lrichter's page

I like the clarity of the writing and inclusion of "invisibility" in the definition. I have pretty much been running stealth as you have described it. I believe I was once educated on the matter through the old 3.0 & 3.5 FAQ.

Thanks for the work.

Thank God!

Where are you getting this information that the synthesist can stack it's bab with other classes.

I play a synthesist in PFS and I am really against this idea. If that's true then most everyone will dip into synthesist just because why not? Maybe I'll multiclass with Paladin... sigh.

If you can dip then, two levels of synthesist and you are pretty boss. You don't lose BAB, you get temp hp's, you get darkvision, you get evasion, and you get a boost to will save. And you can get an 18 str or dex for two points and then add +2 natural armor and something else. Maybe if there is an official ruling regarding wearing armor (that prohibits allowing the armor bonus to be used by the synthesist) then I think the pros and cons might balance out... but no, they don't.

Until I see otherwise I am ruling that "uses" means that the eidolon's BAB replaces the BAB of the character with it's own - but I also read the description as allowing armor since it says equipment acts normally.

Anyhow is there an official post/errata that clarifies any of this? If so could you link it. Thanks.

I am wondering if there is any way of tracking my orders. Shipped May 10. Given the flooding in the Mid-west I am OK with a little delay... but I would like to know if there is a way to track the packages so that I could know if perhaps they were stolen while I was at work or something like that.

Thanks a lot.

Here's my analysis of lighting and HiPS, in case it helps.

Great work. Thanks

According to page 172 of the core book (I have the 1st edition of the PF book, so it might have changed)dim light provides concealment and concealment allows one to make a Stealth check. But I'm taking this from the book under lighting; it is completely possible that there is some clarification I don't know about that separates the lighting version of "Dim Light" from the HiPS's dim light.

I agree that HiPS is a good ability but if you have to sacrifice a BAB point, take three feats (not bad feats but still three feats), and seven skill points - one would hope that you have an ability that can be used more than once or twice an adventure that isn't completely dependent on conditions. Let's also remember that HiPS can be beat by a bad roll, a good roll by your opponent, doesn't beat blindsense - which invisibility beats, and the list goes on. To the point: As it was it was a very cool ability that was neat to have but couldn't necessarily be relied upon at higher levels like invisibility (when you get it and use it). But now it is way to dependent - how do you beat HiPS? throw a sun rod at the dim lit area or just cast a zero level light spell.

Also - a dim light requirement is a pain for a GM because that means every room has to have every lighting source clearly marked before every encounter. Granted that should be done anyway but sometimes its hard enough to draw on the battle map and keep the pace of the adventure going (pacing is everything when running an adventure just like when telling a joke or a telling a story). In addition, when you have party members without Darkvision or Lowlight vision then you know they are using lighting sources which sabotage one's ability to use HiPS. And what if you are playing a human Shadow Dancer... do you have to wait until second level until you don't handicap yourself when HiPS.

I agree that HiPS lets you hide within 10 feet of the dim area but still... dim light has to be of sufficient darkness that there is concealment. I'm not sure if I would grant that for a simple shadow cast by a tree although technically that could apply... which brings me to the final issue. GM's have to make the call on what can constitute dim light.

All I'm saying is that I agree with you it is still a nice ability but it is certainly no longer worth all the trouble it takes to get when I could just play a ninja and turn invisible as a swift action about four times a day for about three to four rounds a pop. Might as well take Hellcat Stealth (hide no matter what at a -10 penalty... which requires only skill focus stealth and 6 ranks of stealth) for much less trouble, much less confusion, and more often effective than HiPS.

Example: Half elf Ninja 4/Witch 2 (18 dex). Feats: Free-Skill Focus (Stealth), 1 ___ , 3 ___, 5 ___ , 7. Hell Count Pounce.

Stealth = 6skill+3misc+4dex+5item+3centipede familiar+3feat+1ninja = 25-10 = 15. Not great but perhaps you use the fortune hex to roll twice (standard action for hex, move action to hide). Anyhow given that you can just take that roll no matter what... and all that for two feats and only ranks in stealth... no loss of class, BAB, or anything. It kind of puts HiPS in perspective. Make that character a halfling and you have a +19 with the -10 (impressive). And if it doesn't work, use your second level ninja ability as a swift action to become invisible.

