I have mixed feelings about the familiar. I like how modular it is. It allows everyone to pick what type of familiar they want for flavor reasons. No picking the green sting scorpion with you university wizard just because you want the initiative bonus. That said the familiar doesn’t have much to offer. My suggestion would be to add a familiar bonus to the familiar. Let the player choose the bonus and main mode of movement. This things would be static and unchangable after character creation. Then still have the other abilities that players can choose from.
I'm working on what was supposed to be a mini-guide to the Monster Tactician, but it's already ballooned to almost 30 pages of text.
Here are the teamwork feats I think are best (in general - some of these are for archers):
Broken Wing Gambit (5): Useless for most inquisitors, you can make use of this by granting it to your summoned allies. In general, I don’t love feats that only do something while you’re sharing them with your summoned allies. If your summons all die, or can’t act because of Protection from Alignment, or you get separated from them, then your feat is suddenly useless as well. That said, it’s a very easy way to get free attacks in.
Coordinated Charge (14): It comes online late, but this is fantastic free mobility. It’s great for you, and it’s great for monsters that you summoned ahead of combat.
Coordinated Shot (2): Archers only. This does nothing for your monsters, but pretty reliably gets you +1 or +2 to hit.
Escape Routes (1): This feat lets you more or less move around the battlefield as you like, as long as you stay with the pack generally.
Friendly Fire (1): Archers only. This is amazing for you, because you don’t have to risk hitting a real ally. Not only do you get a bonus to hit, but your summoned creature gets a free swing. Best with summoned monsters that have one big attack.
Outflank (6): One of the big ones. This is a very easy +2 to hit for you and your crew, and you can get free attacks out of it.
Paired Opportunists (1): Part of the combo with Outflank that allows you and all of your creatures to get opportunity attacks whenever anybody crits, even if they’re not properly part of the flank.
Precise Strike (2): Good early on, and continues to be good as you’re able to summon things with lots of attacks.
Snapping Flank (12): This one requires a little bit of a walk, as you have to get a bite attack somehow to take it. Once you have, however, everybody gets to make swift-action bite attacks, which is super rad for your giant dino summons.
The...
Any chance I can see this guild you have been working on?
I cast resurrection on this topic!!
With all the talk of adding dex to damage anyone try a gun chemist and add int to damage? Take two traits ( Illuminator (religion) +2 to diplomacy and it is a class skill, and Clever Word Play (social) trait that can make diplomacy based off intelligence) and you can be a gunslinger with a high bonus to hit, plus to damage, battlefield control, hand out heal potions before battle, know everything, disable device, and be the face of the group. Add the tumor familiar discovery for a thrush and you can even add scouting, better Perception, and more diplomacy to your list of “fun things to do when not blasting stuff with explosive bullets”.
Seems like a solid character. Anyone ever tried it, because it seems like a ton of fun!
So I am GMing and AP for the first time, in fact this is the first time I have GMed a world I haven't created. I am running Rise of the Runelords Aniversary Ed. and I have to say it is trickier than I thought. It is interesting trying to keep track of all the details of the world that is not my own. But I have thrown myself into the material and tried to make the campaign as fluid as possible.
Additionally we are play the game RAW, no modifications. It is kind of an experiment for our group as we return to Pathfinder after playing in a homebrew end world of a modified form of Warhammer's d10 rules. I thought it might be interesting to see how the game feels when we start tracking everything weight, ammo, money, etc.
So with this in mind there is a lot more book keeping than we normally have and I wanted a way to generate loot in the fashion designed by the game, but in a more efficient manner. My wife got me Ultimate Equipment for Christmas and I like the tables in the appendices, but I was wondering if there was an app or automated version where I can plug in the CR level of the encounter and out comes the loot? I found an online version, but it dealt with percentages, and there was an old link in these forums, but it was dead. Is there anything new or current? This seems like a good app for paizo to make and sell for themselves, but I can only find their two decks (crits/fails) in the App Store.
