Yes, I will provide evidence that, in the hands of a skill player, the summoner is broken.
Except my initial comment was to a part of your original argument:
If the summoner were to lack its eidolon and instead summon monsters each combat, I would be fine with the current ability. However, because the summoner has its eidolon, I fear that the ability is going to lead to a multitude of economy of actions problems—both in terms of class power and in terms of time taken by the summoner’s player.
Right now, the player has the summoner’s actions, the eidolon’s actions, and the potential for a slew of other actions with his summons.
I was talking about the summoner's ability to have multiple creatures out at the same time and how that bogs down the summoner's turn in combat. I said:
Yes, in a standard group the summoner can go overboard with all of his summoned creatures' actions... and a courteous player won't dominate the game that way. Just as another character with summonings, animal companions, and cohorts should give the other players time to play.
The remainder of the discussion between you and I was about the "my turn takes a long time" aspect of your argument. That is, up until this last post of yours, where you start addressing the *power* issues of having a lot of creatures on the table--which is NOT what I was discussing with you at all.
So, I'll repeat and clarify my last question:
"Can you find any *evidence* that in the hands of a skilled player, the summoner as written ruins the game or ruins the fun for the other people playing because he has so many summoned creatures out that his turns take too long?
Uh Sean? Your argument is basically " I designed the class therefore its balanced. Prove to me that its not balanced." The burden of proof lies with you as the designer. And let me point out that adding another class that gets a free fighter as a class...It seems that SKR's argument is that summoners should be able to ruin the game with their class abilities because they won't actually use their class abilities.My argument is that any player can be a jerk and there are no RULES in the game about not being a jerk. If I'm playing a bard, and I actually write songs for my bard to sing to represent my bardic performance ability, and in combat I-the-player insist on singing these songs at the game table even though it makes it hard for everyone else to hear the GM talking, I am (1) playing my character, (2) not breaking any rules of the game, and (3) being a jerk.
If the summoner class is balanced MECHANICALLY, and a skilled player can play the character without being a disruption to the game (which includes taking too long in combat), then there's no reason to change the class. Just because some people MAY be jerks when they play their character, and some classes are more inclined to be jerk-friendly (hello, "I stealth off by myself and pick the pockets of my allies" rogues), does not mean the CLASS needs to be changed. You don't balance mechanics with roleplaying, and you don't balance roleplaying with mechanics.
Can anyone formulate an actual argument on why the summoner should keep his perma-summon, summon SLAs, and summoning spells?Can you find any *evidence* that in the hands of an skilled player, the summoner as written ruins the game or ruins the fun for the other people playing? You're the one who thinks the class should change, thus it is your responsibility to provide evidence to back up your argument. "I say X is true, can anyone prove me wrong" is not a valid form of argument or testing.
That seems a little aggressive, unfair, and downright wrong.
We are fortunate enough to get an opportunity that most people NEVER have in their hobbies, the Paizo staff opens up to us personally and professionally by allowing us the privilege of helping them play test these classes, if you're going to throw garbage like THAT at them...well it's discourteous at the best.
Personally I believe it comes down to the summoner being prepared. We play with a mechanic that limits summoner turn-time and really helps out - we require the player to have a stat block and name of the specific creature he summons (multiples just use the stat-block) on-hand to shorten his/her playtime. It gives the summons more personality and flavor too, and when you do that people mind waiting a whole less... and it discourages people from just playing it on a whim...it requires a lot of out of game time.
So, I'll repeat and clarify my last question:
"Can you find any *evidence* that in the hands of a skilled player, the summoner as written ruins the game or ruins the fun for the other people playing because he has so many summoned creatures out that his turns take too long?
Not wanting to get caught in the crossfire here, but, I had a playtest game with the very artificial circumstance of being stuck in one singular battle, so the summoner felt free to nova with monsters.
This from players much more used to low-levels, I thought, signalled the end of progress, but we rapidly picked up speed, and rhythm, and the summonned monsters were often more useful as flanking bonuses and movement obstruction than power, so I don't think it ends the game, and thats with a newish player, un experienced with higher level play.