Not trying to be argumentative, I just find it very disappointing that a cool class I have lots of cool memories of can no longer be played as it once was and thus cool characters can never be recreated in Pathfinder. In a way I'm mourning.

I completely agree about the first version of the feat... oh, yeah... I completely agree.

As for the new version: James, I hope your advising, pestering and cajoling find an open ear. The new feat is kind of cool and I hope I can use it in organized play sooner than later.

Thanks for the responses.

Hey all,

Why is the Hamatulatsu disallowed for Organized play?

I might be able to understand for some of the fluff reasons since you might have to be evil to be trained in it but maybe not... since I guess the Devil Nuns promote equality... Anyhow, it is a mostly a harmless feat that certainly doesn't over power the Monk (as feats go it is actually pretty lame) but it does give the monk access to some interesting combinations which themselves are not too overpowered but cool, and it gives the character some interesting role-playing options by allowing it to incorporate a martial arts style feat into the monk = perhaps one monk calls it snake style or tiger style rather than Hamatulatusu.

I hope the developers of PFS change their mind and chose to allow this feat.

This is a late post but the 3.5 FAQ actually tackles this very issue and says that you can stealthily move, attack, and hide again.

Also, as I remember the discussions and perhaps the FAQ you only take a -20 penalty IF you are trying to stay hidden while attacking (like improved invisibility). When you snipe you are attacking without every giving up your known location. Thus you hide at a -20 and nobody knows where that arrow came from.

This Dim Light thing is very annoying and virtually breaks the shadow dancer... you can hide in Dim Light as is, why do you need HiPS? Move out of dim light, attack, move back into dim light and hide (it's only a 10ft difference that a Spring Attack character should be able to cover anyway. Granted HiPS beats Darkvison character but still... for all the feats plus two silly skill points, that's sort of stupid ESPECIALLY when a ninja can just take invisibility and use it as a swift action for X rounds per level per use... for no feats.

LAME.

I ran this last night. I think it can be run on time if the GM is prepared, but we had more people than we initially expected which caused a bit of CL confusion among the three GM's so things were rushed towards the end.

It is a great adventure and I hope there are more like it in the future.

But it IS a variant! :)

I think the monk build is interesting but it doesn't belong to Pathfinder and fails the challenge as presented. As TriOmegaZero pointed out in response to why someone wouldn't just play this monk instead of a fighter - he said they have to see the fighter. Therefore by his/her own definition this monk is not balanced with the current classes; one must re-vamp all the classes in order to establish class balance.

I still think there are a number of nice ideas. I personally would drop the full BAB and the HP back to d8. I really really like the sutras and the drop of the "monk weapons." So despite not quite conforming to the perimeters of this challenge - I look forward to seeing some of these ideas in the next edition of Pathfinder.

Really good job. It sort of reminded me of the "Iron Heroes" character classes - super pumped and super hero capable.

I agree - Ride-by needs an errata... and mounted combat needs a FAQ. It needed a FAQ in 2000; it needed a FAQ in 2003; and it needs a FAQ in 2010.

As I see it and a brief history: RBA was written for 3.0 rules (in fact the 3.0, 3.5, and PF wording for the Feat respectively hasn't really changed) and perhaps 3.5 weakened it for a reason - mounted characters/NPC were incredibly hard to deal with. It's not like spring attack where when you get hit and the baddie moves out of full attack range, you can hope you will out do them damage for damage or something like that with readied attacks or charging - spirited charge made sure the non-mounted character was losing the exchange (x3 damage is like a full three attacks at the highest attack value) - and those stupid clothesline charges (using reach from the side of the mount) didn't help things... so maybe 3.5 knew what they were doing. Nevertheless in 3.0 it was possible to charge-attack-charge and that ended in 2003 with 3.5. (See D&D 3.5 FAQ pg. 95 - Does Pathfinder have something like this?).

There is a difference between PF and 3.5: Pathfinder does not require the straight like to the enemy (or at least I didn't read anything about a straight line, but I could have missed it) - it merely requires the closest square which can be attack and I guess in theory this means that so long as a square is equally distant away from another then RBA could work using the basic example being the straight line along column A and attacking critter in column B - not possible in 3.5.