Thanks in advance for the help, and Merry Christmas :)
If I don't take fighter than I also have to burn a feat for weapon proficiency. I, erroneously, believed the summoner got a bonus feat... Wishful thinking. So would I be better off taking fighter two levels? Switch from half elf to human for the extra feat?
I am interested in making/playing a flank buddy summoner, and would like the character to be optimized, if such a term can apply to a concept that starts well outside of traditional bounds. Basically I want a fighter that is good enough with a sword to do acceptable damage, and has a high enough ac to not be constant liability.
My current thoughts are: Half Elf Fighter 1/ Summoner 19. As a first level fighter I will get access to more weapons and armor, full BAB, and the bonus feat. My primary Stat would be Dex with just enough charisma to get me access to spells, so probably 14. Feat wise I intend to take Weapons Finesse and Dodge/Toughness. At second level I would take Dervish Dance. So with the half Elf I can take two favored classes, so I don't miss out on the hp at level one, and I can regain some of the points for my eidolon that I missed out on by dipping into fighter. I toyed with going Bard at level one and just taking Dervish Dancer at the outset, but I didn't want to have tow levels of 0 BAB.
Does this build look okay for what it is? is there a better way to build my concept of a fighter with his scary pet Hell Hound?
I would call the archetype "Eidolonmancer," because story wise the summoner gets all of his power from his bound outsider/eidolon.
I am running Rise of the Runelords and so I'm not too worried about a capstone ability because the characters will only get to 18, I think. That said I was worried the damage would be too high if it was +1d6 every other level. Could you follow the warlock Eldrich blast progression and have it be balanced? I don't want it to be over powered, but since I've restricted the amount of uses per day does that balance things some?
I love the summoner class, but not because of the summons. I love the eidolon and think because of its build whateveritisyouareimagining mechanic it is one of the funnest classes in the game. That said I am less pleased with the summoner himself. While playing one I always feel lackluster, as though I am playing second fiddle to my pet. Now I am GMing a campaign and I have a player who has expressed similar concerns. So this is my proposed solution:
Get rid of the Summon Monster (sp) and replace it with Eldrich Blast (sp). Eldrich blast works like the warlock Eldrich blast of 3.5 except it can be used 5+(chr) times per day, and it increases in damage every third level instead of every other. The summoner is actually siphoning off some of the power of their bound minion, and thus must be within 30 feet of their eidolon to use this ability. Lastly because their eidolon is being taped as an energy source it isn't as powerful as otherwise might be (fewer evolution points). This eidolon has a perfectly linear evolution point growth starting at three and ending at 22, instead of 26.
With this change I envision a feat that increases the number of Eldrich blasts in a day, and the distance allowed between summoner and eidolon increasing at higher levels.
I feel this archetype is pretty balanced over all, and allows the character to participate in battle. I also think it is good because for this archetype charisma is no longer a minimal stat, and would be the focus of the class, as I feel it should be.
I know both the warlock and summoner are controversial, so combining the two will hardly be popular. That said does the archetype look mostly balanced? Have I made any glaring oversights? Constructive criticism is appreciated. Lambasting either the summoner or warlock as being broken/horrible/stupid isn't really what I'm looking for.
I really like the modularity of the new words of power system. I think the Words of Power system is about having the right tool available for the job. Casters can create the appropriate spell for each situation. I love this concept! I think this system is much more akin to the things I read in fantasy novels. Not the primary impetus for creating the system, I'm sure, but many gamers are influenced by novels.
This being said, I don't think Words of Power has gone far enough. I would like to see Words that increase the damage of spells. This would allow casters to fine tune each of their spells for the situation at hand. Have a bunch of low level mooks running around? No need to waste a 10d6 fireball. Need to quell a rioting mob? How about a mass stun that you can beef up to affect as many HD as necessary.
This would also limit the number of words a caster would need to learn. Learn one acid spell and then apply damage and shape as needed. I think the same system could be applied to summoning, healing, sleep, hold person, and a myriad of other type of spells. This would also make words learned at level one to be effective throughout the entire duration of a character's career.
