Search Posts
So looking at cavalier steeds, I see it operates as Druid's animal companion, which makes me think I need to use the horse statistics listed under druid, but the light horse in the bestiary has slightly different stats, as does the light horse listed on the srd. So I'm still assuming I should use the druid animal companion stats, but it seems odd to be that they're different than a base horse from the bestiary.
From the core rulebook, Character Advancement section: When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class ... Finally, add new skills and feats. Through logical implication, there is no option here. It states "add new skills and feats" and does not give you an option to do otherwise. This directly implies you must add your skills and feats upon acquiring them, and is how I've always interpreted it as well. I was only looking for confirmation.
My question is very simple: can you leave a feat slot open and fill it at a later time? For a bit of explanation, I'm building a summoner. I plan on taking Extra Evolution as many times as possible. I qualify to take it again at 10th level, except that a summoner obviously doesn't get a feat at 10th level. OK, no big deal, I'll take it at 11th. But how about at 20th? I would once again qualify to take it at 20th level, but again do not receive a feat at that level, meaning the campaign would need to extend into epic levels in order to take it again. I don't see anything that says that you absolutely must fill your feat slots (or spend all of your skill points) as soon as you get them, but I'm assuming you probably do. I'm just here to confirm.
but unless your GM is running a strictly PRPG game, you should be able to use the feat. (And even if he is, surely you could convince him of the need.) As I said, this is a strictly PF game. This was something our group agreed upon as a whole. When you make one exception, you might as well make two or twenty. Other than that though, I don't see what you are upset about. The class is better than it was The class may be; the build isn't. Not even close. You do have to give something up to have two full casting lists, Three levels of spellcasting progression, domain powers, d6 HD instead of a cleric's d8, universalist / specialist powers, channel energy progression, bonus feats, a second good save, familiar/bonded object progression, item creation viability, overcoming spell resistance, spell scaling progression. particularly when one has delayed blast fireball Yeah, DBF, that's what really breaks the wizard. edit: But, to most of you, thanks for confirming my suspicions. I won't be back to the thread, so good luck in your own campaigns.
Practised Spellcaster does not fix the problem of... That's why I said 'almost'. I can live with being behind in pure power level of spells as long as what I /do/ cast is at full character level capability. The class is about utility, but if I can't even be up to par in my utilitarian role, what's the point? The 10th level ability (whatever the hell that it's called) is a good fix for the action-screwed problem, but any ability that you don't get until level 16 can hardly be called a fix. How I currently address the issue (at my lower level of 3/3/3) is simply preparing a lot of healing in my spare arcane slots and topping people off after an encounter. You have arguably passed the worst of the Theurge levels already. Yes. On a lighter note, the progression from 3/2 through 3/3/1 was an absolute nightmare. =P
Sigh. All of this could (almost) be fixed with the simple conversion of Practiced Spellcaster. Mystic Theurge should have it baked into the class. =/ The humorous thing is that once I resigned myself to not really having any decent feats to take (as metamagic isn't really an option), I had resolved myself to being the parties crafter and simply taking several crafting feats. And then the caster level issue reared its ugly head again.
I'm aware of the Pathfinder MT revamp. My post comes in agreement to what you said: that it still sucks. (a ton without full CL in at least one of the classes) I saw on a very old archived thread, talk of them revamping some of the PrCs from the FPRPG in the upcoming DM book. But whether or not that was just internet blab I do not know.
Recently, we've picked back up an old campaign that was shelved. In it, the campaign centric character was my mystic theurge. I was all for converting to pathfinder and I absolutely love the system, but people that know the game (3.5/Pathfinder) know that mystic theurge is not where it should be. Is there any word on a mystic theurge revision in the upcoming DM book? If not, has anyone made any headway into building a competitive theurge? I'm not here to debate whether or not the theurge is good, so if you disagree with me, that's fine, but I'm not here to argue that point. I was given the option by the DM (because of the state of the PrC) to convert the character as 100% cleric, but unfortunately, being a mystic theurge was centric to the character, and I couldn't in good conscience do it. (Cleric of Mystra, story had a lot to do with his dual casting abilities, etc.) So basically, if you're in agreement with me about the state of this PrC, let me know what luck you've had in playing it up to par without Practiced Spellcasting and Divine Metamagic + Nightsticks. At the moment, I've geared him completely up for survivability (stacking AC, saves, and HP) as I couldn't find any better way to use his feats. Currently, the character is 3/3/3. edit: I should have mentioned that anything outside of the core books isn't an option. We're using the base rules, so the +2 CL trait that I've seen mentioned isn't an option.