I also want to add that I disagree with the idea the mount can't ever attack using ride-by attack. I think RBA is the only way a rider with a lance(under 3.5 rules which are different than 3.0 rules - relevant because of the age of RBA wording) can get a normal mount to attack at all. A mounted charge is declared by having the mount charge. Rider has RBA. Rider makes attack at closest square as normal (which is one square out from enemy due to reach), RBA allows for continuing straight line of the CHARGE after the attack. This allows for rider to move one square closer to enemy, and it allows for the mount to complete its own charge action (granted charge says that one may attack after moving double and suffering AC penalty and the what now but after all it is the mount who is charging not the rider). Mount attacks at closest square. Granted I guess that is the end of Mount's movement and thus the end of the charge RBA or not but it allowed for rider and mount to move where they did without AOO and still get all their attacks.

Yeah. Maybe people disagree with me but I think it is a fair interpretation of the rules that allows for mounted combat to work a bit better. One thing I think that needs to be considered is just how much the game needs mounted characters to be affective when they can be affective. I understand that we all must be aware of the mounted combat gnome on his cheetah and all the pain that brings. But we can't always prepare for the race to the bottom - we have to allow for the the classic Fantasy character - the mounted knight with his shining armor and heavy warhorse. Currently, I think the rules almost destroy the ability to play this character. Given 3.5 and PF charging rules, it is hard for someone to play a medium sized mounted combatant. Not only does this character need the terrain to be open enough but they need the adventure that allows for a mount; and it requires a lot of feats and a pet. That's hard.

My opinion. thanks

I heard today that PFS no longer allows players to play the same module with different faction chacters. Is that true?

If it's true that rule will really hurt the game we hold at the local gaming store.

Since it is a gaming store I don't believe in turning anyone away, well I just don't believe in turning people away. This means that walk-ins are encourage to show up, pick up a character, and try PFS out. And since it is a gaming store game, those who do shows up from week to week is not super predictable. The result is a sort of chaos because we can't always predict who will be able to play what so we can't always be sure what adventures to prep (we usually prep a low and an high.) But usually we always have to run a low tier adventure... so sometimes a player with a higher level character will have to suck it up and play a lower tier adventure and sometimes it will be a repeat with a different faction PC.

And thus the problem becomes evident - if this new rule is true, then players with higher level characters, who consistently show up to game may have to walk away from game because they won't be allowed to play the adventure and receive credit for it... which goes against my biggest rule (you show up, we'll get you a seat at the table).

I'm open to suggestions but I really don't want to see a table and a group I helped organize and create dissolve a bit over this. In the past I also organized a game store Living Greyhawk table, but it was not this successful and I have to think that Paizo's flexibility is the difference.

Thanks ahead of time

I think the factions are generally awesome. I agree sometimes players get more involved in the faction missions than in the Pathfinder Society missions but not all the time and especially not as much as should be expected:

Think about it:
1) Factions provide a handout players can refer to throughout the game which also reminds them to do something. Very good for the ADD players. While with Pathfinder Society missions the player gets a wall of "box text" at the VERY beginning of the game that usually says about the same thing from adventure to adventure ("I'm a Venture-Captain and you have to go do something..."). After that players just follow the trail of plot hooks. This is not criticizing the writing, this is just saying that if everyone is a member of the Pathfinder Society than adventure hooks get limited. I enjoy PFS adventures, Paizo has earned a lot off of me due to PFS, but I think being a member of the Pathfinder Society, as a character, can get repetitive.

2) By accomplishing your faction mission the player is doing something different than the other players; has a little bit of a different goal; and gets rewarded for their devotion to their faction. That's a big deal. The thing that I think made Greyhawk so successful was the introduction of regional meta-orgs. People like being vested in something, meaning they like to have a bit of say or stake in a thing or at the very least the option of doing something different. When everyone is just a Pathfinder, how do they really distinguish themselves from other players or pursue their own character goals. Being a Pathfinder has no rewards - neither RP rewards or mechanical rewards. You can't even rise in the ranks of the Pathfinder Society. I can't really communicate the devotion a player shows when they're vested. I saw players who were willing to write up small adventure reports (every adventure), get bossed around by NPC's in-game, and wait YEARS to become Knights of the Watch. And then once they were knights, boy-howdy did they get a kick out of it and bring a lot to the table in the process. That's what you get when you vest a player in the campaign.

