Dags's page

Doesn't appear so. They must be pretty busy with the release of star finder. hope we don't get forgot in the process.

I wonder how they rate importance of issues for FAQ... Curious if this will even have a chance to get FAQ'd. I cant imagine how busy they are...

Interestingly enough, I was discussing with a friend of mine about this issue last night.

Not only do the Merciful healer as written not qualify for those feats per lay on hands. Technically "Merciful Healing (SU)", doesn't count as a class feature for the "Mercy Class Feature" requirement as written. It would technically be a 3 level pally dip. In which case it would (RAW) be more comparable to a prestige class not an Archetype.

While i view this as nit picking and i don't believe most GM's would run the archetype that way, its arguable just as almost every other confusion regarding the "Merciful Healing (SU)" portion of the prestige class.

I really hope we can get this cleared up, its sad to hear people staying away from specific things due to confusion.

Mmmh... You mean there's GM ruling against the feats being accessible ? O_o

The Archetype is not that great with the feats, without it's not even playable... :/

Some GM's do some don't. It appears there is a lot of confusion as to what appears to be intended, verses what is actually written. Hence the confusion here.

It appears as though the Archetype intended to use channel energy as lay on hands for the prereq for the Mercy feats.

However the feats themselves require a class ability exclusive to Paladins (Lay on Hands). Yet this is not a paladin Archetype....

Hopefully they will FAQ it soon giving how long this this book has been out. I tried my best to find a answer and table variation is the only answer I could find.
I wonder how many people have actually avoided the archetype due to the uncertain description.

Table variation is great for home games, but not for PFS.

Likely they meant that channel energy would replace the lay on hands prerequisite, but I agree that it could have been worded better.

While i agree with you on this, that is as it appears. That is not how about 80% of GM's willing to run it without a FAQ. So i am hoping they will clear this confusion up 1 way or the other...

I just reposted it there, you are correct. thank you... Hopefully they can just delete this thread...

Am i crazy or is there a massive catch 22 in the Merciful Healer Archetype?

Ultimate Combat PG. 41
Last line under: Merciful Healing (Su):
"Feats and Abilities that affect a Paladin's Mercy Also may affect this ability."

I assume they mean feats like
Extra Mercy
Greater Mercy
Ultimate Mercy

but how can a Merciful healer qualify to even take these feats without Lay on Hands?

So in order to take advantage of this part of the Archetype, you have to dip 2 levels of paladin?

Or was it just forgotten that Merciful healers get access to these feats? I have seen nothing in the FAQ...

Was this an oversight? Is it supposed to be a Paladin Archetype? Any insight would be great, because it appears to be very broken as written...

Am i crazy or is there a massive catch 22 in the Merciful Healer Archetype?

Ultimate Combat PG. 41
Last line under: Merciful Healing (Su):

"Feats and Abilities that affect a Paladin's Mercy Also may affect this ability."

I assume they mean feats like

Extra Mercy
Greater Mercy
Ultimate Mercy

But how can a Merciful healer qualify to even take these feats without Lay on Hands? So in order to take advantage of this part of the Archetype, you have to dip 2 levels of paladin?

Or was it just forgotten that Merciful healers get access to these feats? I have seen nothing in the FAQ...

I am hoping to find a way to receive some errata or a FAQ regarding the Merciful Healer Archetype

The Merciful healer arch type gives the Mercy class feature and also specifically says at the end of it:

Feats and effects that affect a paladin’s mercy also affect this ability.

The main statement I've seen written from James was the following back in 2011...

Honestly, it sounds that way to me as well. And in the end... Lay on Hands and Channel Energy ARE two different abilities, even when they do the same things. Helping to qualify for a feat is NOT the same as "being interchangeable."

While i fully understand just because you can apply the feats to your channels. This does not help you qualify for the feats...

But it appears a little strange to me to give a class an ability that it cant qualify for? In order to use the like primary ability of the archetype you would have to dip 2 levels of an unrelated class just to gain access to the feats that it says you can use?

If this was the case, why is this a Cleric archetype and not a Paladin Archetype?

I am really hoping to get an official ruling after more than 7 years on this book being out. Sorry I'm back to the game from a long break.

Thank You

So I am struggling with this. The very casting time of 1 round for channeled revival makes me think this feat is useless....

If you have to use breath of life on someone who went beyond their con in negative hp within 1 round. But the very casting time of a channeled revival is 1 round, you wouldnt be able to use it at all because by the time the channel went off it your companion would already be dead.