I have a level one summoner in a weekly Kingmaker campaign, and I use pounce all the time. It isn't terribly powerful, but is sure handy to have. At level one the eidolon doesn't have an egregiously high attack bonus so I averaged about one hit per pounce.
If you are up for it DM I think back to back matches would be a lot of fun. I think two at once might be a little confusing in the forum, but one after the other would be cool.
I was thinking it might be fun if the gladiators not competing in the current match placed wagers on the fight, in the hall. The wagers would have to be with the character's leftover or earned income. Thoughts?
He isn't fully fleshed out yet since I'm at work and was working off memory for the cavalier.
Assuming Galdyn is accepted I have a few questions:
Animal companion full HP?
Lance + Shield while mounted? If seen DM's go both ways on this one since the lance is listed under two handed weapons, but is a one handed weapon while mounted. I'm sure I'll have more later.
I really like the Magus. I think paizo has done an excellent job especially considering the disparity over what the magus should do. There are a few different ideas I thought I would throw out there. Some of these ideas are not my own, but are ideas I have liked from other posters that I have incorporated into my magus (I have tried to cite posters of the original idea).
Arcane Pool (as proposed by TL03). I saw this on a different board and loved it and thought it would be a good way of implementing some of the ideas later in my post. This works similar to Ki points.
Spellstrike (as proposed by Kortz) which works similar to sneak attack and the magus would be able to vary the type of damage (Fire, ice, acid, etc.). I think this is a great ability to be powered by the Arcane Pool.
Spell Combat (as proposed by me). There has been a lot of argument about whether or not there should be a penalty if so how much, etc. I would like to propose that this depends on the type of spell being cast. I think that the penalty as proposed now works fine for non-combat spells. What I mean by this is if the magus is attempting to cast a control spell (say color spray) that the penalties are fine as is. But if the magus is attempting to do a combat spell (touch or range touch) that the penalties and how the spells function should be different. In the case of a touch spell I think it should function just as TWF. The magus would take a penalty to both attacks and would not have to cast defensively or make a special concentration check. If the magus is casting a range-touch the magus takes penalties to attack and would be subject to an AoO (similar to a character who wanted to make an attack with a hand crossbow). I think that a feat (similar to the one in the APG that does the same thing for archers) or Magus Arcana that negates AoO for those with the ability would be a cool option too.
Magus Arcana (Disciplines) (as proposed by me). I would like to see the magus have customization similar to that of the oracle or cavalier. These could be different orders or schools of thought, but I have called them Disciplines. My idea for the Disciplines is to lump a group of abilities together that would alter the Magus’ style of play. As noted above I think one of the biggest challenges facing the developers is the disagreement among fans on what they want from the magus. The disciplines would offer away a way for the developers to create options that will satisfy all these different play styles. I decided to use gemstones. Don’t know why, I guess I wanted something distinct from other orders, schools, domains, etc. Sample ideas:
Diamond Discipline-
Focus: Armored Defense. This would allow for those who wish to use heavy armor from the get go. Spell failure would be given as percentage reduction that would increase as the character leveled.
Abilities: Medium and Heavy armor proficiencies, shield proficiency
Fast Cast: Bull’s Strength, False Life, Haste
Ruby Discipline-
Focus: Mobility. This is for those who don’t wish to stand and fight, but are more skirmishers.
Abilities: dodge, mobility, spring attack
Fast Cast: Cat’s Grace, Blink, Invisibility
Sapphire Discipline-
Focus: Arcane defense. This is for those who disdain mundane methods of protection and rely on magical protection.
Abilities: Arcane armor last’s all day, but still requires the expenditure of a spell slot.
Fast Cast: Shield, Bear’s Endurance, Displacement, Stoneskin
Fast Cast (as proposed by me). I think the magus should not be better than the fighter, but I do like the idea of the magus being as good as a fighter or as good as a rogue depending on if the character was oriented. Instead of relying on physical prowess (BAB, HP, armor, etc) the magus would rely on arcane abilities to supplement their physical attacks (Arcane weapon, False Life, stone skin, etc). And while this is feasible through many existing spells a character would require several rounds to buff up leaving her companions to face the brunt of the attack. I think a way around this would be to cast certain spells as swift actions. Each Discipline would have a list of spells they can Fast Cast. To Fast Cast a character would have to burn X (1 per spell level?) points from their arcane pool, and would be able to cast the spell as a swift action.