3) Factions provide something that Greyhawk did not - each little handout sort of gives the player a reason to pay attention between combats and bring a little extra role-playing in order to accomplish a little mission. If I get this in exchange for losing a little RP involving the Pathfinder Society - that's a fair deal. The more RP I can get at a table the better. As a GM, when players have fun, then I don't care what part of the adventure provided it. So thumbs up to the authors for giving my players more than one way to have fun in an adventure.

I guess to sum up this long post (thanks for reading this far). I have been a big fan of factions since I encountered them in Living Xen Drix. I actually would love it if PFS would go the extra step and make more factions - like how Xen Drix had five big factions and then smaller factions within the bigger ones and I also have high hopes the new PF Chronicals: Faction Guide will be used in PFS because it is great and would add needed variety.

If GM's are having issues keeping the Pathfinder Society story relevant to their players then I would suggest looking at the silver lining - they are ignoring the story because they're having fun with the faction mission and fun = fun no matter where it comes from. Isn't that really the point afterall.

Well that's my two cents at least.

Glad to see this topic. +1 to most everything said.

I'll try to post more regarding RBA. My biggest concern is the threat of the gnome lancer, under 3.0 like rules, and his stalwart cheetah 50' or 60' move. Give this guy a working RBA and we have trouble. This character would be mostly untouchable and with power attack providing 3 per 1 (although limited by HD) I foresee a Druid 4/Fighter4 gnome, with Natural Bond, riding a medium cat (Cheetah) two handing a lance and ripping up baddies.

20pt buy
Str18(4th & 8th ability boosts+2magic), Dex12, Con16, Int10, Wis13, Ch12
Feats: MC, RBA, SpCh, WF, WSp, PA, Natural Bond

Attack: 4str+7bab+1wf+1magic+1size+2charge-2PA = +14
Damage: 6str+6PA+1magic+2Wsp = 15x3SpCh = 3d6+45 plus the cat's pounce.

That is not super-huge damage but given that the gnome won't get full attacked back or attacked at all give the amazing movement of the mount and given that the gnome can do this in pretty much any adventure... since the mount is medium. And given that the mount will get it's charge attacks too, it becomes a larger issue... so it is OK with me that RBA is not what it was in 3rd Edition.

But again, I am really happy to see this topic since I completely agree that Mounted Combat needs more attention.

@DM_Blake: +1

This change is a huge deal in my eyes. My favorite use of Spring Attack used to be with Hide in Plain sight. If Spring Attack is a full action then you can no longer hide as part of your move after an attack: no more jump from the shadows, attack, run back, and hide in plain sight. Unless there is more to the errata?

Anyhow the character build wasn't the beefiest in the world but it was fun. Don't get me wrong I think the feat is still basically useful for a number of reasons... but it is sad to find out that one of my favorite builds is a thing of the past.

Thanks for the depressing but informative heads up.

There is a decent feat in the Chelexian book that allows a character to roll an intimidate check on any opponent hit by an attack that is modified by power attack.

There is another feat in the APG that allows one to make an intimidate attempt with an attack that is for non-lethal - something monks can do with no penalty.

Is there an errata that says whether or not an eidolon can have the greater damage evolution and improved natural attack.

It looks like an eidolon could, at first level, get two attacks at 2d8+3. The biped could take the slam evolution, the greater damage evolution and improved natural attack as a feat and really be a super power house right from first level.

advice?

I have noticed most of what people are saying about the summoner and I couldn't really agree more but, and I hate to see this, I think it is almost necessary to multiclass, at least in organized play, just to keep you saves up.

I am planning making a summoner and I was planning a Paladin/Summoner mix using the eidolon as mount.

But I think for the sake of survivability I have accepted that this character will just not be the meat of the party; he will make a nice accessory and he will be fun to play but... and in the end I think that will make up for a little less than optimized play.