Well, I was hoping Jason would at least drop by and take a look at the thread but it doesn't seem to be as popular as I'd hoped. Especially considering how many people have been petitioning for more base-forms and an easier freely flowing eidolon system. Ah well, to those that have seen it, hopefully you'll be able to adapt and use it in your own games as you see fit; we certainly will be in my own game. I'll still be checking by the thread now and again, and if anyone has any other questions about the system or how it could be further refined, let me know.
Just because the summoner might summon an eidolon's weapon aspect doesn't mean the eidolon's true form isn't some sort of angel-serpent-insect thing with living swords for hands. A valid point. I withdraw my opposition to the concept.
I think it's pretty obvious that this class was based around the Final Fantasy summoner, therefore it's my opinion to "fluff" your brains out. That's why this class is so damn cool. You can be completely unique from every other level 1 summoner out there, even if you eidolon's stats are identical.
Just remember, the phrase "Freedom in designing your eidolon" is not synonymous with "freedom to make it as overpowered as can be conceptualized." Having 4 sets of limbs at level 1 will probably never be possible in any system BUT continue reading and see what we CAN do. I think you may be surprised as to how close it is. First assumption is that we're working off of, say, a 10 point "point-buy" ability score system. So, let's start at the beginning and take it step by step. Size: Medium or Small; whatever is more appropriate to the PC's vision. For simplicity let's say medium. Speed: This value would have to be reworked using this new system. I think the easiest way to determine the value would be using two different tables (one for small, one for medium). A medium eidolon's base speed would be 20. Every pair of limbs adds another 10ft of movement. So as the speed value is determined by evolutions, we will revisit this at the summary of the eidolon's stats. AC: It seems as if all eidolon's have an inherent +2 natural armor outside of the scaling bounds of their progression table. This is another value that will be determined by the rest of the eidolon's attributes. Saves: Determine the eidolon's three saves base values as described in the pdf. For the example, let's say Fort(good), Reflex(good), Will(bad). Attack: Determined by evolutions, will be revisited in the summary. Ability Scores: Point-buy time. Let's assume we're not min-maxing TOO badly. Strength: 12 (2pts/8pts remain); Dexterity: 16 (10pts/-2pts remain); Constitution: 14 (5pts/-7pts remain); Intelligence: 8 (-2pts/-5pts remain); Wisdom 9 (-1pts/-4pts remain); Charisma: 7 (-4pts/0pts remain) Evolutions: Now the fun part. We have 5 pts to spend on form defining evolutions and 3 pts to spend from the Eidolon's level 1 progression table. For the first 5pts, because of the restrictions discussed in the first post, we need to purchase "Bite" reducing the pool to 4. With these remaining 4 pts, we purchase two sets of Legs(limbs) reducing our Form-Defining pool to 0 (and the Eidolon's speed to 40). So now, outside of customized ability scores, we effectively have the quadruped base form. So the system worked just as well as the Base Form system (if not better because of point buy ability score customization.) Now you have 3 additional points to purchase evolutions with. As we're aiming for an insect type eidolon, you can purchase yet another set of "limbs(legs)" and "climb" with the remaining points. So at level 1, your insect type eidolon would look like: Bugbug Size: Medium; Speed 50ft., Climb 50ft.; AC 15 (3 Dex, 2 Natural Armor); Saves: Fort +5, Ref +6, Will -1; Attack: Bite +3(1d6+1); Ability Scores: Str 12, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 9, Cha 7; Evolutions: Legs(Limbs)(3), Bite, Climb If you wanted it to be a spider specifically, you could easily include another set of legs in your description of it, simply describing them as not fully developed / short t-rex arms / etc, that will take a few levels (evolution points) to grow and gain functionality. That is a restriction presented by both systems that needs to be in place. Limbs are very powerful for eidolons. They branch into many different attack possibilities as well as adding movement. Lowering their evolution cost would be very unwise. Custom descriptions of eidolons should be fully encouraged, but at level 1, when the summoner and eidolon are still fairly week and underdeveloped, it should be expected that some of the attributes of the eidolon are not working to their full potential either. Another possibility is creating more bug-like evolutions that DO include the possibility of many more sets of legs but at a lower power-level. Or even simply refining the limbs description so that every time you take it, you are able to add as many legs as you want, but only two of them can be used functionally to wield weapons, make attacks, etc. This way, you could easily start with 8 legs, only a few of which have functionality, but as you level and purchase more leg evolutions, your eidolon doesn't change in appearance, only in power. The insect example is actually a very good one, because it demonstrates that the system works as equally well as the one currently in place for one of the harder archetypes to create. Couple that with the custom ability scores and evolutions that are clearly outlined as to which can and cannot change, it's a much more streamlined system that anyone can use from the ground up.