I would love to see the Light, Medium, and Heavy armor proficiencies turned into percentages. This would allow some one to where whatever armor they wish and take their chances with arcane spell failure, but still get some benefit from the armor training.
Slightly different thing though. While authors don't explain magic systems in their books, they don't need to. We don't want a mana system because all the wizards I read about use a mana system. The reason I want a mana system is that it most accurately simulates the magic system in books, at least much more so then the vancian system. Especially when you throw in rules for vitalizing.
I don't think the mana/PP system goes far enough from the current pathfinder magic system. If you have a point system that lets you cast what spells you need when you need them that is nice, but what about altering the spells? If you are comparing it to literature (which I know cannot/should not be done) you don't see mages blasting a massive area because that is all they are capable of doing. I think magic should be more flexible and that mages should be able to shape it to their needs. I hope words of power does something like this, where spell casters create what spells they need. If that is too much to ask for, I will settle for a point based system.
iLaifire wrote:
The mana system makes it easier to add rules for fatigue, for example when you are at half your total mana or under you take a -1 on all checks, when you are at a quarter or under you take an additional -1 on all rolls.
I would also love to see a fatigue system worked into pathfinder.
I want A system that is non-vancian. It doesn't have to be psionics it can (and preferably would be) magic. I'm hoping that the new 'words of power' system fits this bill. I would love the ability to create my own spells on the fly. I only like psionics because it has more flexibility and it actually seems to fit more fantasy settings then the vancian system. I know there are other systems out there (Elements of Magic is a great system), but my GM is paizo only. So until Ultimate Magic comes out or Paizo does psionics, vancian is the only option for our group.
Add to the fact that being small means they can use medium size animal companions/eidolons as mounts and I think you'll see a lot of hafling cavaliers and summoners in the near future.
There is a 'tail slam' option, but it is a different evolution (and isn't a primary attack). I could see re-flavoring the 'gore' evolution into a head slam attack. But 'slam' is specific for arms. I don't think it breaks the evolution to house rule it so any limb can make the attack, but that depends on how your group feels about house rules.
My understanding was that the slam attack was with both hands hammering down on the target. I could have misinterpreted the raw though.
Slam (Ex): An eidolon can deliver a devastating slam
attack. This attack is a primary attack. The slam deals
1d8 points of damage (2d6 if Large, 2d8 if Huge). The
eidolon must have the limbs (arms) evolution to take this
evolution. Alternatively, the eidolon can replace the claws
from its base form with this slam attack (this still costs
1 evolution point). This evolution can be selected more
than once, but the eidolon must possess an equal number
of the limbs evolution.
Emphases mine.
It implies that it is a singular attack, so I can imagine a single kick as easily as a punch or double punch attack. However, it does stipulate arms over just limbs so I guess kicking is out. There is nothing in RAW preventing primary attacks with the eidolon's feet, but as a DM I may be tempted to rule against it depending on how cheesy the reasoning was.
Paizo have stated they have no interest in doing something like that. Mostly because it then punishes people who don't have access to a computer.
What a waste. I guess it is nice for those few that don't have a computer and can't find access to one. That being said, though, I seem to recall a series of posts by James Jacobs saying that 50 pages of adventure is all they could ever produce in a month. Space wasn't the limiting factor time, however, was. If this is the case then does it matter if and AP includes an additional 11 pages of psionic material? Is that going to increase the cost much? If it is already written and can just be added at the beginning or end of any applicable AP I still don't see it as being to much of an issue.
What if your player re-imagined it to two claw attacks on the hands (wolverine style) and a kick/slam attack. Would this fit your view of the physics better?