Case and Point:

Your Companions Init - he drops below his con in negative hp

Your Init - you begin casting a full round channeled revival within less than 30' (range of channeled revival)

Your Companions Init - No one got to him within 1 round of him going beyond his con, he dies beyond breath of life saving.

Your Init - Your channeled revival goes off, but its to late, because his full round is up.

Am i reading this wrong? It appears the only possible use of this feat would be to preemptively assume your companion is going to die on his next hit....

I need some thoughts as i dont see this in the FAQ and i was considering taking this feat next level.

If there are no stats for it, there isn't really anything to make legal, is there?

Honestly, without either a link to the text or quoting it here, most of us probably can't give you useful answers.

Pathfinder Chronicles: Guide to Absalom

"The Salon also offers two unusual services in addition to the normal labors available in a temple of Calistria. First, the salon has the greatest wasp hive in Absalom, and this rare breed of wasp is the only kind known to produce a variety of sweet, clear honey. The honey is highly prized by makers of metheglin (a mead-like alcoholic drink) throughout the Ascendant Court and the Ivy and Petal districts, and is sold monthly in an auction."

I am not looking for stats, but some reasonable way to access it for purely roleplay purposes.

There aren't. It's really a description of Absalom; its history, districts, and notable locations and people. To answer the original question, just buy a jar of honey and call it "wasp honey". The general rule of thumb is that if there aren't any mechanical benefits you can spend a reasonable amount and buy the item. ("My belt is ostrich-skin, not calf-skin.")

Due to its rare nature "and is sold monthly in an auction" i would believe it to be difficult to get or even just buy honey and call it wasp honey.

Its ok either way, just trying to add some flavor to my character.

Masterwork Tool?

10 applications for +2 Escape Artist?

I don't actually know what it does.

There are no stats for it, only role play affect. I am just not sure because wasps dont usually pollinate. And in the description of the Pleasure Salon of Calistria it also states that they are a unique and special kind of wasp that can create this type of Honey.

Hence why i am curious if i need special access to purchase it? or if I can just claim it is and it costs the same as normal honey, which i highly doubt.

I assume if it had stats it would be some type of poison or love potion. However for me, it is irrelevant, as i just want the Honey for Role Play.

I noticed in the Additional resources, one of the resources not listed for PFS is the Guide to Absalom... Can it be the very guide to the main city of the world is not legal for Society play?

I came upon this trying to find rules for access to the Wasp Honey that is produced only in the Pleasure Salon of Calistria in the city of Absalom.

This of course would be for my Calistrian Cleric.

Thank You for any advice regarding legality or Guide to Absalom or how I can gain access to Wasp Honey for role play purposes. Best to just buy a jar of honey and call it wasp honey? Or would i need official documentation for such an item.

1. Ziyi Macilla

2. Greater Invis, See Invisibility, Extended Expeditious Retreat, Extended Long Arm, Extended Enlarge Person & Greater Invisibility our Chainsaw man.

HPS: 66
Initiative: +4
Fort: 7 Reflex: 6 Will: 8

AC: 12 Touch: 12, Flat Footed: 10

Rod of Lesser Empower, Feat: intensify Spell.

Targeting casters first, If they can see me, Mirror Image.

I am getting back into pathfinder after being gone since season 1. I have a couple of characters that only played 1 or 2 adventures. I am mostly curious if there were any rebuild options so that i could get these characters updated to current PFS rules, The last PFS guide i had was like 2.0, i see now the most current is 7.0?

Mostly thinking about being able to change my characters IE a core book wizard or sorcerer, to a Archetype or something along those lines.

Thank you for any advice on where to start looking for this information.

Thank you Stabbitty for your input as well. I am still curious however if when it says specifically:

"These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses."

Does that mean if the creature has Weapon Finesse, and uses its Dex bonus for attack, you use it as appropriate? or only if you have the Weapon Finesse feat... opinions?

As well when it says:

"Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature."

Does that mean creatures like Dire Animals, being Template, or a Advanced Version, depending on your background in D&D are not allowed when you can turn into Large Animals at level 6...

Thank you for future input on these questions.

Thank you for the quick reply and clarification i actually missed the other table. I am sort of regretting playing a halfling druid now unfortunately when i can just get enlarged and get the same amount of strength. But what are you going to do? *shrugs*

I forgot the other question that i had was about the pathfinder polymorph subschool:
"These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses."

