deadman's page

I wouldn't be worried about the dragons, I'd be more concerned about the PCs. Level 7 dudes going up against 6 dragons? TPK. Unless the dragons are played like they are missing a brain.

Plus you'll get catch him flat footed since you're invisible.

Nope, bombs are not spells so SR does not apply. And underwater combat with bombs just sounds like a BAD idea. You probably couldn't even throw it much farther than you're splash radius before it exploded. I guess if you had delayed bomb you could use them like depth charges though.

Not one that I've seen, but if you find one let me know cause I'll want to read it.

What kind of summoner are you building? That will dictate the type of feats you're looking at.

Half Orcs/Humans are good for the melee alchemists. I got a Vivesectionist/Master Cymist I made a week ago that has Spontaneous healing, lingering spirit, plus that trait for Humans that further increases the amount of damage they can take before they die. He'll be really difficult to kill. Tumor familiar looks pretty neat but haven't seen one used in game yet.

Its too bad you can't get anything decent for rending, that'd be a good fit with this type of alchemist.

lol, this thread is amusing. I enjoyed reading the scenarios. One thing that don't make sense to me though is that someone suggested to get around scent you just rub yourself with a dead squirrel. I don't see how that would beat it, so you smell like a dead animal now instead of a rouge, dog can still smell you.

Other than that though I'd really do it at night as suggested, rather than in broad daylight when its so easy to be spotted. I've gone against a lot of things that can beat just a plain stealth check, never thought it was a failing of Stealth, its just the way it is because they have those abilities.

So melee and ranged, as they level up, get to do more actions as part of their full round. Spellcasters do not.

Don't think of it as actions, because that's not correct. They get more attacks, but not more actions. And the same goes for the spell casters.

A level 15 fighter has only 1 standard action just like a level 4 cleric.

Pretty much everything the alchemist got is pretty cool, there's some real fun stuff in there with that class.

First thing I would ask is if you are the only player having this issue or is everyone in the group generally having their characters die a lot?

If its just you....how do you play them? I've done some stupid stuff before that got my character killed or nearly killed, but it was my fault so I got nothing to complain about. Or for some reason he is singling you out. 24 characters is A LOT! The occasional party death is expected and part of the game, but if you're dieing that often, then I agree something ain't right.

The Alchemist isn't any more "overpowered" than any other class. Perhaps that player just put some time and thought into how he actually wanted to build his character instead of just throwing it together in 5 minutes. A good build can make any class seem overpowered.

I got an alchemist I'm playing now, he's basically the same thing. Once he hits 8th lvl, he'll go from tossing 1 bomb per round to 4. Big improvement there but there are drawbacks. Limited amount of bombs for one. Will save sucks, unless you put in a lot of resources to make up for it. And if he's a bomb chucker chances are he'll need help to survive in melee. Yeah he hits touch AC, and the higher lvl you are the easier it is it hit touch AC. Especially after you start buffing yourself before encounters. But it isn't overpowered. For one I think you'll find the Alchemist will have to get more creative with he gets to the higher levels, he may be able to toss a bunch of bombs but the damage he's putting out compared to what some other classes can do at the level is pretty small. Alchemist is good at throwing bombs....wizard is good at casting spells, no need to punish them for what they are built to be good at.

If you're at 9th level then you're at the peak of that classes effectiveness IMO. Low levels the alchemist is okay, high levels TBD but I think he'll get overtaken by other classes.

Depends on how badly the bomb missed. Normal bomb only splashes out to 5 ft. so if you miss by 10 then your original target won't get hit at all, but if one of your allies happens to be standing next to where the bomb went off though, tough luck for them because you can't exclude their square.

In the group I'm in we just keep it simple, if you miss, the bad guy takes the splash damage and not the direct damage. So does everyone else who happens to be unfortunate enough to be there.

Okay, yeah I completely screwed up my first post, lets try this again. LOL

So for the demon to be locked down, it would have to make every one of its saves. Which for a 15 HD monster going against an 8 lvl caster should be easy enough. I'd question how the 8th lvl caster got by his spell resistance though.....

But yeah I can see how this is confusing. It really should be reversed. Make the save and you take the damage but can still act as normal, fail the save and you can't do anything.

Seems perfectly logical to me that it would stack. 3 bombs > 1 bomb, therefore it does more damage.

deadman wrote:

There we go, that's what I wanted. Key point here is ADDITIONAL SAVES. You still have to take that save the first time you looked, before you shut your eyes. Just like you still have to take that 80% miss chance before you shut your eyes.