Core vs non core. All non core rules MUST be reprinted and done so in 2 to 4 pages. Even the summnor can be explained in 2 to 4 pages the psionc rules would need reprinted as they do not use any of the core rules
They are the only class that does not use the core magic rules, even the alchemist uses the core magic rules.
So if ya can reprint 11 pages + all used powers in 2 pages then do so.
With the SRD as a free resource or the ability to produce a free printable pdf is it necessary to fit the material in 2 pages or less, or even include it in the AP at all? I don't really have a dog in this fight, since I've never played psionics, I don't subscribe to the adventure paths (although my dm does and we are playing one), and from the sounds of it I don't think psionics goes far enough (I like the 'create-your-own-spell' systems like EoM and WoD). But if/when paizo develops their own psionic system couldn't they just have a psionic BBEG list his stats, spells, and other abilities then direct people to download an 11 page free psionic supplement from paizo if they have further questions. Downloading a free supplement is hardly onerous, and it frees up pages (whether it's 2,4, or 11) for further adventure material. Seems win-win to me. The supplement hardly needs to be all inclusive just enough to run npcs, and so shouldn't detract from sales of any psionic handbook. In fact it may boost sales by producing a buzz or assuaging fears of those who are on the fence or have had bad experiences with psionics in the past.
I know that the magus is the only new class announced for the book, but I think a new base class that works like the 3.5 warlock would be cool. It's not likely to happen, but it would be awesome to see the paizo rebuild balanced with the other PF classes.
Personally, I always preferred spell point systems to spell slot systems. One of the best products I've come across with this is 'Elements of Magic' which can be found on RPGNow.com
The product should balance well with the pathfinder rules.
I love this book! Have you used it in a pathfinder or 3.5 game yet?[/threadjack]
A stripped down archetype/sub-class of the summoner that transforms it into a Dragon Rider or a class with a dragon animal companion. Drop spell casting and the SLA summon, add some armor, weapon proficiencies, and a combat feat or two.
I bought this book and really like the way they have done the magic system. It seems there are unlimited spell possibilities and a myriad of ways to make unique spell casters. As with all 3p material balance is an issue as is getting the DM to sign of on it. To that effect, has anyone used it in a PF game (or at all for that matter)? I am looking for a non-vancian/free form magic system so if anyone has replaced/supplemented the PF system with this or any other such system and can relate how that worked out it would be appreciated.
I too would love to see your character. Bards are not my favorite class, but I would love to see how a summoner multiclasses. I want to make a sorcerer/summoner so I can have a more blasty version of the summoner. I agree with Austin Morgen about the hit to the eidolon. I don't think that it can't be done, but trying to figure out the balance is tricky.
I think the most important thing though is coming up with a character that is interesting for you to play. I think the bard/summoner sounds pretty interesting so who cares what stats they have?
I would give the Sorcerer just one additional spell known per level, and a '0' where a Wizard currently gets the next level of spells. That way, Sorcerers get a little more variety to their lives, especially at those low levels, without impinging on the versatility of the Wizards, and while still being delayed at getting the highest levels of spells, Sorcerers at least get the lower level spells on the same schedule as the Wizards.
I think giving the sorcerer an additional spell/level in conjunction with the human favored class ability makes the sorcerer more appealing then getting wizard spell progression. The number of spells known is the limiting defining factor, as I see it. Sorcerers are going to get the same level of spells and I don't think it hurts anything if they get them at the same time as the wizard because the wizard will always no more. Start adding more spells to the spells known list and I think you start taking away some of the wizards appeal. I personally don't think it is over powered, but I imagine others will disagree.
To the original poster: I hope you post how your experiment goes. I think it will be interesting to hear if getting the spells earlier has a dramatic effect or not.
With all the mentions of sorcerers being able to cast more spells I'm wondering if I'm missing something. As I figure it as long as the ability scores are equal a specialist wizard gets 5 spells/level/day max and a sorcerer gets 6 spells/level/day max. That doesn't seem like the advantage others make it out to be. Add in fewer spells to draw from, no bonus crafting feats for things like scrolls and wands and I'd say it is the wizard who has the advantage. A wizard can have a handyhaver sack full of scrolls covering things from utility to blasting. So I don't see how the sorcerer with its limited spell list is ever going to replace a wizard even if it gets spells at the same time. I might actually see a sorcerer played if they got better spell progression, but for now arcane casters in our groups are all wizard all the time.
