Agathion ability to Lay on Hands as a Paladin being one of them), but for the most part Java Man is correct. The regular Summoner has a much higher ceiling than the Unchained Summoner.

This comes down to some (many?) GMs thinking the standard summoner is too strong. My one experience GMing with a summoner was an unchained one, that fit the party's power level fine. But this was one lower level, mildly optimized group, so not a comprehensive survey.

My experience with the APG summoner was that it was easier to break if the player attempted to, and that eidolons built to be natural attack blenders were far too effective compared to melee classes and still had another character with a second set of action leftover to buff and do things.

Unchained Summoner gave less variability to the eidolons making them easier to build and less likely to have mistakes, while also toning down their power a bit.

As a GM I was happy to see it, and have thrown out the APG summoner.

But I could see a player who focuses on mechanical effectiveness being disappointed that they don't have access to it.

My biggest issue with Usummoner is that it performs poorly when making an eidolon that does not match the standard notion of it's alignment. I want the ability to make e. g. holy robot spiders. Losing synthesist is big as well, it could really have used updates to the archetypes (as distinct from Umonk, which was expressly avoiding the archetype-stacking method of the core monk)

Ive read the Summoner is banned in some games is that true? Is it legal to play a Summoner in PFS?

Normal Summoner is not allowed in PFS. That's kinda the point.

The Unchained Monk and Rogue were meant as buffs. They are better than normal. The Unchained Barbarian was meant to be a change along with getting rid of the ability to rage cycle by gaining immunity to fatigue. (Using a once per rage ability, ending rage, not being fatigued because immunity, entering rage again next round and using the once per rage ability) They also got rid of explosive barbarian death syndrome.

Unchained Summoner was meant as a 100% nerf. The other unchained classes were not.

Ive read the Summoner is banned in some games is that true? Is it legal to play a Summoner in PFS?

You are quite right. The unchained summoner is not available for play in the Pathfinder Society and most games only allow the Unchained Summoner. I let my players play whatever class they want (within the official material, no 3rd party), but they know that whatever they bring to the table, I bring to the table.

Ive read the Summoner is banned in some games is that true?

It is for any games I run. And it's true for a lot of home games based on my experiences on the forum. I can't put an exact number on it, but I would guess somewhere around 25-50% of home games ban the APG summoner and only allow the Unchained version.

Banned in mine too. The spell list balance is horrid, and the pets, while supposed to be varied based on imagination, boil down to multi tentacle anime nightmare machines.

I applaud the attempt to balance the class, and give it some structured form. Such as devils having resistance to fire.

I, personally, don't like the alignment restrictions that seem almost random. Some make no sense. So it's good the forms have some structure, but there may be too many as far as limits once you get them.

The unchained at least let's the player be his character not a pet with a character attached by accident. For that, I like unchained.

Atalius wrote:

Ive read the Summoner is banned in some games is that true? Is it legal to play a Summoner in PFS?

You are quite right. The unchained summoner is not available for play in the Pathfinder Society and most games only allow the Unchained Summoner. I let my players play whatever class they want (within the official material, no 3rd party), but they know that whatever they bring to the table, I bring to the table.

The Unchained Summoner is legal for PFS, the Old Regular Summoner is not (unless you had one grandfathered in).

Apologies, I did mean the normal Summoner is banned in PFS.

So, personal opinion:

I really like the changes from Summoner to UC Summoner. Yes, it was an overall nerf to the Summoner class but I think it did a ton for the Summoner's flavor. Rather than the Eidolon being a generic summoned creature, like a summon monster spell, it instead gets to take traits from a specific creature.

This does limit your ability to personalize your Eidolon completely, but it also gives you a structure to build your Eidolon around. The summoner class description describes an Eidolon as a specific outsider, and so it makes sense that they would be part of one of DnD's "tribes".

I have heard people say the Summoner is much better, but why is that? What are the differences between the two classes? Thanks for your help Paizonians!

I'm in a game with an Unchained Summoner. It's pretty cool.

The USummoner is far less complicated (when building the eidolon) as well as being less powerful or at least less exploitable. Pathfinder has so many classes that complexity is a bad thing; the DM can't know every class like the back of their hand anymore.

I am glad there's no more synth. Very, very glad. That was most of the summoner's bad points taken up to eleven.

When it comes to "banning", the original Summoner is banned in PFS. However many DMs who don't run in PFS still ban the OSummoner. It's just too much work learning the class, then trying to police all the fiddly bits because you have a player who doesn't understand it or might even be trying to abuse the rules.

Pathfinder has so many classes that complexity is a bad thing; the DM can't know every class like the back of their hand anymore.

The build has always been more important than the class, but I'm still game. What ordering would you like?