When determining your current attacks, for example if a creature has weapon finesse feat, you do not get their feats, but is it more appropriate to use the dex for attack because that creature naturally does?

I think i more ment with the Dire Animals the following as well "Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature."

Is it considered an advanced version of a creature and as such ruled out by this polymorph description

I see that it states that if the polymorph spell causes you to change size apply the size modifiers as appropriate, but then it almost contradicts itself in the same sentence as you do not adjust your ability scores for this size difference. I thought the +1 to attack and -1 to ac was due to a +2 str and -2 dex modifier... Am i missing a table somewhere in the book for this? My associate showed me a table in the Bestiary for size changes, however i highly doubt i should get +4 str, -2 dex, +2 con for going from a small halfling, shaping into a medium riding dog... Any help on this would be wonderful...

Another question i have is the polymorph subschool states you cannot change into creatures with a template. Is Dire, such as in Dire Animal (Dire tiger, Dire bear, Dire wolf) considered a template still? It was in 3.5.

Babysitter?

Stablehand?

Monster nanny?
Pokemon Trainer?

Pactmaker?
Binder?

Huntard

Warlock

^ He went there!!!!!

LOL, I could not have said it better myself. The following is a portion of a post as an example posted in another thread. I remember exactly what he was talking about in Living Greyhawk Organized Play. Unfortunately without a split summoner or at least some minor changes to the summoner i would see this build going the exact same route:

...In a different organized play campaign I judged many players running a druid that focused on the animal companion instead of his/her PC. I made jokes about it (which was ok because the people were friends of mine) that he played an animal PC with a druid companion. I said that because the animal companion, when buffed with items, dominated every combat. So much so that fighters, paladins and barbarians succumbed to providing it flanks and aid another because it could hit more often and do better damage. The druid didn't participate other than to cast the buff spells. It went even so far that the player(s) wanted their companion to use martial weapons, make knowledge rolls then 'communicate' this information to the party, intimidate NPCs, and speak to NPCs. Yes, speak to NPCs because they were 'trained to' and 'had the skills by rule'. I never enjoyed those particular game sessions because I wanted to roleplay with PCs, not run a scenario with an animal taking center stage leading six PCs around like pups...

I never enjoyed those games either, and i did have a animal companion with a druid summoner the same as he is speaking about. This split idea would at least keep the class alive for a large percentage of players whom would probably not play it at all as the current changes sit. I thank you again for your effort in starting this thread and hope the concerns are seen by paizo...

Exactly the problem. If I want to play a character focused on summoning monsters, I should want to play the specialized Summoner class, not a generic wizard.

And i completely agree with you Caineach, a major reason this thread was such a great idea. It solves the two schools of thought on what a summoner IS. Neither one being able to complete exactly what both groups expect from a class. Except with this split progression.

Not everyone wants to play a Elidolon or feel like that is the center of attention for their class. And not everyone wants the ability to summon monsters many at a time.

Again many compliments on the concept!

I'm not crazy about the idea of completely killing the Eidelon mechanics off, but a few of the guys in my game group have mentioned that the class does seem a bit disjointed between the Eidelon and the Summoning.

Perhaps it could be a class choice feature, similar to how a ranger chooses their nature's bond ability.

I've been wondering if that might be an option.

This is currently being discussed in a different thread and many people at this point would agree with you since there seems to be two types of people who want to play a summoner:

1)Those who want to play a summoner with a powerful companion

and

2)Those who want to play a summoner who summons, and is a capable summoner.

That thread is --> here <--

And what do mass invisibility, teleport, contact other plane, overland flight, plane shift, dominate monster, and antipathy/sympathy say? Those are all spells Bards don't get. BTW, Summoners do get charm monster.

look i'm sorry, this is a thread based on the eidolon, i'm not here to debate spells. In regards to spells, a summoner is no better summoner than any other class that can cast summons. The point is back to my original post on this thread, The Eidolon is the class now. Never-the-less, I fully disagree that the summoner is anything remotely capably as a spell caster compared to any other caster currently playable at its current state. This is not a summoner, its a Eidolon, and its a shame. I also stated it was a personal opinion.

Dags wrote:

and its offensive spells are far far better, maybe i exaggerate with 10x, but its by no small margin that we're talking here.

Baleful polymorph says "hi".

Confusion says "lets end the entire combat right now"

You gotta understand as well, not all spells are for combat, and even the ones that are, all other classes are better except the summoning spells that got changed and are now the same, so well none.