So, we're in agreement -- you take the 80% miss chance for any attacks made before you shut your eyes, and only total concealment penalties for any attacks after you shut your eyes.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Almost. You take the 80% miss chance for any attacks made during your turn on that one round because you used your eyes and saw the illusion, in addition to the 50% miss chance for closing your eyes before making the attack.

After that, you take only one miss chance, 50% for keeping your eyes closed, or the 80% or whatever it is for the mirror image if you decide to open your eyes.

deadman wrote:

AvalonXQ wrote:

deadman wrote:

But if I walk in there and see 5 wizards standing in the corner, then shut my eyes and say that I'm blind, does not make sense.

Certainly it does. It makes sense, and it's allowed by the rules. Again, see the Universal Monster Rule on gaze attacks, which specifies that you can wear a blindfold or shut your eyes.

Does it say it negates gaze attacks after looking and then shutting your eyes? I very much doubt that. So I look at a creature with a gaze attack, then shut my eyes, so I'm not effected by the gaze attack? Hey that's a pretty good loop hole.

It's not a loophole; it's a choice. You're not vulnerable to the gaze attack for whatever interval the creature has total concealment on you.

And, yes -- you can start an encounter looking at the medusa, and you'll cease to make additional saves against the gaze attack as soon as you choose to close your eyes -- at which point the medusa gains total concealment against you.
You can even change your choice each round -- but as I said above, I rule (and I believe the rules support) that it's only a round-by-round choice; you can't switch off at the middle or end of your action.

There we go, that's what I wanted. Key point here is ADDITIONAL SAVES. You still have to take that save the first time you looked, before you shut your eyes. Just like you still have to take that 80% miss chance before you shut your eyes.

Regarding targeting a square with your eyes open, try this:

DON'T THINK OF A PURPLE ELEPHANT!

You just did, didn't you?

It is like that with sight. Your automatic hand-eye coordination takes over and you can't help but single out one of the images.

If that example doesn't do it for you, run the game as you wish but please don't muddle up the rules section. Take it to homebrew.

That's my opinion. If you see the images you can't help but target one of those images, despite closing your eyes after the fact. Its not a homebrew thing, this is a strict interpretation of the rules.

deadman wrote:

But if I walk in there and see 5 wizards standing in the corner, then shut my eyes and say that I'm blind, does not make sense.

Certainly it does. It makes sense, and it's allowed by the rules. Again, see the Universal Monster Rule on gaze attacks, which specifies that you can wear a blindfold or shut your eyes.

Does it say it negates gaze attacks after looking and then shutting your eyes? I very much doubt that. So I look at a creature with a gaze attack, then shut my eyes, so I'm not effected by the gaze attack? Hey that's a pretty good loop hole.

deadman wrote:

AvalonXQ wrote:

deadman wrote:

Using my fighter example above, lets say that I can see that wizard and I target that square, therefore getting only the 50% miss chance. Why do I need to close my eyes again? I can target that square with my eyes open.

Please quote the rule that lets you target a square with your eyes open.

Quote me the rule that says you have to be blind to target a square

Quote me the rule that alows you to target a square at all, and I'll show you the limitations of that rule.

Scroll up a couple of posts and read the Total Concealment text.

AvalonXQ wrote:

Kalyth wrote:

Technically by logic it would seem that the "blind" attacker would have a chance to hit an image and then suffer a 50% miss chance on that image for being blind.

Except that the spell specifically says that it doesn't work against blind opponents, who instead get the normal penalties for attacking what they can't see.

Combine this with the rules for gaze attacks, from which we know that a character can choose to be blind on a round-by-round basis by closing her eyes.
This option doesn't nerf the spell, nor is it cheating or overpowered -- it's a reasonable tactic and quite doable RAW.

Not saying it doesnt work as your stating by the rules of the spell discription it does. What Im saying is if you read the whole spell description it makes little sense, "Logically". I can see Deadman's point but the text of the spell state that "blindness" applies. Its just a rule that is not supported well by the rest of the spell text.

What I'm getting at is that if you see the images, you are not blind, and therefore this caveat in the rules does not apply. Now if I stumble into the room and it is pitch black, I can't see anything, this rule applies because you are effectively blind, you don't have the ability to see anything in that room.