That does make sense. The reason I thought to use the alchemist was because they could make a lot of potions easily and the mutagens. I read more about the mutagen and they don't really fit. I'll take a look at a sorcerer / ranger build.
Where can I find more about this magus class?
The Magus class is a fighter/mage base class that is going to be released in the forthcoming Ultimate Magic book. The book is going to be released next April, but the paizo staff has said their will be a play test for the class in the near future. At this time there aren't many details about the class, although Mr. Jacobs has said it is likely to be d8 3/4 BAB with 3/4 spell progression, built on the framework of the bard, summoner, and inquisitor.
I hate to disagree with Mr. Jacobs, and Geralt being inspiration for the alchemist class aside full alchemist seems incongruous with Geralt and witchers. If you were home brewing the class I would take a ranger and remove his animal companion and replace it with infusions and then I would alter the spell list to be more arcane. How much of each is a delicate question of balance, but I think that would be the closest representation. If you are following RAW. Ranger/sorcerer with a dip into alchemist for infusions or just the craft potion feat.
Here is my concept for a druid. Not the most ship friendly of characters so it may need some adjusting. I really like the character though so . . .
Back History:
Balam is from a remote island in the shattered islands. In ancient times 'gods' ruled over his ancestors with absolute authority. These gods controlled all aspects of life and demanded terrible things from their followers. Then inexplicably they vanished. Balam's ancestors were distraught and performed the rituals and sacrifices to regain the favor of the gods. But the gods never returned. The people wrote down the teachings of their gods, and carved pictures on their temples. In time it was prophesied that when the people had redeemed them selves the gods would return. These gods were men with the heads of jaguars, and their graven images are a reminder to all of the people of the failures of the past.
In time a priesthood stepped forward and said they could communicate with the gods, and could provide direction to the people so the gods would return sooner. These Shaman said that they were called by the gods, and proved with their ability to turn into jaguars, creatures sacred to the gods.
Balam was found at a young age, to have an affinity with the great cats that roamed the jungle outside his city. One of them had chosen to be Balam’s spirit guide. The city was a shell of its former greatness but there was a group of devoted men and women that kept the temples in good repair and performed all the religious rituals. Balam and Jax his spirit guide were taken in by this group and given guidance on how to use and harness these gifts given to him by the gods.
When Balam was working in the temple a complete eclipse revealed a text and a map unreadable at any other time. It mentioned a golden book that contained the secrets of the gods. And talks about a time when the city wasn’t on an island at all. The shaman’s decide to send Balam in search of this book to expedite the return of the gods.
So Balam and his spirit guide Jax sail in the direction of the lost city. When he arrives in the city it is only to discover his gods inhabiting the city. Multitudes of them. So a lone in a city full of the gods Balam and Jax begin their search for the truth.
I was originally thinking Jaguar Shaman, but now I am just thinking generic druid who has an affinity for jaguars. Let me know what you think.
I disagree with the fighter alchemist build for a couple of reasons. I think only 1/3 the alchemist's abilities apply to Geralt. I know he was "mutated" using potions and the like, but I think that is a little different then how the mutagens in the game work. From playing the game and reading a couple of the books I don't recall Geralt ever really hulking out like I visualize with the alchemist mutagens. Bombs don't fit either. In fusions do fit. Then there is the magic aspect of Geralt. Alchemist doesn't really cover that aspect either. I think ranger (for favored enemy flavor) and sorcerer combination would cover a witcher. Even better I think a 1-20 base class fighter/mage would be the best because then spell progression is built in. I don't know when you are going to play your witcher but see what the magus has to offer when the play test comes out. If it is too focused on magic take a couple of levels of ranger or fighter.
To add potions to the class take the brew potion feat and work it from that angle. You could even do the barbarian/sorcerer combo so you can take levels in the archetype that lets you drink a potion faster.