Glibness = lets not even get into a combat.
Charm person = same
Disguise Self...

It would do 1d6+1 (or 2 or 3, depending on base form) + 1d6 Energy per tentacle attack. That's 3-13 damage (or 5-15) per tentacle, average 8 (or 10) per attack, times 11 attacks is 88 (or 110) damage per round. Not including the other base attacks (which do an extra 2 per attack being primary attacks due to extra strength damage). So that's an extra, say, 25 pts of damage. So at level 10 the eidelon is spamming 110 to 140 pts of damage, on average, per round, without buffs. Now, that does much less damage against anything with DR, obviously, but anything without dr is just slaughtered at that level. Basically being stung to death. And the Eidelon has about a +12 to hit (could be +15 depending on base form) on it's primaries, and +10 on it's secondaries. If you put it on a quadraped and give up 2 tentacles, you can get pounce, which allows all those attacks on a charge.

Personal opinion, but from the posts i've seen on hypothetical play tests, and actual play tests. This is exactly why i think all the power gaming went into the Eidolon, not the summoning abilities of the summoner. I think the wrong thing is currently being reduced to "balance" the class. Should have been the Eidolon, not the SLA.

Just looking at the spell casting I have to disagree, the summoner has a great selection of spells, many of which it gets early entry to. Black tentacles, haste, glitterdust, fly, grease... almost all the conjurer staple spells are there. Summoner has a great spell list, I'm not going to say it's better or worse than the bards, totally different focus. Definitely NOT 10x less powerful than the bard.

You lose so many awesome spells, Disguise Self, Lesser Confusion, Suggestion, Charm Monster / Person, Mass suggestion, Glibness. Just to name a few. I'm sorry, but for buffing the bard is 10x better, and its offensive spells are far far better, maybe i exaggerate with 10x, but its by no small margin that we're talking here. Even the druid has better offensive spells.

Umm... 1+ extra casting of a spell of your highest level every encounter is very nice. If it's duration runs out or gets killed you can re-cast it. This is equivalent to the highest level spell any caster equal to your level gets and they can use it 7-8+ times/ day, yeah that is a pretty big deal. In the early encounters when the other casters are wondering if they should burn their highest level abilities you can shoot this off. When everyone has...

But what you sacrifice for it? no spell higher than 6th level? dude, i remain my point, taking away the way summoning was, destroyed this class for a lot of people based on hypothetical unrealistic situations. And in the realistic examples that are posted. actual combat encounters play tested and posted its the Eidolon that has been broken and abused. The eidolon is far more powerful than any summon should be. Sure they can cast high level summons. But anyone who has played a summoner knows summon monsters are only so effective at high levels. And when your max spell level is 6th, you're severely weakened in spell casting.

Personal opinion, if this class wanted to become more "balanced" they fixed the wrong thing, The eidolon is what needed to be fixed. But that is my opinion only.

Let's strip the Eidoleon out of the Summoner for a moment. What's left?

1) Bard-like casting ability, with a superior spell-list.
2) Summon Monster SLA.
3) Light Armor/Medium HP.

Unfortunately, this is no way possible to be correct. After playing many druid summoners in Living Greyhawk and other summoners in other campaigns. Even during the first play tests mods when i played a Bard out of just the 3.5 core books!

1) The 3.5 bard i had was 10x more poweful when it came to casting ability than what the summoner has. The bard has better buffing, and still has more offensive spells than a summoner. and that was just with the 3.5 core books, before all the available things now in the Pathfinder books, including the amazing changes the Bard has now.

2) The Summon Monster SLA is no different than any other class in the game at this point. With the current limitations of it, it has become nothing special at all. Only difference is you can only have 1 SLA in at a time, yes you can cast Summons as well from spells, But so can every other class with summons available. Big deal.

3) The only thing better would be being a caster able to wear light armor with medium HP's. But then again, there are feats for wizards to do that, and druids can already do it as druid summoners.

If you strip away the Eidolon, you have nothing left anymore with the current changes. Except a severely weakened party buffer. It is unfortunate it had to come to this due to hypothetical situations that were unrealistic to begin with. The Eidolon is the class now, the summoner has been left with very little if anything for an adventuring class.

But I'll ask this: If you wanted to play a character focused on summoning creatures to do his work for him, who would you rather play? The summoner is undeniably better at that particular function than a wizard could possibly be, with the added benefit of getting a d8 hit die and middle base attack bonus.