But if I walk in there and see 5 wizards standing in the corner, then shut my eyes and say that I'm blind, does not make sense. Because you saw with your eyes the images before you shut your eyes.

deadman wrote:

Using my fighter example above, lets say that I can see that wizard and I target that square, therefore getting only the 50% miss chance. Why do I need to close my eyes again? I can target that square with my eyes open.

Please quote the rule that lets you target a square with your eyes open.

Quote me the rule that says you have to be blind to target a square

deadman wrote:

What most people are suggesting is that you can determine which square the target is in by using SIGHT, then close your eyes, and then say that you know EXACTLY where to target your attack, but not explaining what sense or ability they are using other than SIGHT they used to determine where the target is.

My understanding is that all of the images reside in the same square, so you can visually determine the square of the target.

Closing your eyes grants your target total concealment. Unless they can move on your turn, they will remain in that square as you walk up to it.

The big disconnect seems to be that once your opponent has total concealment, you no longer attack the opponent (or his images).

prd wrote:

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

So, you know the square of the opponent, but don't know where in the square he is. Swinging blindly into the square, you have a 50-50 chance of connecting regardless of images.

It still leaves something to be desired, because now it is opening a loophole in the rules about targeting a square and not the target itself. Using my fighter example above, lets say that I can see that wizard and I target that square, therefore getting only the 50% miss chance. Why do I need to close my eyes again? I can target that square with my eyes open. Clearly a much better option because you don't take the other horrible penalties for not being able to see.

PC: I see five wizards in that square, I attack
DM: Okay role you 80% miss chance
PC: I don't need to, I know what square he is in, I'm targeting that square.
DM: But you see the images, you have to take the miss chance
PC: If I were targeting the wizard that would be true, but I'm targeting everything in that square, not the wizard

See where I'm going with this? According to the rules, this is legal. But it clearly isn't designed to work that way. If a player does this they can negate the miss chance of mirror image despite being able to see the illusion.

FallofCamelot wrote:

My point is the same as Sissyl. If a player has not seen it as an advantage they would not have tried it.

As far as I am concerned it is an attempt to try to get round the spirit of the rules by working to the letter of the rules. Personally I would not allow it.

The spell's description explicitely states what happens when confronted with a blind opponent (even if he is blind only for one round because he is closing his eyes).

I do not see how using a rule described in the spell itself is "trying to get round the spirit of the rules".

In fact, I feel that forbidding the player to do this is in fact "trying to get round the spirit of the rules" (not to mention the letter of it) on the GM part.

It has nothing to do with the spirit of the rule. What is being suggested is that you can ignore the rule and I don't consider that any better than cheating.

Let's say I'm a big dumb fighter standing adjacent to a wizard with Mirror image active. Its my turn, I look at the wizard to determine which square he is standing in. I see 5 wizards in that square. And were done right there, you saw the illusion therefore you take the 80% miss chance. Didn't even get a chance to "blind" yourself because you have already seen the illusion. Closing your eyes afterward makes no difference because it is after the fact. The text clearly says that if you see the image you are fooled by it.

What most people are suggesting is that you can determine which square the target is in by using SIGHT, then close your eyes, and then say that you know EXACTLY where to target your attack, but not explaining what sense or ability they are using other than SIGHT they used to determine where the target is.

Lets remember that mirror image also duplicates sounds, so hearing is out of the question. I would allow this ONLY if the player could logically explain to me how they determined the location of the target without ever seeing it.

If I close my eyes and grab for the pencil, I grab for the sound that it's making (if you're writing with it). Or I grope around blindly to find your wrist and follow it to the pencil (which is pretty much what that 50% miss chance is supposed to represent). Sure, I might have the vision of four other pencils for a second, but if I close my eyes, I don't need to use that. I might have to take a second to re-focus my attack on the sound, but a round is longer than that.

Of course, if somebody sneaks up behind me, I'll be completely blind to that attack.

Now a fighter can't say "Oh, well, I close my eyes, swing my sword, and then open them again as a free action". If you're going to blind yourself, it's not 'closing your eyes right before you attack once'. I think that's what you're against, and I'm against it, too. If you choose to blind yourself, you're blind. No Dex bonus to AC, -2 to AC, -4 to attack, half movement speed, 50% miss chance... it isn't worth it, really.