That said, a limit of like two or three going at the same time stops abuse of the minute per level duration.
Otherwise, not as castastrophic as I expected.
I see it as a good thing they chose to bring this out up front. Otherwise it would be in print and we would have to start questioning Paizo's long term ability to write extended rules content.
Minutes of summon is to long. Frankly I'm not happy with a trend I'm seeing in some of per/day or encounter use mechanics I'm seeing. Both the Cavalier and Summoner seem to be rubbing the Bards noes in his truncated Rounds of Performance. Both Challenge and several minute long SP summons are WAY to long.
You want to give a Summoner extra 'pets' every encounter? Use a total Rounds per day system that allows the class to pay round by round and can thus be used to those special ability summons out longer then a single casting of summon monster. Give me a bit and I'll even post back with a reasonable total rounds per day (unlike the under calculation for the bard, which still needs to be doubled to +4 rounds every level after 1st.)
It would almost be better as others have suggested to create a 'channel energery' like effect to heal/buff/dismiss summoned or even called. Give the class a reason to keep smaller but stronger numbers on the field. Again this could be meshed with a rounds per day system, using rounds to pay for extra buffs and healing/refresh.
*edit* 90 rounds + Cha Bonus total
14 (plus current Cha at 1st level) + 4 every level there after.
I can't really see why so much trouble for weak summons (those summon spells bring forth weak creatures for the level you get them).
If a summoner wants to spend his whole power for the day in one single battle, why not let him have it? You fear for the fighting classes? they'll keep their power at maximum for the whole day.
Obviously, having a lot of critters at the table may slow the game, so I would recommend that an experienced player plays a summoner.
Also, there are numerous ways of having a lot of creatures working for a player on the table.
- A wizard for instance: can have: familiar, homunculus, various constructs, summoned monsters, animated objects,lots of undead (they last a lot of time), a planar ally, a leadership cohort, Leadership followers, dominated people, dominated monsters...
Is that really overpowered to summon monsters for a few minutes with /day limitations?
I see it as a good thing they chose to bring this out up front. Otherwise it would be in print and we would have to start questioning Paizo's long term ability to write extended rules content.
Minutes of summon is to long. Frankly I'm not happy with a trend I'm seeing in some of per/day or encounter use mechanics I'm seeing. Both the Cavalier and Summoner seem to be rubbing the Bards noes in his truncated Rounds of Performance. Both Challenge and several minute long SP summons are WAY to long.
You want to give a Summoner extra 'pets' every encounter? Use a total Rounds per day system that allows the class to pay round by round and can thus be used to those special ability summons out longer then a single casting of summon monster. Give me a bit and I'll even post back with a reasonable total rounds per day (unlike the under calculation for the bard, which still needs to be doubled to +4 rounds every level after 1st.)
It would almost be better as others have suggested to create a 'channel energery' like effect to heal/buff/dismiss summoned or even called. Give the class a reason to keep smaller but stronger numbers on the field. Again this could be meshed with a rounds per day system, using rounds to pay for extra buffs and healing/refresh.
*edit* 90 rounds + Cha Bonus total
14 (plus current Cha at 1st level) + 4 every level there after.
I dont like the round per day mechanic of the summon since the way they are have out of combat uses as well. Need to get accross that river, no problem i'll summon us up some transport. Need to clear that rubble, a few dire apes will handle that. I like the aspect, and do not wish to see it changed, i would much rather see a limit on the number going at once.
I dont like the round per day mechanic of the summon since the way they are have out of combat uses as well.
So did Bardic music, provided the skill it was enhancing didn't exceed 2 minute of use per daily use. Appraise, Forgery, Climb (of the longer run mountain kind), Decipher Script, Diplomacy, even Swimming.
So why shouldn't the Summoner get a big heavy Nerf-bat to the face for the duration of its summoned helpers?
No more then benefit of a free Extend spell is called for, so revise my total up to 120 rounds + double current Cha bonus.
I dont like the round per day mechanic of the summon since the way they are have out of combat uses as well.So did Bardic music, provided the skill it was enhancing didn't exceed 2 minute of use per daily use. Appraise, Forgery, Climb (of the longer run mountain kind), Decipher Script, Diplomacy, even Swimming.