That has been my exact argument in many forums. If it is the original pdf form. I would rather play the summoner because of standard actions and minutes, more than 1 SLA at a time.

If its the current updated rules. I might as well go with the conjuration wizard. Same casting time, Same duration, can summon almost the same amount of summons in the same time length. Only i have the option for some better offensive spells.

That is one reason i really like the concept of this thread. It gives both players, people who want a summoner, and people who want a powerful companion. Exactly what they look for in a class. So to speak remedies the current changes that i believe many people, including myself, would feel robbed of if they remain to the final build.

The trouble here is, look at the summoner not as an eidolon lackey, but as a conjuration-specialized wizard. With respect to summoning, this build is obscenely *more* powerful than such a wizard, even without a familiar around. The summon monster spell-like ability is essentially 5-10 bonus spells of the highest level a wizard could cast... imagine getting to 5th level and having 6 or 7 fireballs on top of your regular spell list. It's almost degenerate.

You can look at him like that, except for 1 very important fact. Wizards still have awesome offensive spells up to 9th level.

Not to mention they're based on Summon Monster spells which have traditionally been less powerful than Summon Natures ally spells in regards to summoning. I really disagree that this build is "obscenely *more* powerful" than a conjuration-specialized wizard. This build has sacrificed SO MUCH magical power just for the summoning capabilities it had. It is nothing like having 7 fireballs, on top of a regular spell list. As well you have to be 16th level just to get the bottom of your 6th level spells? A wizard conjuration would be at the top of his 8th level spells by that point almost 9th level.

Re-look at what your sacrificing from a conjuration wizard just to get the exact same summon spells, but just a few more... Thats a long step far from over powered.

Just found a thread where, at least for Organized Play, Eidolons are Animal Companions. So, a summoner 5/ Druid 4 with Boon Companion( Eidolon ) and Boon Companion( Animal Companion ) would have a lvl 9 Eidolon and a lvl 8 Animal Companion. I am sure it trails off after that( again ), but that is still rather impressive.

Edit: Sited Post

While this is a great idea, keep in mind for Pathfinder Organized Play, according to the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, you may only have 1 Animal Combat animal companion at a time for combat purposes.

"How many animals can I have at any given time?
During the course of a scenario, you may have one combat animal and as many non-combat animals as you like. You make the choice at the beginnings of the scenario. This means if you're a Ranger 5/Druid 5, you'll need to pick which animal companion is your combat animal. Non-combat animals (ponies, horses, pet dogs, etc.) cannot participate in combat at all....."

This is specifically for Organized Play, of course.

This is exactly what the class is intended to be... I've heard several of the Paizo staffers suggest exactly this.

Sean Reynolds at one point said the idea here was to bring the fun of building monsters into the players hands. I don't recall if it were Jason or James who said It's a class where players get to play the monster. From day one everything Paizo staffers have said about the class (other than the name itself) has suggested this.

I have missed that, I've tried to keep up only read about 250-300 of the posts on these boards but apparently i have missed that. I did read the entire summoner .pdf file and failed to see that portion of the description. If that is the intention i apologize for my ignorance on it. Please don't think of my protest on the SLA changes as any ungratefulness towards the design of the build.

When i first read it i absolutely fell in love with it, I thought it was the coolest idea for a summoner yet and was very excited to play it. The scenarios i role played it through in my own tests were awesome. But changing the SLA stopped me from even bothering to play test it as it took my personal center focus of summoner away and left me, as well as many others from what i've seen, with a class i cannot call "summoner."

You phrase this like we're disagreeing, but we're not.

I apologize, I was not disagreeing with you at all. I miss worded what i wanted to say. When i first started i knew when all the combats were coming. I can not say this is the same for your players as I am not at your table. But when players at my tables know for a fact a combat is coming, it is usually coming from meta-gaming knowledge. That is not to say that there are not opportunities occasionally where there were not fights coming that were role played. But I do not believe its enough to make that drastic of a change to a summoner.

There have been half a hundred threads here discussing how the eidolon is unfairly proximate in power level to a PC class, and cutting out some ancillary summoner interactions for them isn't going to weaken them nearly enough to justify a boost to summon powers. Remember, the 300-damage-per-round eidolon builds make no note of any summoner...

And i totally agree with you Maeloke, however i want the summoning power boosted as well.