Perhaps. How does one assign null Stength, null Dexterity, and 0-foot movement to an eidolon using your system? Easily. As I've said, eidolon's should have an initial point buy system (between 10-12) in order to open up even more options. Assuming then, that this is the case, evolutions are crafted around it. For example: "Living Weapon*: The eidolon can be wielded as if it were a masterwork weapon that matches its shape. Any evolution that would improve natural attacks made by the eidolon also improves melee attacks made using the eidolon as a weapon. (Attacks made using the eidolon as a weapon can be selected as natural attacks with evolutions that apply to only one of the eidolon's natural attacks.) In addition, the eidolon's summoner gains any armor and weapon proficiencies possessed by the eidolon. An eidolon must have Str 10, Dex 10 to purchase this evolution. The eidolon no longer has a Strength or Dexterity score." The Str and Dex requirement is obviously so that a player doesn't reduce them to 7 during point buy only to immediately negate them. The scores are then eliminated altogether by taking the evolution (similar to a lich's constitution in 3.5). Nothing needs to be done for the movement aspect, as in a system with no base-forms, an eidolon would have to have either limbs, wings, a tail, or arguably tentacles, in order to receive movement speed. So as I've said, this system is limitless, it simply needs the evolutions to provide some of the more unique options. The entire purpose of this system is that it encompasses all of the current base-forms that were provided in the play testing pdf plus many, many more. Without additional evolutions, no system can inherently cover every single idea. But what is more streamlined, a base system that can cover any concept with the addition of modular evolutions, or constantly adding new paragraph long base forms AND additional evolutions? edit: Also, let it be said that I only created this example to work within the bounds of your "challenge". I see no reason a living weapon couldn't have a strength and dexterity score, especially if you wanted to later integrate a "Dancing Weapon" evolution. I also feel that weapon eidolons are fairly silly. These things are supposed to be extra-planar creatures summoned in order to serve or assist the summoner. What is this creatures state when it isn't summoned? Does it just lay on the ground (or fall through the sky or whatever the case may be for some of the more exotic plains) when it isn't summoned? Do other natives of the plane get to freely use it and lose it as they see fit? Seems like a pretty poor existence to me. Now if it could fly or "dance" inherently, that would be different. * "Living Weapon" evolution created by Epic Meepo. Italicized revision written by Smog.
Using this new concept for Form-Defining Evolutions, virtually any concept can be created assuming that the evolutions are available. Your weapon eidolon is no exception (you yourself prove that it could easily be done by adding one or two evolutions). I agree that the system should be tested by a broad range of ideas, but it needs to be done within the system itself. I have no problem with people brainstorming many different kinds of eidolons within this thread, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the new system presented herein. As the entire purpose of this system is to do away with base forms, using non-existent home-brewed base forms accomplishes nothing. You could have just as easily presented your weapon concept using the new system outlined in the original post instead of with a custom made base form. Any discussion of new base-forms should be held in a different thread. Discussion of new, expanded evolutions that could fit within this new system, however, are more than welcome here.
I politely request that any mention of "Base Forms" and other custom rules be kept out of this thread. If you wish to propose the idea, create a new thread and contain any debate within it. As I've said multiple times, this thread is specifically tooled to do away with base forms. Any other discussion should be held elsewhere. Thank you.
While we are entertaining the idea of customizing base forms, though, what do you make of ability score adjustments? I outlined the blob with a higher-than-normal con at the cost of dexterity, and I'd generally like to have the option of making the eidolon mentally impressive, instead of just physically. There was passing mention above of simply using a point-buy system and that is something I would greatly prefer to the static score system that is in place now. Again, I believe this class is becoming so popular because of how flexible it is, and converting to a simple point-buy system would be a vast improvement. Between 10 and 12 points would be ideal in my opinion.
I'd just observe, for your initial suggestion, that a big list like that one includes the option of having nothing but 5 tentacles. I think a better limit than 'one primary attack' would be 'no more than 2 attacks total'.Actually, it doesn't. Since tentacle isn't marked as a base form. Since all the * evolutions require some other evolution to work (wing-buffet requires wings, pincers require arms, claws require arms/legs, sting and tail-slap require a tail). You could, however, get a critter that was all tails and stingers... Quite right, sir. But as I outline in the post immediately above yours, that is a budgeting issue concerning the evolutions themselves. Currently, it is my opinion that most secondary attacks are far too cheap to be considered balanced, but that isn't the topic of this thread.
