Standardization


Round 2: Summoner and Witch


I really like the Summoner and Witch both, very flavorful. I have one concern that came up in the Cavalier/Oracle playtest too, which is not using the standard existing rules for stuff.

The summoner's eidolon. Its progression chart is *almost* exactly like the animal companion one. But different. With a weird BAB progression nothing else has. Similarly with the witch's familiars. Adding the cool "spellbook ability" is fine. But why is the familiar list slightly different than the wizard's; is a pig more witchy than a weasel for some reason? And why are there slightly different abilities and wordings of abilities?

These kinds of really subtle differences are hell for players and especially DMs to keep track of. Please keep it standard. The eidolons should use the standard animal companion progression, and if you think they need some better BAB, have a couple evolutions that'll boost it.

In general I love the new classes but the thought of trying to DM a game with them in it has me tearing my hair out.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The reason the eidolon progression is different is because it uses the Outsider progression.

Its BAB is matched to its HD.

An animal has a BAB of 3/4 its HD.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

As mentioned, the eidolon has a different progression due to its outsider HD. We also made it a little bit better due to the fact that it is designed to be a more central class feature.

As for the witch/wizard familiar issue, we identified a number of familiars that worked a bit better with the witch concept. It is not, entirely different, and you really could use them almost interchangeably. I am open to a bit of standardization here I suppose, but I personally thought that different lists made them a bit more interesting and fit a bit better in concept.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As for the witch/wizard familiar issue, we identified a number of familiars that worked a bit better with the witch concept. It is not, entirely different, and you really could use them almost interchangeably. I am open to a bit of standardization here I suppose, but I personally thought that different lists made them a bit more interesting and fit a bit better in concept.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

A bit of standardization of witches familiars might be necessary to make the Improved Familiar feat work with the witch class. At some point, someone somewhere will want to play a witch with an imp as a familiar. And that will be much easier to do if there is a finite list of categories into which imp familiars might fit, as opposed to separate bonus spells for every individual kind of familiar.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As mentioned, the eidolon has a different progression due to its outsider HD. We also made it a little bit better due to the fact that it is designed to be a more central class feature.

As for the witch/wizard familiar issue, we identified a number of familiars that worked a bit better with the witch concept. It is not, entirely different, and you really could use them almost interchangeably. I am open to a bit of standardization here I suppose, but I personally thought that different lists made them a bit more interesting and fit a bit better in concept.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Please keep the difference for the familiurs. They are awesome


Epic Meepo wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

As for the witch/wizard familiar issue, we identified a number of familiars that worked a bit better with the witch concept. It is not, entirely different, and you really could use them almost interchangeably. I am open to a bit of standardization here I suppose, but I personally thought that different lists made them a bit more interesting and fit a bit better in concept.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

A bit of standardization of witches familiars might be necessary to make the Improved Familiar feat work with the witch class. At some point, someone somewhere will want to play a witch with an imp as a familiar. And that will be much easier to do if there is a finite list of categories into which imp familiars might fit, as opposed to separate bonus spells for every individual kind of familiar.

One way to deal with the spell element might be to associate the spells not with specific familiurs, but the source of the power the witch is drawning upon. So you could have a far realm pig, a celestial cockral, or an infernal cat. Perhapes even basing it one underlying principles, like the entropy, stasis and dynamism of mage


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The reason the eidolon progression is different is because it uses the Outsider progression.

Its BAB is matched to its HD.

An animal has a BAB of 3/4 its HD.

But why is its HD progression weird and different from an AC. Is that one extra HD worth the finicky rules sprawl? 2-17 instead of 2-16?


Ernest Mueller wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The reason the eidolon progression is different is because it uses the Outsider progression.

Its BAB is matched to its HD.

An animal has a BAB of 3/4 its HD.

But why is its HD progression weird and different from an AC. Is that one extra HD worth the finicky rules sprawl? 2-17 instead of 2-16?