Rarely people have time to go scout up ahead to see theirs a big bad guy waiting for them. Confirm its a big bad guy not a innocent or a helper. Run away summon and army and go back. Fights spring up on most parties, and if not then perhaps this a easily fixed DM problem not a class problem. Pathfinder Society does a great job not giving you to much of a heads up on combats. Unless you're a big time meta-gamer.

The way i see a real world example is that you spring up a fight, its worthless to summon 1d4+1 in MOST cases because the summoned creatures are so weak they would not make any difference in a combat at that CR. However, looking at the boards the Elidolon has been stronger at nearly ever level then fighters and barbarians, to a drastic degree with 8 or 9 attacks doing god knows what damage with the same Attack bonuses or better than fighters...

This split progression idea at the minimum fixes this for people who want to role play a summoner who summons, rather than (In my opinion) a Elidolon with a PC companion.

Now I understand what your saying Dags, sorry for the smartass retort I gave up-thread.

I 'guess' some people might play it that way, but the way most people I know (and the way I'm playing it) is as a partnership.

The Eidolon isn't replacing the main character, it's part of the main character in an emotional sense.

I totally agree, and i did not take offense no worries. I just see the class without its SLA abilities as SO focused around the elidolon that it takes a lot of the role play flavor away from the summoner. Due to previous experiences in role playing with summoners, It puts a taste in my mouth that this class is now an Elidolon with a PC companion.

Dags wrote:

LazarX wrote:

It really boils down to this. If you enjoyed programs like Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh! and wanted to play a character like that than this is the class that's been served up for you on a platter.

Personal opinion clearly but, This is Pathfinder, not Pokemon. Your character should be the main focus in your playing. It sounds like this is more a Pokemon class than a Summoner now.

Do this mean the monk becomes a streetfighter because some one wants to make a character from Streetfighter? Is the rogue a ninja because some one liked the ninja from G.I. Joe? Is the wizard Harry Potter?

You can make all the classes sound like something else.

I also fixed the spelling for 'pokemon.' There is no "a" in the word at all.

I apologize Dragon I clearly misrepresented myself. My concern is that the summoner class is now being taken for the Elidolon only. In other words it makes the Summoner look like the only reason he is even a class is to justify the existence of a custom creature that people play. So if you want to play a Pokemon you just take a summoner. Make him non-existent really and play your Pokemon.

Maybe you are forgetting that the summoner summons his Eidolon? No other summoner even comes close to that sort of summoning power until they get their capstone abilities.

Dennis i have not forgotten that the summoner actually summons his Eidolon. But with the current changes and my personal experience with summoners it seems that the actual class portion of the summoner is only there to justify the existence of the Eidolon. Such as Rene later posted as follows:

...In a different organized play campaign I judged many players running a druid that focused on the animal companion instead of his/her PC. I made jokes about it (which was ok because the people were friends of mine) that he played an animal PC with a druid companion. I said that because the animal companion, when buffed with items, dominated every combat...

This is how i see the builds path starting to go with the current changes. Power gamed Elidolons with the summoner having no real combat oriented class features. Which creates the class is only there to justify the existence of the Elidolon. Just make the Elidolon a class at that point and save time, forget the Summoner.

I've seen some examples here on the forums of some crazy things you can do with them in combination with the Eidolon. It doesn't seem like it was balanced with items in mind.

I agree with you, as well most the posts power gamed that i have seen were building and making more and more munchkin style Elidolons. I would beg to question if the build needed balancing perhaps it was the Elidolon that needed it and not the SLA portion of the class. As well after reading many posts the Elidolon seemed to be stronger than Fighters, Barbarians and the like even at later levels.

When by the time you can start summoning 1d4+1 creatures and mass hoarding armies of them at those levels. The creatures you have access to do 1d4+1 are usually so weak at that CR that they're not even worth summoning in the first place. Its like having 15 creatures with +3 to attack trying to hit a 27 A/C why would you bother? This is why i said earlier that the Hypothetical situations in my opinion do not justify the most recent changes to the summoner...

Again these are just my opinions from personal play experience of organized play.

There are a few problems. At 10th level summoning a dozen or so more creatures implies using the 1d4+1 summons. at 10th level those summons are most commonly worthless at a table because they dont have high enough attacks or abilities to affect the current creature to begin with.

The time problem is not a class problem but a player problem. I have played multiple summoners, as others have on these forums, where i have had 3 or 4 creatures on the table from 3 or 4 summon spells and i still take less time deciding my actions for all creatures than the fighter with 3 or 4 attacks, or the rogue who has to calculate up ungodly amount of sneak attack.