Hmm. I don't have my book available but it sounds like you can't have your shield be the main hand weapon and say a short sword be the off-hand weapon. With the heavy shield as the primary weapon and short sword as off-hand I'm seeing a -2,-2 as normal for TWF

I'm not sure if it is an important distinction with double slice and Shield Mastery, but it seems kind of important until you can get all of the feats. That way you can make a character, like a hoplite or legionaire who can do OK in offensive combat right out of the box.

The more I think about it and read your posts I guess the more I realize that this character will have to be filled with compromise. When I came up with the idea I sort of assumed a multi-class option like I did in in Living Greyhawk with my mounted druid. I am happy that it is harder to do, but it does require me to be a little bit more realistic on how the character will come together. Again with the compromises.

Here is what I have so far:

Str 18, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Chr 14

Obviously this is not an optimized caster and was initially meant for full plate and a half-elf's adaptability to give him Skill Focus: Ride

EIDOLON:
Feats: Toughness, Power Attack, Light Armor Proficiency, Wing Over, Unknown.

Eidolon progression w/ 9 levels(the #'s represent the evolution pts): Quadruped

1. 3pt: claws1, mount1 (reduce person is 1st level spell), tail1 = 3
2. 4pt: SAME3 + pounce1 = 4
3. 5pt: SAME4 + improved natural armor1 = 5
4. 7+1pt: SAME5 + Tail Slap1 + Energy Immunity2 = 8
5. 9pt: SAME as 1st3 + Flight (Wings)2 + Tail Slap1 + Energy Immunity2 + Pounce1 = 9
6. 10pt: SAME 5th9 + improved NA1
7. 11pt: SAME10 + second bite1 = 11
8. 12+1pt: SAME 5th9 + Large4 = 13
9. 15pt: SAME13 minus tail slap add wing buffet + second bite1 + Improved NA1 = 15

Obviously we are missing the Breath weapon AND Blind Sense. I actually can't believe the breath weapon is so expensive but so it goes. I thought taking breath weapon instead of large and then use the 3rd level Evolution spell to make the creature large when I need him large.

The character will definitely take wheeling charge out of the Cities of Golarion book which is PFS legal (change directions during a charge - makes ride-by useful again and w/ pounce - WOW) and I would like to pick up indomitable mount (use ride check for mount saves). But now it is clear this will require at least one fighter level and that run the eidolon into trouble b/c even if I put all the bonus points into con, it will not have a lot of HPs.

Thanks again for input.

I am planning on making a Summoner for Pathfinder Society (so there are only 12 levels to play with), as the subject line reveals, I want to make my summoner a dragon rider. Basically the summoner bonds with the fetal spirit of a doomed dragon egg and then must raise and train the spirit of the dragon in the form of the summoner's "pet" and so on and so forth.

The obvious problem is summoner does not have proficiency with martial weapons, specifically a lance, or with medium and heavy armor (not as big of a deal). I could go an archer route with the half-elf or elf and that would be fine but I would prefer to focus on the more classic idea of a dragon rider - like right out of an Elmore illustration - with lance and armor.

The quickest solution I can think of is to simply take a level of something martial or even dip into a martial prestige class which could provide such. Ideally it would be great to take three levels of fighter using the "two-hander" rules from the APG so that the power-attack, spirited charge is through the roof. But I am concerned that even as a half-elf with 1/4 bonus evolution points, the "dragon" would fall too far behind by missing those three levels and it would make the whole idea crumble.

I am open to whatever advice people might have.

Thanks in advance.

I don't think it is useless - is just isn't an archer.

Maybe I'm missing something but the key to a thrown weapon character is a two-weapon fighter build and I think the weapon training really makes this more possible. Will save is going to suck and it is a very Feat heavy build, but I understand those who want to be cool and throw knives. The nice side to this build is that it doesn't have to be all thrown weapon since one can still fight as a two weapon fighter.

So basically, I don't think this is useless build but like I said... it's no archer. The only bright side is that this build will eventually have two more attacks than an archer because of Great Two Weapon fighting and obviously be much more effective in melee situations than the average archer.

Human 20pt build: Str14, Dex18, Con14, Int12, Wis12, Chr7.