Sound is a different way to target something, were talking about just plain sight here. You cannot get around the miss penalty just using sight as your only sense to determine the target. Now if you had something like blindsense or scent or some other means to determine the location then true, sight isn't needed. But that isn't the case in the OP's scenario. His only tool is sight.

You said that you don't have to use that knowledge of sight to know where the pencil is. So the pencil makes no sound, you don't have that good sense of smell, you have no supernatural ability. So how would you know where to grope around for the pencil? The only evidence of the location of that pencil was what you saw with your eyes. If you don't have the information you have not clue where the pencil could be. The pencil could be right in front of you, behind, to the side, above you, etc... Without sight you have no way of telling where to even start.

Hence if you see the illusion, then close your eyes, you still take the 80% miss chance because you saw the illusion.

only once. there are gome monster in the Bestiary that are similar (gorillalon or what ever its called). as long as 2 or more different claws hit you get 1 rend

That's was my conclusion as well.

I do agree with it. After all, the images are silent, they don't smell... they only have a visual component.

Bear in mind that if the enemy blinds himself in order to attack the mage with mirror images more effectively, then the rogue can sneak attack that guy for a boatload of damage.

How so? Lets use a simpler example. I'm holding one pencil in my hand. I cast mirror image on it, to you there looks like there is 5 pencils. You close your eyes and try to grab the pencil from my hand. My question is how do you know which pencil to grab at blindly? You have to choose subconsciously or otherwise which one to go for before you close your eyes. You saw five of them before you closed your eyes, therefore you are not blind, and the 80% miss chance applies along with the 50% miss chance for not being able to see.

All closing your eyes does is get you an additional miss chance because you can't see the one of the five pencils that you are trying to grab.

The rule is fine, it just doesn't apply in this situation. A truly blind creature who never saw the illusion in the first place isn't effected, and that makes sense. But someone who sees the illusion before they close their eyes is not blind.

So the eidolon can take this evolution. It states that when you hit with two claws you get to do extra damage equal to a claw's worth plus 1.5 strength mod.

My question is does this ability only apply to the first two claws to hit or does it apply to ever pair of claws that hits in a single attack?

Say I have an eidolon that has 4 claws, and all 4 claws hit. Do I get two rend bonuses or just one?

I tend to lean towards getting just one bonus per attack action. However, I can see the other side of it too.

EDIT: Posting this again because the first time I made the thread the board malfunctioned or something and it didn't post the thread correctly as you can't see my post.

So the eidolon can take this evolution. It states that when you hit with two claws you get to do extra damage equal to a claw's worth plus 1.5 strength mod.

My question is does this ability only apply to the first two claws to hit or does it apply to ever pair of claws that hits in a single attack?

Say I have an eidolon that has 4 claws, and all 4 claws hit. Do I get two rend bonuses or just one?

I tend to lean towards getting just one bonus per attack action. However, I can see the other side of it too.

lol.............soap.

deadman wrote:

I'd say that by closing your eyes and taking a swing you should be taking both miss chances. 50% miss chance for closing your eyes & then the 80% miss chance for seeing if you hit the real thing or just an image. Just because you close your eyes and can't see the images doesn't mean that you automatically bypass them. You can still miss and hit an image, whether your eyes are closed or not.

From the text of the spell Mirror Image:

Mirror Image wrote:

An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply).

Thus, according to the spell itself, a blind attacker is not affected by the spell, but does suffer the normal penalties for being blind.

I know that the spell says that. I don't agree with it. Just because you are "blind" doesn't make the images disappear. Lets say the attacker hits you with his eyes shut on the 50% chance. Your images still exist regardless. What happens to them? Do they all pop? Attacks that require an attack roll affect the images.

Never mind if you are blind how are you going to know where to swing in the first place? You have to look at the images before you close your eyes to base your judgment off of. So there is a 80% chance that you are basing your blind swing on an image and not the real target.

I'd say that by closing your eyes and taking a swing you should be taking both miss chances. 50% miss chance for closing your eyes & then the 80% miss chance for seeing if you hit the real thing or just an image. Just because you close your eyes and can't see the images doesn't mean that you automatically bypass them. You can still miss and hit an image, whether your eyes are closed or not.

Oh geez no! Then we would have people whining because the Eidolon is faster than the Monk therefore it is broken. Spells make it go faster.

Ender_rpm wrote:

What about the Rogues other 9 skills? And I vehemently disagree with your point allocations, Drop Con and Wis to 12, leave STR @ 10, and add more INT.