I have seen the 5 free point thing a few times. While the biped and quadraped have 5 free points. The serpeantine has only 4 (bite 1, climb 2, tail 3, tail slap 4). Or am I missing something. You aren't missing a thing. I initially made a post that addressed how the serpentine base form was under budgeted and presented a rough concept of how to fix it. I eventually scrapped the idea and completely revised it. I gave that idea its own thread.
I question whether or not you read the post in its entirety. First of all, the entire purpose of this system is to eliminate "Base Forms". In this system there is no such thing. All eidolons begin with a completely clean slate and 5pts of Form-Defining Evolutions. Secondly, it certainly does NOT include the option of having "nothing but 5 tentacles". It is required that an eidolon purchase either a tail or limbs with the initial 5 points. This would reduce your initial Form-Defining pool to 3 or 4. Tentacles are not a form dependent attack (no '*'), restricting the option to take them with your remaining points. With the current system in place, if you wanted to power-game and have as many attacks as possible, you would simply take the serpentine base-form (two attacks out of the box) and use your 3 evolution points granted at level one to purchase 3 tentacles. There you go, level one eidolon with 5 attacks. The problem isn't with the system, it is with the tentacle evolution itself. Unlike claw, it has no evolution requirement. It is, in effect, "claw", "pincer", or "tail-slap" but without the "limbs" or "tail" prerequisite. So instead of costing a total of 3 evolution points to get 2 additional attacks, you can receive attacks at a 1:1 basis, and indefinitely at that! Tentacle is overpowered and under budgeted but this thread has nothing to do with balance concerns of individual evolutions or the summoner class itself. It is simply a revision of the system that governs the foundation for an eidolon.
I just have to pop in to say that I approve of this idea. Although swim needs to be added to the list of defining traits (especially with gills already there). Agreed 100%. I knew that I would miss one or two and fully expected others to be added if the idea picked up any popularity.
I'd categorize this as a minor issue at best. Again, all of these evolutions include a one-line requirement and that wouldn't need to change with a revision of this type. If it's really viewed as a balance concern for an eidolon to be able to pounce and constrict, you could easily change constricts prerequisite wording to "This evolution is unavailable if the eidolon has the 'Legs' evolution." Personally, I don't see the need as an eidolon will generally be built towards attacking or grappling and not both. I game with a group of incredibly analytic people and we find ways to break any system presented. This could hardly be considered game-breaking but as I said, it's easily prevented if need be.
Ah, and that's where this system might run into trouble - I can't think of a simple way of restricting evolutions if you don't start with a limited number of base options. Pounce has little bearing on this topic. Pounce could just as easily be reworded to "This evolution is only available to eidolons who have two (or more) 'Limbs(Legs)' evolutions." This system is only to refine and diversify an eidolon's initial form. The actual power-level of the eidolons should not change. A simple rewording of some of the evolutions is all that would be required. This system is coming from a reference frame that ignores any and all balance arguments concerning the summoner class and his or her eidolon as a whole. It is simply a better option to further diversify ones initial companion while keeping it within the same power level.
Quadruped has extra movement because it has 2 sets of legs. The legs evolution adds +10 feet of speed per time it is taken. I understand that, I was only calling attention to it because it is the only other variable between the base forms in question. If the ability scores were indeed initially conceived as being determined by the eidolon's free evolutions, then limbs(legs) could have been weighted separately because of the fact they grant additional movement. That is complete speculation, however, and has little bearing on this topic.
I don't believe the base forms' stats were balanced around a point-buy system. I believe they were balanced around some kind of rough system mentioned in my first post. Where as there is a discrepancy between biped/serpentine and quadruped, quadruped has 10ft of extra movement (and is able to purchase pounce, though I highly doubt that had anything to do with the ability score allocation). edit: Though I do agree that a point buy system would be easier. I only mention an evolution based ability score system because, as far as I can tell, that is how they were balanced initially. I could be wrong, however.
Initially, I had a very verbose post planned to define further my ideas to add more flexibility to ones' initial eidolon. I realized, however, that the idea was more complicated than I initially thought and was deserving of it's own post with a more applicable title. Those of you who agreed (wholly or partially) with my original statement, please go here: and provide any input (and bumps) that you can.