What I think we have to do is not look at them as a AC. They aren't meant to be different and that is why they are not matching up. Just like you wouldn't challenge the spell progression between two classes the HD progress between two Cohorts should be treated the same.


FuriousPoop wrote:
Ernest Mueller wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The reason the eidolon progression is different is because it uses the Outsider progression.

Its BAB is matched to its HD.

An animal has a BAB of 3/4 its HD.

But why is its HD progression weird and different from an AC. Is that one extra HD worth the finicky rules sprawl? 2-17 instead of 2-16?
What I think we have to do is not look at them as a AC. They aren't meant to be different and that is why they are not matching up. Just like you wouldn't challenge the spell progression between two classes the HD progress between two Cohorts should be treated the same.

They are similar things, with progressions that are "almost" the same. That's bad design in that it will be very confusing over time and makes for rules sprawl.


Yeah and spell progress for a Wizard and Sorcerer is "almost" the same thing but it's different. Your Eidolon should be fully built before game and why would you be sprawling for information at that point.


FuriousPoop wrote:
Yeah and spell progress for a Wizard and Sorcerer is "almost" the same thing but it's different. Your Eidolon should be fully built before game and why would you be sprawling for information at that point.

It's called being a DM. I'm about sick of having to spend hours to stat out NPCs for my game, thanks.


Ernest Mueller wrote:
FuriousPoop wrote:
Yeah and spell progress for a Wizard and Sorcerer is "almost" the same thing but it's different. Your Eidolon should be fully built before game and why would you be sprawling for information at that point.
It's called being a DM. I'm about sick of having to spend hours to stat out NPCs for my game, thanks.

And how does having to look up information for creating your Summoner in the Core Rulebook AND the Advanced Player's Guide rather than just the APG decrease the time you spend making NPCs?

Dark Archive

Ernest Mueller wrote:
FuriousPoop wrote:
Yeah and spell progress for a Wizard and Sorcerer is "almost" the same thing but it's different. Your Eidolon should be fully built before game and why would you be sprawling for information at that point.
It's called being a DM. I'm about sick of having to spend hours to stat out NPCs for my game, thanks.

So don't use Summoners as BBEGS?

I mean if you're already complaining about how long it takes to create sessions for your players, why would you swallow shards of glass(use a complex class) to create a session? You've already admitted you don't have that much time to devote, why complain about the "time spent creating one"?


personally i like the subtle differences in the classes. they add flavor and that little extra bit of uniqueness.

Sovereign Court

Ernest Mueller wrote:
FuriousPoop wrote:
Yeah and spell progress for a Wizard and Sorcerer is "almost" the same thing but it's different. Your Eidolon should be fully built before game and why would you be sprawling for information at that point.
It's called being a DM. I'm about sick of having to spend hours to stat out NPCs for my game, thanks.

Hours? With the new NPC tables and suggestions it takes me about 15-20 minutes to whip up an NPC complete with spell list and equippment!

--Vrocking around the Christmas Tree!

Scarab Sages

King of Vrock wrote:
Ernest Mueller wrote:
FuriousPoop wrote:
Yeah and spell progress for a Wizard and Sorcerer is "almost" the same thing but it's different. Your Eidolon should be fully built before game and why would you be sprawling for information at that point.
It's called being a DM. I'm about sick of having to spend hours to stat out NPCs for my game, thanks.

Hours? With the new NPC tables and suggestions it takes me about 15-20 minutes to whip up an NPC complete with spell list and equippment!

--Vrocking around the Christmas Tree!

I have to agree, I've been pretty much rebuilding from the ground up the 3.5 LoF NPCs and I can do each one in 15-20 minutes. I think it's actually a bit harder for these too, as I need to double check the original math and try to stay to what the original NPC had instead of just making up my own guy.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Round 2: Summoner and Witch / Standardization All Messageboards
Recent threads in Round 2: Summoner and Witch