Fighter 1: Point Blank, Two Weapon Fighting; Quickdraw
Fighter 2: Precise Shot
Wizard 1 - Transmuter: Arcane Strike (use the roaming point for Dex)
Fighter 3:
Fighter 4: Weapon Focus - dagger; Weapon Specialization - dagger
Fighter 5: Weapon Training - dagger, etc.
Fighter 6: Improved Two Weapon Fighting; Double Slice

If my interpretation of the rules are right: we have a character at seventh level who has four dagger attacks with, thanks to the transmuter level, a 20 dex.

Attack: +6bab +5dex +1WF +1WT +1PB -2TWF = +12/+12/+7/+7.
Damage: +2Str +2WS +1WT +1AcStrike +1PB = 1d4+7 19-20x2 magic S/P

Item of perhaps necessity: Haver Sack

it takes a move action to get your stones so you'll only get one stone a round. Take the vital strike chain.

What about Quickdraw? I don't know but I don't see why not... it works for every other type of throwing based ranged character.

I am going to do this very thing - in fact I came on to the messageboards looks for advice on how to do it well.

I am hoping to have a PFS character and I am excited that I can do this without having to ask for special permission or something like that.

Personally, I am going with half-elf but that is because I don't mind the wait until I can ride the "Dragon." I think the role-playing of the earlier levels when the character is rearing and training the admittedly not so bright dragon will be fun levels so I don't mind using reduce person or a warhorse until then. But there obviously a lot of advantages to not being a medium sized creature with this idea... but in the end I am trying to recreate or create a story moment with a character other players can relate to out of fiction - i.e. someone like us, full sized.

My build is basically trying to imitate everything out of the beastery. I have actually found that you can purchase more attacks that are dragon like then you can have so... I am holding off on tail slap and wing buffet for quite some time. But, even as a half-elf, one doesn't really get to the dragon thing until about 11th level summoner. This makes it hard to multi-class... which as you will see is a bit troubling due to all the crunchy goodness that could make this character a bit more viable.

I am going with the melee mounted combat build. I think it uses a few less feats to optimize.. but I can't be sure about that. AND I am really thinking about taking three levels of fighter somewhere down the line so that the character can take advantage of the two-handed specialty build that allows a character to add double strength to damage when charging.

In living greyhawk I make a character somewhat similar, he was a mounted combat druid. And although this character wasn't the most devastating thing in the world, I still really enjoyed the build. So no matter how you do it, I think you'll enjoy the RP that comes along with this idea. I'm looking forward to it.

man do I suck at this stuff... I spent most of my lunch break writing a post... and not only did I not post it, but I somehow may have only posted a copy of the previous post.

Oh well.

So... this is going to sound awful since I'm discussing the matter, but could someone link where it says barbarians can only rage once a day. I looked at the PRD and I just don't get that from the class description of rage.

Thanks.

This is clearly a silly rule by the Pathfinder folks. I think people have great arguments why the current rule is OK save that such arguments mostly fly in the face of role-playing role of a barbarian. Kind of sucks if the big bad barbarian, head strong and fearless, is always retreating from combat after one or two rounds.

Barbarians, as most of have grown to know them, are martial in that they can tank an encounter by soaking damage and dealing damage (sort of since they do slightly more damage than a fighter with specialization, sometimes). And I think they are suppose to draw attacks, thus uncanny dodge, later improved uncanny dodge, and even later some sucky DR, which makes me think that they also have an ability to give them more hit points in exchange for AC so they can take the hits. I mean it's not like they get heavy armor to mitigate a power attack or something like that right out of the box.

And I really don't think it is a valid argument to say that they get a bigger hit die so the rage thing shouldn't matter. On average that larger hit die is only one hit point higher than the other martial classes... so the big hit die argument is really irrelevant on average. I think the big thing they get is +2hp per level. That is what allows them to do their job.

As written in Pathfinder, the Barbarian is a cool Prestige Class, sort of relegated to the status of a 3.0/3.5 Paladin. And this is the way it is going to stay until they correct rage.

My opinion.

Is there an official ruling regarding this matter?

And if not could we get an official ruling regarding this topic?