Edit: as well people are rarely in a position that they can get a surprise attack setup properly to summon in multiple creatures, and if a NPC is doing it I hope the DM would understand the object is to present a challenge, not work for a TPK...

I think you are right on track! This is an excellent solution to the diverse requests for different ideas of what a summoner is. Not everyone wants their summoner to be a Eidolon only style character. And not everyone else wants a Summoner who spends his combat time casting summon monsters. This sounds like an excellent solution to the two types of play that people seem to be requesting in posts! Bravo! Bravo!

That is a question several posters have been asking. And getting called "munchkin" (or a variation) for it, either directly or indirectly. Or, more commonly, told that the Summoner needs to be this way for balance reasons.

and i totally understand that's what is being called munchkin, but what my point is, if you make the summoner less or equal to other classes in specifically summoning. Then it no longer becomes a Summoner, or any form of a class worth taking to role-play as one.

Hypothetical situations is actually what it comes down to from what I have read from the whiners on this board. Bottom line any DM or GM or whatever you want to call them who is worth a copper will be able to deal with it. All these little nit picky rules should be left up to the games DM to rule on like cursed items "who cares". It becomes a DM call what will happen because if you pick 10 gameing groups you will see it handeled 10 differant ways. A cursed item has come up once in the last 4 years of game sessions in our group. More than likely there are house rules in place and the DM is going to read over the class and make any changes he wants to incorporate.

I totally agree with you Hadesblade. The problem i don't believe is with the class itself. But with DM's who seem to be incapable of handling such scenarios. I fail to see how the original form of this build was anything a DM cant handle...

Please don't let Hypothetical situations ruin a great original build.

You should take commoners away from Pathfinder as well, because by chance any evil creature comes into play that gets an automatic -3 to damage vs commoners. Then it wont stand a chance with a 1d3 natural weapon at CR 1/3. =( it would be totally broken that they get the type commoner! (That's my 1 smartypants comment) hehe

The SLA was changed. It now behaves exactly like the spell except you can only have 1 active casting of it at a time. ( in other words, it also has a full round casting time )

So then a summoner, other than its companion and lack of spell selection, is no different than any other arcane caster... Whats the point of the class if you you don't want to role-play a custom creature? The originality of it has been stripped by hypothetical power gamed situations (IMO, unrealistic) down to a restricted arcane druid...

Except a wizard can summon more at a time.

*shrug* Jason has said that what he was going for was a very pet-centric class. The Summoner definitely fits. Sure his summon Monster SLAs help make him feel more like a Summoner( pre-update at least ), but that still doesn't make him the center of attention. When playing a Summoner type character the Summons are always going to take center stage. Kind of the "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" kind of thing.

You do have a very interesting point in the companion, I did not look at it like that before. I still think the 1 spell like ability of summon monster is ruined by only allowing 1. I undestand you can cast other summon monsters from spells, but they still takes a full round action the way i am reading it. The standard action seems to only apply to the summoners spell like ability. Not his spells. So his summons are really no special feature still.

Animal companion is not as good as an eidolon. But it isn't supposed to be. The main feature of the Summoner is the Eidolon. The main feature of the Druid is not the animal companion. Thus the Eidolon should be more powerful than the animal companion.

I always considered (even after reading the summoner) the main class feature of a summoner, to be its summons, not its companion. Maybe its just me but if the main focus of a class is its companion, not the actual class. Perhaps the class needs a different name, or even just take the eidolon make it a race and give it class levels. Does not sound like the summoner is a summoner anymore based on this forums... heh

I play primarily PFS, due to time restrictions. I had made a few different summoners before this build came out most of my ideas were the genie summoner, a chelexian diabolical summoner and a few others. I never pictured a summoner with a big bad companion, I always considered his summons his force.

It seems to me like this is no longer a class for characters but a way to make the Eidolon your build. Hence a way to make a character in anyform anwyay you want... The summoner got lost in the remake of rules on this build.

I don't have a problem with this, because the player is still in the game. I actually kind of find it refreshingly different.

It really boils down to this. If you enjoyed programs like Pokeman or Yu-Gi-Oh! and wanted to play a character like that than this is the class that's been served up for you on a platter.

If on the other hand you couldn't stand those shows, than perhaps this class should be a pass.