Then have the Eido go get a mug of beer :)

I stand by the power creep. 1st there is also Summoners Skills (= Since Rosue gets 8+ Int, Summoner Gets 2+ Int, the rogue has only 6 skills the eidolon must compeat in). 2nd the summoner and the eidolon can concentrate on the different stats, so they have better stats , if wishing so. 3rd Eidolon can later take +2 int and instantly gain one max ranked skill, if it wishes (more and more times as levels go up). Of course also take skilled to it. 4th Eidolon can later give some of its Skilled evolutions to summoner, if summoner has better stats. 5th if Rogue starts playing with Skill focuses, the Summoner and Eidolon can both start taking those.

I've seen rogues that have as high a stealth/perception check of mid 20s at low levels like that. Double that of the Eidolon. And you also realize that in your example that making the Eidolon marginally better at scouting also sacrificed everything else he can do. He's good at scouting, and nothing else.

I'd like to see the rule where pets aren't allowed to do as much damage as melee characters. Everybody is basing this OP argument on comparisons to the Barbarian or Fighter. Which is highly subjective. Most players obviously don't focus on Min/Max. Just because you got some people releasing out these "insane" builds of the Eidolon doesn't mean it is broken. I've seen "insane" builds for practically every class, but they aren't broken either.

What I see here is that the people who think the Summoner is OP haven't' even played one. They read the forum here or some other write up on the internet and then make their judgment then and there. While the people who have played or are playing the summoner <you can count my hand raised too> don't think that the Eidolon is anymore powerful than you can make other characters.

My current Eidolon got owned by a reach weapon the other day. Two hits and he is down because he has low HP and was being blocked by other mooks. Just because there are builds out there that put out a lot of damage doesn't mean it is OP. The game is about a lot more than just damage output.

I still don't like how the SLA is limited to one use at the time. I know it lasts longer, but I would gladly give up the 10 min/lvl duration so that I could use it more than once.

I think raising pounce up to like 3 evolution points is reasonable. But anybody who thinks the Eidolon is OP just because he gets full attacks isn't thinking outside the box. Any class can do this. I've seen fighter archers that can outshine any other character in terms of how much damage they can put out in a round. Fact is that the Eidolon can't do anything else the other classes can't do.

Without actually reading the rise of the runelords book, which is stupid of me I know, I would say the tattoo does work since an SLA works exactly like a spell. Also I found this http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/advanced-player-s-guide-playtest/playtestfaq -1?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F with this Q: Does the feat Augment Summoning affect Eidolon during the summon like other spell-like abilities?

A: (Jason Bulmahn 11/30/09) Summoning the eidolon is actually a supernatural ability and is not subject to the Augment Summoning feat.

Now, this was back in 09 where he typed it as an SU, but now since it shares energy and sources with an SP, it should also become an SP. His originally only reason for making it so it does not work was declaring it Supernatural, yet the ability can no longer be considered that. Kinda like when they changed Telekenetic fist from Supernatural to Spell-Like and gave it limited uses.

Exactly why so many people are having problems with this feat and the eidolon. It says that the SLA and the Eidolon draws upon the same power in the APG. But then you get Jason saying that summoning the Eidolon is a Super Natural ability. Therefore the SLA and Eidolon can't draw upon the same power because they are different. And the vicious cycle continues.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I agree that it's a ridiculous rule with specious logic that doesn't match anything else in the game, but that pretty much sums up all of the nerfs to the Summoner class.

This class begs for house rule. Which is why the OP should talk to his DM. Your not going to find a consensus on the forum because the class contradicts itself. And either side of the argument can be justified. This is a pure DM decision IMO.

deadman wrote:

Talk to your DM about it. My position is that the feat does apply to the Eidolon. It very clearly states that the eidolon is treated as a "summoned creature". It also says later that you SUMMON the eidolon via a 1 minute ritual.

This is the important part, not the "summon" (or at least, not just that). Augment Summoning buffs every creature you summon with a summon spell. The ritual to call an Eidolon is not a spell. It's a supernatural ability (and really needs to be marked as one; I know this was asked and answered by Jason in the playtest, so I don't know why it didn't get a Su tag); not even a spell-like ability, which could qualify as a spell (and does in the case of the summon monster SLAs that the Summoner gets).