I have a similar summoner I plan on playing and so was asking similar questions. I was told that mounts cannot make attacks during a ride-by attack. So if you use ride-by the gnome will be the only one attacking, unless your eidolon attacks a different creature at the end of the charge. This does not put your summoner out of harms way, however.
As far as mounted combat goes I think that it is acceptable to use with the eidolon, especially considering you have to spend an evolution to use the eidolon as a mount.
Chromatic magic spell lists. Not necessarily a whole system based on colors (I think 'Words of Power' is the only system we are likely to see), but different color based spells similar to the elemental spell lists. I would like to see a Chromatic mage PrC similar to the Initiate of the Seven-Fold Veil . . . only less controversial :)
I don't think it hurts anything for the sorcerers to get spells at the same levels as wizards. It doesn't make the wizard any less viable/powerful. Even if you have a wizard in the party I don't think it should matter. If s/he feels a little jealous give them more spells and call it a day. That to me is the really difference between the classes, versatility. A sorcerer will never be able to compete with a wizard if the wizard is given time to prepare/stack the deck. And as far as more castings a day: all things being equal a wizard only casts one less spell/day as long as he is a specialist wizard, and the wizard can actually cast the same amount of spells/day of one level with a bonded item. That isn't a big enough difference to warrant the delay in spells IMO. Especially when you add skills and scrolls to the mix. Just my 2c.
A somewhat old post...but I can still give a thought, right?
Since the extra limbs ability does not otherwise state it makes you harder to trip or knock down, etc...a simple method to get the improved speed without going outside this evolution is to take it anyways, and ignore added another set of legs - just imply stronger, faster legs instead. Good for when you want a surprisingly fast two or four legged creature (instead of a 8 legged creature).
That's one advantage one can have with a lenient GM. So long as the fluff is mere fluff with nothing else attached, you can tweak it.
The problem with this is the limbs evolution costs two evolution points, the cost to increase speed (for all but land) is one evolution point. Additionally the speed increase for additional limbs is 10ft, while speed increases for other single point evolutions is 20ft/point spent. I think a one point "Increase Land Speed" evolution is an ok house rule. I think with the limbs evolution they were stating that the increase in speed is a bi-product.
You could give them evolutions at certain levels instead of giving them evolution points. Give them certain things that are ubiquitous to dragons, but not the most powerful abilities. You can give out natural armor improvement since it is only one evolution and maybe give the dragon wings for free at level five. Leave the other details to the player and how they want to interpret the dragon.
You could also balance it by placing restrictions on the eidolon. For example dragons wouldn't get an ability and then later loose that ability, so add the restriction that all evolutions are permanent. That way if a character wants wings, breath weapon, or large size then they have to save up their evolutions for it. I would also take away certain evolutions since they are not in keeping with a "quintessential" dragon.
Incidentally I think you can make a pretty good dragon now. I have a dragon rider character that I am going to be playing in an upcoming kingmaker campaign. It follows RAW and I have just changed some of the fluff. It isn't quite as powerful as other summoner builds, but I think it is going to be a lot of fun to play.
. . . Also: Yes, a lion shaman could turn into a Huge tiger at 6th level, but could not turn into any kind of anything at 4th-5th (except for the partial changes allowed with the totem transformation).
The salient point to me is that you can make a dire tiger huge! I thought you had to find a huge animal that was better than the dire tiger. So druids (not just Lion Shaman although that is what I am going to be playing) can increase whatever animal they wish to the largest (and logically the smallest) size they are capable of shaping into?
I enjoy horror RPGs such as Call of Cthulhu. I really enjoyed Monte Cooke's D20 version of the game, but it wasn't popular amongst most horror or COC gamers I ran into. "D20=D&D=Power gaming" was their attitude.
Unfortunately, this discussion does seem to validate their POV a bit. I can't understand why players would care so much that their combo of death got nerfed, but I'm seeing that to many that takes away all the fun.
I don't get that attitude. It's just foreign to me.