So why shouldn't the Summoner get a big heavy Nerf-bat to the face for the duration of its summoned helpers?
No more then benefit of a free Extend spell is called for, so revise my total up to 120 rounds + double current Cha bonus.
Personally i am not huge on the way they handled the bardic song. I think it was great for combats poor for anything but jumping over a pit or picking a lock. Summons are a different animal to me, literally. And I am curious, do you then advocate the use of an extra summon feat? Adding rounds? How would multiple summons work? Double up on round use? It just seems a clunky and less useful mechanic to me for that purpose.
I dont like the round per day mechanic of the summon since the way they are have out of combat uses as well. Need to get accross that river, no problem i'll summon us up some transport. Need to clear that rubble, a few dire apes will handle that. I like the aspect, and do not wish to see it changed, i would much rather see a limit on the number going at once.
Most people just think about combat, but a summoner should be able to accomplish mundane "more than a minute long" tasks with his summons. I am completely against changing the SLA to rounds. This is some flavor that mst not be discarded. Regarding the power of the class, I'll refrain from making further speculations and provide some feedback after I playtest it tomorrow.
I played a Malconvoker up to level 14 in Rise of the Runelords and was totally focused on summoning. In specific combats I could get "too many" creatures out (as defined by the rest of the PCs starting to lose interest in the combat) but not often, although some of the time that was because I was deliberately limiting myself. The longer duration of the summon SLA would turn that right around, however.
I also strongly feel that the Summon Monster SLA should be the "normal" SM time limit. I played a summoner for a year and even with good prep and all, normal summons PLUS the eidolon (plus planar bound creatures, at higher levels) will be the limit of what an organized player can have not become a major game burden.
Paizo beware - you do NOT want to get caught in the WotC trap of the classes in expansion books all being "powered up" compared to the core classes. The Summoner (and Cavalier) definitely cross that line.
Most people just think about combat, but a summoner should be able to accomplish mundane "more than a minute long" tasks with his summons. I am completely against changing the SLA to rounds. This is some flavor that mst not be discarded. Regarding the power of the class, I'll refrain from making further speculations and provide some feedback after I playtest it tomorrow.
I dont like the round per day mechanic of the summon since the way they are have out of combat uses as well. Need to get accross that river, no problem i'll summon us up some transport. Need to clear that rubble, a few dire apes will handle that. I like the aspect, and do not wish to see it changed, i would much rather see a limit on the number going at once.
But should all dozen summons a day be like that? IMO this is where Extend Spell, or, indeed, the eidolon come in. And Planar Binds. That's how you get longer term summons.
Here's the deal:
The summoner lacks potent offensive magic, so being a blaster, like a sorcerer or wizard, really isn't a feasible option.
And unlike the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian, the Summoner doesn't get many melee boosting abilities. So being a damage dealing brute isn't really an option either.
So...the summons are all he really has.
Since he's so mediocre at magic and melee, he needs to rely on his monsters to do anything worthwhile.
As a matter of fact, if he stocks up on support spells and concentrates on buffing his monsters, he might never need to "lift a finger" in battle.
I see him as more of a "General" for his monster army.
He can get involved in combat if he wants to, but he's probably more useful sending his troops into battle.
So, I'll repeat and clarify my last question:
"Can you find any *evidence* that in the hands of a skilled player, the summoner as written ruins the game or ruins the fun for the other people playing because he has so many summoned creatures out that his turns take too long?
Yes. I am a skilled player and played a summoner from levels 1 to 14 in Rise of the Runelords. You can view the build, which includes the docs and guides I worked up to make summoning speedy that were posted on the Wizards CharOp boards, and all the combat after action reports are there too.
With Planar Binding and Fiendish Legion (like the new Sorc Abyssal bloodline Added Summonings ability), there were several times that there were just too many critters on the board and the other PCs got disgruntled. Even with prep, as things get higher level the summons have SLAs and all and it takes as long as a given PC to decide what they should do. So you totally are having to control five, six complex creatures in combat. We had repeated discussions in our gaming group about limiting people's ability to use summons, ACs, cohorts, etc. because it was a drag on PC play time. To this day we use the rule "don't have more than one permanent guy along - can be an AC, a cohort, a bind, but limit one per customer please."