I played a chained summoner once and it was totally over the top for a fifth level character. I was casting haste from level four and the dragon mount I was riding really wrecked face (he was still medium sized, but still).

Many of my turns consisted on casting create pit from the top of my dragon and either charging a different target or bull rushing enemies into the pit if they passed their save. Bear in mind that I wasn't deliberately powergaming, it was just stupid powerful.

In addition to what others have said, there are something like 30-40 fewer total spells on the unchained summoner spell list as well.

Unchained summoner is faster to build if you just want to get something up and running. It's also harder to break if you have "that" sort of player in your party.

Summoner is for players who want to stretch their creative muscles but are mature enough not to abuse that versatility to the detriment of their fellow players' enjoyment.

I much prefer the latter, but I also try not to be a jerk about my builds. (My favorite eidolon, Puq, was a featureless, giant, down-covered yellow ball that rolled around everywhere but opened up a gaping maw to swallow its enemies. It was also partial to fruit.)

Unchained summoner is faster to build if you just want to get something up and running. It's also harder to break if you have "that" sort of player in your party.

Summoner is for players who want to stretch their creative muscles but are mature enough not to abuse that versatility to the detriment of their fellow players' enjoyment.

I much prefer the latter, but I also try not to be a jerk about my builds. (My favorite eidolon, Puq, was a featureless, giant, down-covered yellow ball that rolled around everywhere but opened up a gaping maw to swallow its enemies. It was also partial to fruit.)

Can I please get the evolutions on that?

I will agree it is a LOT faster to build an unchained summoner. Both because of the rearranged spell list (thank god) and more defined pets.
Feats that give extra evolution points or half elf bonuses can still buff up this limited pool, but honestly I do like the more static forms natural growth.
But as I've said I'm no fan of the seemingly non sensical limits some of those forms have, like how Angels can not be anything but bipedal.
But that is a tradition of Paizo. Balance and then tip that balance.

For example I wanted a genie pet with a smokey tail. But according to the rules I needed to be bi pedal. Not serpentine. Which was kinda lame. I wanted a more traditional genie.

That aside, the genie rules given that weren't limits, such as abilities given as it leveled, were natural and organic, so i do like the structured build with minor flex over the "go whole hog" pool the OG had.
Unlike Blaphers i HAVE that sort of player now.and then

blahpers wrote:

Unchained summoner is faster to build if you just want to get something up and running. It's also harder to break if you have "that" sort of player in your party.

Summoner is for players who want to stretch their creative muscles but are mature enough not to abuse that versatility to the detriment of their fellow players' enjoyment.

I much prefer the latter, but I also try not to be a jerk about my builds. (My favorite eidolon, Puq, was a featureless, giant, down-covered yellow ball that rolled around everywhere but opened up a gaping maw to swallow its enemies. It was also partial to fruit.)

Can I please get the evolutions on that?

I'm guessing at least Large and Swallow Whole

Unchained Summoner also opened up space for new feature additions that weren't archetypes or evolutions by adding new Eidolon types. Ancestor summoner is a pretty notable difference.

In my opinion, the issue with cEidolon is that you don't need to abuse anything to produce something more powerful then almost every martial. Just pick pounce, maximum number of (primary) natural attacks, and some extra stuff like Energy Attacks, Ability Increase, or Large/Huge. The only feat 'needed' in Power Attack. For the record, a large part of that comes from PF1's broken combat system - when pounce is a necessity, classes with early access to it naturally outshine others.
The cSummoner's spell list is also doing most of the work for you: At spell level 4+, simply only pick Summoner-only spells, or spells at reduces level (there are a few good 3rd level spell where that doesn't hold true, mainly Greater Magic Fang, Fly, and Heroism). Also, hey, you don't really need anything except Mage Armor and Haste.

I am glad there's no more synth. Very, very glad. That was most of the summoner's bad points taken up to eleven.

Oh yes, so very much! It's way more complicated and even better at outclassing martial characters, only this time, you don't make up for that by buffing them with Haste first round every combat.

blahpers wrote:

Unchained summoner is faster to build if you just want to get something up and running. It's also harder to break if you have "that" sort of player in your party.

Summoner is for players who want to stretch their creative muscles but are mature enough not to abuse that versatility to the detriment of their fellow players' enjoyment.

I much prefer the latter, but I also try not to be a jerk about my builds. (My favorite eidolon, Puq, was a featureless, giant, down-covered yellow ball that rolled around everywhere but opened up a gaping maw to swallow its enemies. It was also partial to fruit.)

Can I please get the evolutions on that?

Nothing fancy--I only played that character up to fighter 1/summoner 2.