What about the non-power-gamer that really just likes a class/archetype should they be punished/restricted because others have posted min/maxed versions of the class on message boards? I'm think specifically of the summoner right now because that is the hot topic, but it can be applied to all classes that DM's feel may be unbalanced.
I think being unduly restricted as a player sucks, and can make the game less fun (in line with the OP). However, I think the DM should be able to restrict things for story reasons (there are no ninjas in this part of the world, dwarves were wiped out in a war two millennium ago, etc). I also think that the DM is the referee to make sure one person's character isn't ruining the game for another player. So where does that leave us? Open dialog and group brainstorming can go a long way. If as a DM you really don't like class X because of its potential to be abused, as opposed to outright banning it work with the player to see what their plan is. If you feel that the character may be more powerful than other characters suggest modifications to tone the character down, but that don't detract from the overall concept. This should satisfy both parties . . . as long as the "breakablity" wasn't the person's sole reason for playing that class.
I think banning something just because you don't like it or are afraid of it does everyone a disservice. Who knows it may not be that bad after you see it in action. And the interesting thing is if you search the boards long enough you will find arguments for most the classes being "broken".
Hm, so it seems all over the place huh? Makes it sound like a LOT of people's eidolons got their asses handed to them the first few times, but later on CAN be insane, however don't have to be.
I played a level 6 summoner for a one off and I'm making a level one for a new kingmaker campaign. The problem I see with the eidolon is that it is really easy to min/max. This leads to sensational board builds that come up with massive amounts of damage and then the class gets called broken. Those builds are possible. So are other min/max builds, and like all min/max builds if the DM targets the min not the max the eidolon/summoner is toast.
Haha it is interesting that we had similar ideas at almost the same time. Obviously I would have done/did things different, but I do like what you have here. Things I would change:
1- Augment Summoning. I don't think the Callers should get this ability. Just give the eidolon the stats you want it to have from the get go, and don't add one more calculation.
2- I wouldn't give the beckoners the same shifting capabilities as the druids. Level -3 maybe, or even better build an archetype around the shifting capability.
3- I wouldn't lengthen the duration of all the beckoner's summons, just the SLA.
Any other differences I have are more a mater of style than any issues with balance. I really like the idea of having two different kinds of summoner.
Now, does it work on the SLA? I was at Gencon and some Paizo folks sure felt it should! Whether it does or does not by rules (and how it would play out in society play) would be good to know for sure.
One of the developers confirmed that Augment Summoning does work with the SLA. I can't seem to find it right now. Maybe someone else has better search-fu and can add the link.
Another suggestion, since this is in the home brew section. Start over on the class.
I like (ok, love) the eidolon and what can be done with it. I don't think it is over powered but that is because I tend not optimize very well and I often miss some of the killer combinations that others see. That being said, however, I don't see the current summoner really filling the archetype. I would split the classes in two.
I would leave the eidolon with the eidolomancer (name stollen from another thread). I would remove some of the restrictions like range from the pc, disappear if the pc falls asleep, and gear restrictions. With these changes I would also take away the SLA and alter the spell list.
To make a summoner I would start with a wizard give them the ability to turn any spell into a summon monster (a la druid), give them the summon SLA but with reduced uses/day, and give spell focus conjuration at level 1. I would take away the arcane bond, add an additional restricted school, give no bonus spells/level for the conjuration school, and take away the scribe scroll feat.
The classes may need a little more tweaking than that, but I think this is much more in line with a true summoner. This is just my 2c.
The Mounted Combat feat line is supposed to affect what the Rider gets.
This is a bit muddied with the Trample feat, which lets you get hoof attacks against people you overrun... but that feat is just worded poorly (what about large wolf mounts.. do they get "hoof" attacks?).
So yeah.. it's saying you can make an attack during the animal's charge. The animal charges, doing up to 2x movement and attacking at the end. The rider gets to attack someone partway through.
At least, that's how I read it.
Well I guess this is a nice work around. If the mount can't attack in the middle at least it can still attack at the end. It seemed weird that taking a feat would actually cost you attacks.