In core, this is somewhat mitigated by you not (usually) being able to make summons from one combat to another; they don't stack linearly. With one minute/level, it becomes very easy to have 5 combats, at the end of which you have 5 live summons.
Remember all this can be yet improved by feats etc. You can "cast down" a SM level to get even more critters out, and you can Empower SLA to jack it up even more. So you can swap a SM8 for like 7 vrocks. Yay for 20d6 dances of ruin. You also let summoned critters use abilities that usually take too long to cast as summons.
Well, at the very very least, if we did get rid of the per minute duration (which I would, as I said, HATE), at least change the duration for all summons cast by the summoner to 3 rounds +1 round per level after level 3.
Actually, personally, that's what I think the duration on summon monster should be in the first place, but since I didn't put my 2cp in during the playtest, I don't get to kvetch about it.
Here's the deal:
The summoner lacks potent offensive magic, so being a blaster, like a sorcerer or wizard, really isn't a feasible option.And unlike the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian, the Summoner doesn't get many melee boosting abilities. So being a damage dealing brute isn't really an option either.
So...the summons are all he really has.
Since he's so mediocre at magic and melee, he needs to rely on his monsters to do anything worthwhile.As a matter of fact, if he stocks up on support spells and concentrates on buffing his monsters, he might never need to "lift a finger" in battle.
I see him as more of a "General" for his monster army.
He can get involved in combat if he wants to, but he's probably more useful sending his troops into battle.
Agreed.
getting a random group of gamers with a random DM with his own random houserules, his own random idea of what fair items are, and his own random idea of what monsters the party should fight combined with a random selection of characters who may or may not know how to play their own characters efficiently, is in NO WAY a good methodology to judge whether something or not is balanced.
Actually, the DM's houserules, monster encounters, items, etc. really won't skew the playtest.
Here's the reason:
Since the summoner is part of a group of adventurers, they all go through these situations together. The other classes are affected by the houserules and circumstances just as much as the Summoner. So, regardless of the variables, everybody is affected equally.
With that in mind:
Since the Summoner is essentially on equal footing, the playtest determines how the Summoner performs and compares to the other classes in various combat and roleplaying situations.
If he performs poorly compared to the other classes, he's probably underpowered. If he outperforms the other classes, he may be overpowered.
In conclusion:
Regardless of how crappy the DM may be or how stupid his houserules may be, all players are affected equally. So this is not a factor that should detract from the viability of the playtesting.
|
So, I'll repeat and clarify my last question:
"Can you find any *evidence* that in the hands of a skilled player, the summoner as written ruins the game or ruins the fun for the other people playing because he has so many summoned creatures out that his turns take too long?Yes. I am a skilled player and played a summoner from levels 1 to 14 in Rise of the Runelords. You can view the build, which includes the docs and guides I worked up to make summoning speedy that were posted on the Wizards CharOp boards, and all the combat after action reports are there too.
With Planar Binding and Fiendish Legion (like the new Sorc Abyssal bloodline Added Summonings ability), there were several times that there were just too many critters on the board and the other PCs got disgruntled. Even with prep, as things get higher level the summons have SLAs and all and it takes as long as a given PC to decide what they should do. So you totally are having to control five, six complex creatures in combat. We had repeated discussions in our gaming group about limiting people's ability to use summons, ACs, cohorts, etc. because it was a drag on PC play time. To this day we use the rule "don't have more than one permanent guy along - can be an AC, a cohort, a bind, but limit one per customer please."
In core, this is somewhat mitigated by you not (usually) being able to make summons from one combat to another; they don't stack linearly. With one minute/level, it becomes very easy to have 5 combats, at the end of which you have 5 live summons.
Remember all this can be yet improved by feats etc. You can "cast down" a SM level to get even more critters out, and you can Empower SLA to jack it up even more. So you can swap a SM8 for like 7 vrocks. Yay for 20d6 dances of ruin. You also let...