Aquatic base form for a limbless thing with a built-in bite.
Grab (bite): 2
Ability increase (Strength): 2
Improved damage (bite): 1 [Extra Evolution feat]
Feat: Improved natural attack (bite)

(Note that the improved damage evolution is neither a size increase nor an effective size increase; hence, it works with INA.)

The summoner was a half-orc with a level of fighter for a bit of tankiness. Enlarge person both, then go in swinging.

The intent was to add large, swallow whole, huge, and incorporeal form evolutions (for utility and munching on ghosts) and add power attack, vital strike, improved vital strike, and some single-attack, grapple, or charge-friendly style tree. Maybe the ability increase (Constitution) and reach (bite) evolutions, though it'd break my brain trying to picture the latter.

Originally I statted Puq as serpentine so it could get constrict--constrict requires the serpentine form for some stupid reason--but I just couldn't stand the idea of a tail. In home games, I relax all base form restrictions for summoners because they're silly.

Unchained Summoner also opened up space for new feature additions that weren't archetypes or evolutions by adding new Eidolon types. Ancestor summoner is a pretty notable difference.

Yes, by creating new restrictions, one can "increase" options later by adding new ways of relaxing said restrictions. I prefer not having the restrictions in the first place.

(Note that the improved damage evolution is neither a size increase nor an effective size increase; hence, it works with INA.)

I don't think this is true, actually.

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

"Select one natural attack form and increase the damage die type by one step" would seem to fit the bolded bill. Kind of lame since it's only equivalent to half a size increase, but there you are.

deuxhero wrote:

Unchained Summoner also opened up space for new feature additions that weren't archetypes or evolutions by adding new Eidolon types. Ancestor summoner is a pretty notable difference.

Yes, by creating new restrictions, one can "increase" options later by adding new ways of relaxing said restrictions. I prefer not having the restrictions in the first place.

That's a not quite it. The templates all offer something others can not. Like gaining the abilities of a sorcerer for ancestor. That's not restricting that's adding something in. The restrictions are more "these can only be bi peds" which isn't really relaxed anywhere.

I mean, when you lose half your evolution points you are going to suffer a loss of customization. Normally, I'm all for customization (My idea for a Swashbuckler/Gunslinger Unchained class involve adding Rogue Talents) but the Summoner is one of those cases where I am glad that the options have been refined.

The Subtype of your Eidolon effectively becomes a template or an archetype. These help refine your Eidolon into a specific type of creature, allowing you to create a specific backstory/personality for them. It also helps folks like me, who are terribly inclined to min-max, diversify our Eidolons. With a separate template to play with every time I make a Summoner, I can play a ton of neat ideas without reverting to pounce/max attack cheese.

Now, on the flipside of things. I can see how losing half your evolution points could cut down on your customization. If you lacked my...tendencies to min-max summons then you might be able to make a unique Eidolon every time you played a traditional summoner. If so, I congratulate you.

I think about them like...Bloodline powers from a Sorcerer. Sure, if would be neat if you could pick and choose your Bloodline powers as you leveled up. That does leave room for abuse, but it does allow you "more options" than simply picking a single set of Bloodline Powers. However, by sorting these powers into categories it creates story hooks and RP opportunities. Its very helpful for new players.

blahpers wrote:

(Note that the improved damage evolution is neither a size increase nor an effective size increase; hence, it works with INA.)

I don't think this is true, actually.

FAQ wrote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

"Select one natural attack form and increase the damage die type by one step" would seem to fit the bolded bill. Kind of lame since it's only equivalent to half a size increase, but there you are.

Boo. Well, scratch that evolution. There are others. : ) Could take bite again to get that extra strength bonus, for example. (Puq predates the FAQ, so this didn't come up at the time.)

So evolutions are weird, they are Ex, non-magical, non-polymorph and permanent in the same way feats are, changes to the creature. There is an argument that for instance you can not use enlarge on a creature with the large evolution. To those people I'd bring up the fact that Ex abilities added to a creature via class abilities, such as claws from a sorc bloodline, persist through polymorph. Ex-abilities intrinsic to that creature, an octopus having grab, are lost during a polymorph. Why does this matter? Well if evolutions are not permanent changes to a creature, thus bypassing many of the "magic doesn't stack" rules, then it all persists through polymorph. As much as I assure you polymorphing my eidolon into a squirrel and then having it become a huge firebreathing squirrel is amusing, it isn't how it works. But ask your GM and remember to let them know that either your creature does 2d6 on a bite or mega-death squirrels.

The templates all offer something others can not. Like gaining the abilities of a sorcerer for ancestor. That's not restricting that's adding something in.

Well, it wouldn't be hard to make an Ancestor Eidolon for cSummoner.