Personal opinion clearly but, This is Pathfinder, not Pokeman. Your character should be the main focus in your playing. It sounds like this is more a Pokeman class than a Summoner now.

It's already POSSIBLE to make it very powerful, and while that doesn't mean everyone will do it, it still has to be considered. Kind of sad for people who don't want that 1 powerful Eidolon, but more summoning ability.

That's my opinion, do feel free to disagree.

I totally agree, I happen to be one of those players who wants a summoner for summoning. Unfortunately i believe you will never get away from all the power builders, I hope that in each individual game whether its PFS or home, the GM would be wise enough to put a halt to power gamers like that. I do not believe the rules in books will ever be able to accomplish that for a game.

My problem was never minute/level durations. My problem was multiple summons eating the precious play time of other players. It's inevitable that the Summoner will take more time than other players, but minimizing it to one summon SLA encourages other actions by the summoner.

I have played summoning druids with 3 or 4 animals on the field, my animal companion, and myself. This sounds like a problem of an unorganized player not a class. During my playing of summoners, the fighters with 1 attack took more time figuring out what to do at my tables than me. I understand the concern, However the best solution to this is to create summon sheets for your monsters and pay attention to what goes on at the table so you know what to do. You have 3-5 other people doing stuff while you can figure out what you're going to do next. Just pay attention, which should be happening anyways.

Personal opinion but from what i have seen on the forums the biggest power aspect, if anything needs to be limited, is the companion. Not the summoning abilities of the summoner.

Keep in mind that the creatures that you summon are not the most intelligent. So even the side tasks between combats would be limited if role played properly. These summoned creatures would not come in with "tricks" per-say as an animal companion would have.

Now, let's say that you are clearing gobblins out of a cave and there is supposed to be a gnoll ranger down there (CR3)

For the fourth battle, an epic encounter, the summoner spams the SLA to try to overwhelm the enemy. That's 3 1st level summons, and a lot of damage being dealt and taken by spells. At this point, the Summoner has used the equivelant of 6 1st level spells... If there is another fight later, the summoner couldn't contribute as much, but the rest of the party has much more available to fight with

You do bring up many interesting points Mirror in your posts, and i do appreciate them. But i think this form of overpowering is possible with any class. I had a PFS in which i played my bard at higher levels (Which has been wrongfully claimed on many boards to be useless). in the First encounter we faced a big bad fighter and his minions. It was not even the big fight, 1 dominate. the fighter went and killed all his friends, and due to dominate being like days per level we used him on all the other fights, the party was not taxed at all... Adding the enemies like that to our party should up our CR as well but it doesnt. My only point being this happens a lot with many classes. Although your post did make me sit and think, a lot! hah

I was really interested when i heard a summoner was going to come, and even more excited when i saw the summoner. After reading around 60-80 different posts. I have become very discouraged.

It seems all the problems are in "rounds" that don't usually even exist in PFS. Most combats are sprung up on you and you do not have time to precast an army. Frankly if you do, I think the GM could easily rework the scenario a little to stop that. In NPC cases i would hope the GM would use summons just enough to make it difficult for the party. Not to mention by the time you would be a level where you can summon 1d4+1, if you are summoning them, Those creatures are generally to weak even with augmented summoning to do anything effective in a battle field. No Summoner would bother wasting their round doing such an act.

So my confusion lies in the following:

Rules Changes

In addition to the above language, the following changes are made to the summoner.

- Delete the sentence from the Summon Monster I class feature that reads: He can cast this spell as a standard action and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level).

- Add the following sentence to the Summon Monster I class feature: The summoner can have no more than 1 summon monster or gate spell in play at one time using this ability. If an additional ssummon monster or gate spell is cast using this ability, the first one immediately ends.

- Delete the Armor Training evolution.

With these rules changes on his summoning ability, Your Druid and Wizard summoners are better summoners than the Summoner Class. Present a problem?

I have not looked much into the Eidolon, because if i wanted a badass companion i would play a druid. It seems reading many of the posts on these boards that most of the "power gaming" and brokeness comes from their companions not their summoning ability.

While i absolutely love the idea of this class, between these discussions and the rule changes... it seems that it is slowly becomming a way to play whatever style character you want, through the Elidon and less of an actual summoner... If you're going to have a "summoner" should it not be better than wizards and druids in summoning specifically? As for all the hypothetical situations that it can be overpowered in, perhaps that's where a good GM differs from a bad one? In controlling those situations...

Maybe I am just completely confused. Who knows?