So your saying that the Eidolon and the SLA that draw upon the same power, are completely different and don't really draw upon the same power at all. Since one is a super natural ability even though it isn't in the text, and the other is an SLA.

I'm really getting frustrated with all these exceptions. And that one doesn't make any sense at all.

Talk to your DM about it. My position is that the feat does apply to the Eidolon. It very clearly states that the eidolon is treated as a "summoned creature". It also says later that you SUMMON the eidolon via a 1 minute ritual.

So does Augment summoning work on the eidolon or not? I see this debated but the play test boards were taken down way back for this question and everyone just says yes or no with no real explanation. Now the newly released APG, it says essentially that the summon monster spell like ability uses the same energy to sustain the eidolon, which was their reasoning to make it so you can only have one or the other summoned at a time. So if augment summoning works on the summon monster ability, which it actually does, should it not also work on the eidolon? I am wondering because they failed to classify it under any type of ability. I mean, it is summoning an eidolon, not calling. If it was calling, it would drop dead when killed rather than going to another plane. All summoning is conjuration but again they failed to give this a type. So I am very confused here. I hope they errata the book to include a solid answer to this since only having either the eidolon or a summoned monster out really changes the way a summoner is played. After all, a conjuration wizard can make a small army. A summoner, someone trained specifically in summoning monsters, only gets one because they use it as a spell like ability. Shouldn't they be able to summon more effectively than a wizard since this is all they are trained for? I am just trying to understand the reason behind some rules in actual In-Game terms, not just "because the rules say so."

I say that it should. The Eidolon is clearly a summoned creature. You can call it different things, and do rituals and stuff, but you are summoning the thing. Which it mentions numerous times in the APG if you read the description. If you take the strict interpretation of the rules, then no it does not apply to the Eidolon because the word "Summon" isn't used in the title.

But for the SLA it says it draws on the same power as the Eidolon so I don't see any reason why it would apply to one, but not the other, since they both come from the same power.

deadman wrote:

Do have an observation on Slam though. You get two slam attacks as it is now.

It uses singular throughout the description. Compare it to the Claws evolution, which clearly says you get two attacks, whereas Slam gives you "a slam attack".

Well just reason it out. If I wanted 2 slam attacks, I would need 4 arms. Because it says that you need an equal # Limbs evolution. So even though I have a free arm, I need two more arms to get another slam attack. That isn't right. It is probably another mistake

Gorbacz wrote:

Overpowered or nerfed into uselesness. Make up your bloody minds ! ;-)

Eidolons start relatively weak as they have 1 HD less than for example druids companion. Also it takes a few evolutions to gain abilities that Druids companion has. But after that evolutions are extra compared what other pets get. Also the faster progress in other fields make eidolons soon go past their competition (and then the other martial chars). Also making an eidolon is a multi point buy in witch there are a LOT of opportunities to min-max. So you can build very different level of eidolons in a given level. Those are the things that make people feel very differently about them I think.

On the side note I don't think that "pounce" is the ability that breaks eidolon. They have many more abusable traits, like large size's reach for Bipeds, huge armor bonuses (AC 50 at level 10), blindsight, DR that is very hard to overcome...

I also don't think that PCs should be in a "holy balance" compared to each other. For me its ok, for someone to be "stronger". That said, I think summoner is ok especially, if there are too few players (playing pre made adventures) and the GM keeps his/her eye on the things.

How the heck to you come up with an AC of 50 at level 10? I can see that if you put like every possible magic item and buff the eidolon can handle, but that isn't something they get just from being an eidolon.

To make room to make the summoner actually a summoner the eidolon has to be nerfed. What are the major problems with the Eidolon at the moment?

- pounce, too powerful.
Solution : change so you can attack with 2 natural weapon attacks at the end of a charge.

- claws, they are the only weapons which can trigger rend and by getting as many as possible you can concentrate feats and other weapons specific boosts in one place.
Solution : can only be put on arms, together with the next one.

- limbs, having more than 2 arms is incredibly powerful, there is multiweapon fighting abuse, you can wield a two handed weapon and a shield, etc etc.
Solution : can only get arms 1 time (also makes the claws+rend combo a little less of a no brainer)

- pincers, underpowered with above changes.
Solution : become primary attacks

- slam, underpowered period.
Solution : you get two slam attacks, not one.

- tail slap, underpowered period.
Solution : roll tail and tail slap into one 1 point evolution.