I think it would be good for monks to be able to use gauntlets, as many people have pointed out, Monks aren't necessarily some super powerful class that must be constrained. They certainly aren't deadly aiming archers with Many Shot (I mean come one what were people thinking with that - 3.0 had over powered archers, 3.5 brought them in check - still powerful b/c you get full attacks every round, and then Pathfinder released the beast again - my opinion).

Thanks

Hello. We have been discussing multiple ranged attacks within a threatened square and enemies that have combat reflexes.

I don't think we have an issue that a ranged attack provokes, but a number of us played 3.5 and in 3.5 it was quite clear that multiple ranged attacks within a threatened area would provoke multiple AoO's. With the specific wording of what a "Full Attack Action" is some confusing has arisen as to whether multiple ranged attacks within threatened squares still provoke multiple times. I guess the question breaks down into: does a Full Attack Action encompass multiple attack actions OR is it something completely different.

Thanks.

Hey there all,

Eidolons and Equipment
Eidolons are limited in the amount of gear and equipment they can use. Their forms tend to shift over time, making certain types of gear impossible to use properly. Eidolons with the proper training and the limbs (arms) evolution can wield weapons. They suffer the normal penalties for wielding more than one weapon, regardless of the number of arms they possess. Eidolons cannot wear armor, due to their shifting form, but those that take the proper feat can use a shield. Eidolons can use some magic items. Each eidolon can wear up to two rings, if it has the limbs (arms) evolution. Each eidolon can wear a single magic item in the following slots: eyes, head, neck, and shoulders. An eidolon with the limbs (arms) evolution or the tentacle evolution can drink potions.

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...

I don't like these changes and I am a big fan of changing BUT keeping the summoner. The first change limits player imagination in my opinion - may be some player wants their character to have made a divine or infernal deal that allows them, as the Summoner class, to summon a "knightly" eidolon clad in heavy armor. Taking away this option seems to be filtering PC's towards every creature being some sort of Cuthulu like monster rather than somehing... kind of cool in a story way. I mean I completely understand the "why's" given the insane AC these guys can get quick but I still don't like limiting the eidolon in this way. Perhaps the better thing to do would be to declare a type of eidolon at 1st level and that type of eidolon gets access to only a certain part of the evolutions.

Furthermore, who cares if the items disappear with the eidolon, that means when the creature is sent away the PC loses the use of a lot of stuff. Not that they may use a lot of it, but in terms of rings and perhaps boots of haste... they can use that stuff.

I don't like the change in the duration or casting time of the SLA - that's the class's thing.

I think perhaps the spell list should be done away with to limit their power. Let other class's do the buffing and let the summoner basically be a martial pet character. It's companion is superior to the druid's but unlike the druid it can't cast spells.

"The Eidolon can actually do the melee thing without augment summon, but I don't why that is a problem since it is the focal point of the class, and the PC(summoner) is designed to take a back seat to it."

The summoner doesn't have to take a back seat because they have an OK BAB and HP's and they can simply devote their feats to other martial things while still summoning in more creatures. AND they can buff like mad - HASTE at 4th level.

"I don't think the summoner can get by without a healer. All you would have to do is focus on the summoner instead of the Eidolon. Instead of having one powerful opponent the I would use several opponents. Their effectiveness would also depend on how the various Eidolons were built. If I did run a party of summoners one party member should make at least one of them into a scout. Having 4 monsters that just bash things creates a weakness in the party."

This is mostly true. But a summoner worth his salt will summon in large, potentially useless creatures to provide cover and fill up the battle map like a wall. The druid summoning hordes of hippogriff's isn't killing the baddie(s) with them but isolating the baddie(s) with them. In a group of summoners, in round one, two summoners will call in 1d3 celestial horses a piece with summon monster III to clog up the battlemap and pen in the baddie(s) and the another two summoners will delay and cast haste on all the creatures including the horses. That's round one. Round two the other two summoners summon in 1d3 celestial horses, and the previous two start opening up on the baddies with ranged attacks.

As for healing... it is a problem but at 9th or 11th level the party can start summoning creatures that can heal them, Bralani Azata. At 9th level they get one with 2 cure serious wounds... not great. But at 11th they each can summon d3 of these things. Still not great but it is not bad. I guess ideally the above party would have a fifth member - a turning cleric (or perhaps a couple Leadership feats that give you clerics). The cleric could use their positive energy burst to selectively and continually heal the eidolon's and even the summoned in distractions...