The entire purpose of this post is to provide more flexibility to an eidolon's initial physical form. One way to do this would be to denote some evolutions as form defining and then simply grant eidolons 5 initial points that can ONLY be used to purchase these denoted "Form-Defining Evolutions" (a key-phrase that will be used throughout the rest of the post). For example, the following evolutions would be considered form defining:
The *s denote basic attacks. To prevent abuse, it could easily be required for an eidolon to have at least one primary attack. Another requirement could be that an eidolon must have either limbs or a tail to prevent further abuse by min/maxing your initial points. This would leave 2-3 free points to define the eidolon's form. This would completely eliminate the need to have pre-defined base forms. The eidolon's initial stats could simply be derived from their Form-Defining Evolutions allowing for even more flexibility while not increasing the power level of the eidolon. You will also notice I added flight in as a base form-defining power. This is because I see no reason to restrict an eidolon from flying immediately. Though a melee eidolon with immediate flight could perform some annoying kiting of ground restricted mobs, the option to simply pursue the stranded summoner is always present. By using this slightly revised system to define your starting eidolon, many more options open up and your initial restrictions on how your eidolon might look are completely removed. These Form-Defining Evolutions would be denoted as the only evolutions that cannot be changed as your summoner (and eidolon) level because they are, as the name implies, Form-Defining. They are what outline the basic shape and form of your eidolon. The common complaint is the inability to have an avian eidolon immediately. With this system, you have 5 initial Form-Defining Evolutions. So, for example, if we wanted to make an avian type Eidolon, we have several options open to us. First, as either limbs or a tail is necessary, we can take the "limbs(legs)" evolution, reducing our initial evolution pool to 3. As it is an avian type eidolon, we obviously need to give it "flight", reducing our initial form-defining pool down to 1. And as stated earlier, one primary natural attack is required, forcing us to take either "wing-buffet", "bite", or "claw" with our last point. For the sake of this example, we'll give our feathered friend "wing-buffet" and call our Form-Defining Session complete. Keep in mind, this session does NOT include your eidolon's initial 3 evolution points granted to him by his progression table. So our eidolon now looks as follows. "Owlcabird" Size: Medium; Speed: 30feet, fly 30feet(average); AC +2 Natural Armor; Saves Fort(bad), Reflex(good), Will(good); Attack: 2 Wings (1d4); Ability Scores: Str 14, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 11; Form-Defining Evolutions: Flight, Wing-Buffet, Limbs (Legs); Unspent Evolution Points: 3 (lvl1). The ability points listed here are simply an estimate, and as I said, I believe an eidolon's initial strength and dexterity ability scores should be dependant on its starting form-defining evolutions. I believe a system like this is already in place but the values are simply hidden and incorporated into the three base-forms. As far as I can tell, Limbs(Legs) grants 2 Str and 2 Dex, Limbs(arms) grants 4 Str, and a Tail grants 2 Str and 2 Dex as well. It would seem that either the stats were not balanced in this way or it was determined that if a creature has no limbs initially it is granted a bonus 2 Dexterity. These numbers are a balance issue that would be better handled by the developers. This system seems complicated upon initial reading, but in reality it is very simplistic and could be demonstrated in a single small table. It would allow for much more flexibility and versatility in the initial forms and abilities of ones' eidolon without increasing the power level of it too substantially (with the previously mentioned restrictions in place). Thanks. edit: due to the length of this post I will be doing some editing as I further define my thoughts. I ask that you please do not quote it in its entirety.
I suppose I'll bump then as these questions and ideas have at least a small margin of popularity. I also forgot to say something in my first post. Thank you! The summoner has made me more excited about a class than any other for a long, long time. I cannot wait to play mine in our next campaign.
First issue involves the Serpentine Base Form granting the free evolution "Climb". I understand that each evolution has 5pts of evolutions allocated to them, but why climb? This just seems out of place. Another one-point evolution that would be more universal for those with other ideas for their serpentine summons would be "Improved Natural Armor". The evolution listing even lists 'scales' as an example. My personal summon is modeled after Leviathan from (of course) Final Fantasy. Therefore, as some of the first points were immediately used to grant him flight, the climb evolution is just a complete waste. Which leads into my second question. Can the free evolutions granted by your base form be changed? I think the opportunity for abuse is fairly high if so. I only really believe the option is needed if climb remains static as a free evolution for the serpentine form. All the other base forms' free evolutions are physically defining in some way: arms / legs / tails / bite / claw / etc. Climb, however, does not fit into that niche. It needs to be changed to something more general, especially for those of us (and believe me, I'm sure I'm not the only one) who plan on having flying serpents. Lastly, a table with a short summary of all the evolutions and their descriptions, separated by point cost, would be incredibly convenient. Flipping back and forth over four pages looking at evolutions gets a bit tedious. |