- too bloody many primary natural attacks.
Solution : Only bite, claws, pincers, slams and rake remain primary.

What do you think?

Not too excited about double capping pounce. Do have an observation on Slam though. You get two slam attacks as it is now.

I was thinking about working with the SLA to summon monster and summon the Eidolon through the spell "Summon Eidolon". This is a conjuration spell, so if I get the rules right, Augment Summoning should add to it, as well as Summoner's Call. That wouldn't let the Eidolon stay around, but it would certainly for an encounter, as it already stays 12 rounds on level 1 and I am still able to summon monsters through my SLA, right? I know this has some serious disadvantages, as the Eidolon will not stick around until slain, but I hope this is a possibility to use both, the SLA and the Eidolon. Actually i choose to play a Summoner months ago, when the first Beta came out and i fell somehwat in love with the concept, so i am afraid, to let that go... (you know... the first idea was throwing little red and white metal balls on the ground when using the Summon Monster SLA and shouting stuff like "I CHOOSE YOU, CELESTIAL DIRE BOAR!", which i dropped by now, because it would be too goofy ;P ).

But i guess someone will now explain me why exactly that won't work. :|

Just remember when using the SLA it is limited to one use at a time, it does not function exactly like the Summon Monster spell. so if you summon your Boar, and then summon something else, the Boar disappears. Unless you use the spell version in which case summon away. Note that you can use the Summon Monster spell while the Eidolon is out, IMO this is a better option, but you have to waste your spells on the same ability that the SLA should give you. That is one of the major complaints of the class right now.

Yes, summoner don't have as many spells and they can't use their special ability when eidolon is present (that is the main complaint of the threads I think). So the other classes are better summoners (with quantity). But I meant that summoner can actually do reasonable summons on higher levels (= doesn't totally suck).

The other problem with the SLA is that you can only have it active one use at a time. So the only advantage the summoner has is the one time you use the SLA, it lasts for min/lvl instead of rounds. Everything else other classes can do better.

deadman wrote:

Gary Teter wrote:

Lilith is exactly right.

AHA! There is a little Gremlin messing around with the settings! LOL

HI!

LMAO!

Marik the Grigorian wrote:

aside from it's weak saves, it's no more vulnerable then the fighter, or barbarian.

Fewer hit points, lower saves, vulnerable to banishment and dismissal, fewer magic items (either that or the Summoner gets zero magic items), etc.

Just to add to that, Fighter's & Barbarians get to wear Armor. And they get more feats.

Ooops, sorry. Actually summoner is good at summonig at high levels. My APG has a typo on level 6 spells ( Instead of Summon Monster IX, there is Summon Monster IV ), so I assumed they wouldn't get high summons. So Augment Summoning will be very handy and you won't suck at summoning compared to Cleric & Wizard.

.

Check that again. The APG Summoner does suck at summoning when compared to the other classes. There are plenty of other threads complaining about that fact, and with good reason.

0gre wrote:

Fair enough. I would just suggest you try it out for a bit before you implement a lot of house rules on something. My experience with the class is significantly different.

As for the cash, it's yours for the taking. It just has some dye on it and I need a few hundred USD to get some chemicals to wash the dye out.

Yeah. What I plan to do is run the Summoner I rolled up this morning along side my player's characters as an NPC, just to see how it goes. I can see both sides of the argument though. Hell, maybe the Summoner will play just fine as is. For some reason, I thought that its Summon Monster Spells couldn't be used without banishing the Eidolon. But its actually just the Summon Monster SLA. ANyway, we'll see how it goes. I'll post back here with what I decide.

As for the money, is it that cool purple dye, or the lame yellow? I once saw a die bomd explode in a large bag of quarters as the criminal sprinted away from the video arcade where he got them. I was 8 and thought it was the coolest thing. LOL!

I figure that only a couple of changes need to be made in regards to the SLA. Because as it is now the SLA is pretty much useless, no eidolon at the same time and you can only have one use of it active at a time. And to get around that, you have to waste your spells on Summon Monster because the class ability is broken. So you got to spend additional resources to just be equal to other classes that get the spell as well.

I would change it to where you can use the SLA with the eidolon, but keep the restriction of having one use at a time. Unless you don't have the eidolon out, then in that case the SLA is unlimited just like the spell.

Lilith is exactly right.

AHA! There is a little Gremlin messing around with the settings! LOL