As a GM I think you have to anticipate the race to the bottom.

lrichter wrote:

First, before I get ahead of myself, perhaps I misread the eidolon part a bit, but it looks like augment summoning works with all the summoned creature even the eidolon.

No. Augment Summoning (and other feats like it) only work on creatures summoned with a spell. The Eidolon is summoned via a Supernatural Ability, which isn't even remotely like a spell. Augment Summoning, Beckon the Frozen, and so on do not apply to the Eidolon. They do apply to the summon monster SLA, though.

Can't believe I missed that... nevertheless, I think my points are still valid.

Thanks

I, like some, haven't had a chance to play the summoner yet but as a GM I am incredibly intimidated by this class. This class is almost everything horrible about a druid save with the druid one can chose NOT to be horrible while a summoner kind of has to.

First, before I get ahead of myself, perhaps I misread the eidolon part a bit, but it looks like augment summoning works with all the summoned creature even the eidolon. So, unless I read it wrong, a first level summoner could have a 20 strength and 18 constitution "familiar" who can be enlarged or made invisible thanks to share spell. Granted that first level summoner is really only a back-up character at that point because both feats went to the eidolon... wel, the eidolon and all other summoned creatures. But after first level the summoner can devote all their feats to archery or some other combat shtick... like mounted combat.

Now to the point, before the Summoner I came to the realization that summoning characters, specifically summoning druids, can and usually do usurp the role of other characters at the table. As a GM, I hate seeing this. I want everyone at the table to feel like part of the party. I understand that a player has to be allowed to do what they want with their character, so one has to occasionally put up with the summoning druid filling the battlemap with augmented hippogriffs and just choking-off the pace and entertainment value of the combat for everyone at the table. But Summoner is a class that really can't do anything BUT make the game less fun for other players. 1) The eiodolon is a highly capable marshal being who can fill the role of any fighter or barbarian for the campaign, especially if my interpretation of augment summoning's applicability is correct. Thus my martial players have to sort of sit back and see in essence half a character fill the niche of their whole character in combat. 2) There is a whole other character to work with that doesn't have to worry about its martial responsibilities to the party. So the player can decide to devote all the character's resources to social aspects in a game with good RP OR the character can become a second martial character and just utterly dominate that arena. Like the druid, cleric and rogue the Summoner's BAB isn't horrible so it can do some combat stuff. A mounted combat summoner, which is admittedly cool, is also admittedly very powerful. Lastly, there is a lot of flexibility because there are a lot of dump stats or at least no stats that need to be "through the roof" (most of the spells are buff spells and thus don't rely on baddies failing saves and the spell list only goes up to 6th level so you need only a 16 to cast even the highest level spells). This means that the summoner character can really, stat-wise, be a jack-of-all trades. If you look at all of the roles this class can fill, it isn't hard to imagine a table where one player's turn and the results thereof dominate the game and push the other players out of the party.

I guess for a concluding point to my argument. I would ask all the GM's out there to think about what a game would be like with a party full of summoners as written. Sure you need a healer in there, but... I bet the party would get buy pretty well, so long as the GM didn't constantly throw adversaries with circle of protections around them. I think that is the test of any given character class. If a party full of that class would basically be unstoppable at the normal CR then... the character class is out of balance.

My suggestions: I find the summoner absolutely awesome and I want to play one so very badly, but that is because I have been waiting for a pet focused class since I was a kid. The 3.5 Beastmaster came very close to offering this, in my opinion, but it was not quite right. The summoner brings the flexibility that the Beastmaster just didn't have and needed - but it does so with too much gusto. And that's just it, there is just too much in this class. I think the Summoner could easily be toned down and balanced with some careful and liberal grooming. For instance, one could just admit that the summoner is in the end a martial class and heavily restrict spell casting like the ranger and paladin are restricted. Or one could do away with most of the buffs that a summoner and eiodolon gain as they advance in levels and just let the increase in the eidolon's power be the treat a player gets for leveling. My thoughts.

Anyhow, thanks for the time and sorry if you feel my points are way off.