The only thing I really disagree with is the assertion that you can have 5 combats in 20 minutes. Sure it's possible.. Sort of. But extremely unlikely. It takes me 20 minutes just to get up and get ready for work... And that's with a very quick shower and ignoring breakfast.
getting a random group of gamers with a random DM with his own random houserules, his own random idea of what fair items are, and his own random idea of what monsters the party should fight combined with a random selection of characters who may or may not know how to play their own characters efficiently, is in NO WAY a good methodology to judge whether something or not is balanced.Actually, the DM's houserules, monster encounters, items, etc. really won't skew the playtest.
Here's the reason:
Since the summoner is part of a group of adventurers, they all go through these situations together. The other classes are affected by the houserules and circumstances just as much as the Summoner. So, regardless of the variables, everybody is affected equally.With that in mind:
Since the Summoner is essentially on equal footing, the playtest determines how the Summoner performs and compares to the other classes in various combat and roleplaying situations.
If he performs poorly compared to the other classes, he's probably underpowered. If he outperforms the other classes, he may be overpowered.In conclusion:
Regardless of how crappy the DM may be or how stupid his houserules may be, all players are affected equally. So this is not a factor that should detract from the viability of the playtesting.
That makes no sense at all because you are assuming that all house rules affect everyone equally. What if I say fireball has a cap of 5d6? I have just nerfed the arcane guy and left the other classes untouched.
In the campaigns I have done that would not work out so well. You can never know if there will be 15 different encounters or 1 big one. They can be spaced hours apart. Much of the time you don't know when they will occur. Sending out your stuff pre-battle is a rarity and if you blow it all your screwed because your not very good at anything else. It is more likely that maybe one or two will be used an encounter. If your the party that has casters blow everything at once then go back and rest then your party has bigger problems. Casters are supposed to use their spell sparingly.But he's not screwed, though. A summoner is totally able to coast by on its eidolon and its spells for every other encounter. Sure, maybe he doesn't blow his I-win button on the right fight every time, but it's just not good design to give a class a once-a-day "I totally wreck any level-appropriate fight singlehandedly" button.
I just don't want to see a class that completely breaks the balance of any "Okay, the BBEG is coming, let's get ready" fight, starting at level 1.
MIB, I usually agree with you, but honestly I feel like you are talking out your ass here. "I-win button" is an overstatement to say the least. The summoner doesn't get to summon monster after monster after monster with a single action. He gets to call them just as quickly as a cleric, wizard, or sorcerer.
The idea that because a party can trivialize a fight given multiple rounds to prepare for it - with the fight taking place within a few minutes - is not new to the summoner.
|
I don't know if it's the nova-ability that's the issue here. The fact is that the guy's a summoner. That's what he does. I have no problems with him being able to summon at a whim, multiple times a day, as good or better then a wizard can. The issue revolves around resource use. If a wizard burns all his spells, he becomes no better then a speed bump the rest of the way. The summoner, on the other hand, picks up a weapon and uses his d8 average BAB and goes to town.
Both flavour *and* crunch seem to point to a class like the summoner having a d6/below average BAB.
Would it be ok if we could perhaps hear the reasoning behind giving the summoner d8s? Maybe that would help us understand the summoner's underlying role a little bit better?
|
|
I don't know if it's the nova-ability that's the issue here. The fact is that the guy's a summoner. That's what he does. I have no problems with him being able to summon at a whim, multiple times a day, as good or better then a wizard can. The issue revolves around resource use. If a wizard burns all his spells, he becomes no better then a speed bump the rest of the way. The summoner, on the other hand, picks up a weapon and uses his d8 average BAB and goes to town.
Both flavour *and* crunch seem to point to a class like the summoner having a d6/below average BAB.
Would it be ok if we could perhaps hear the reasoning behind giving the summoner d8s? Maybe that would help us understand the summoner's underlying role a little bit better?
When the Wizard runs out of spells he starts using his wand of Fireballs/Scorching Ray/etc. While the summoner can as well, it requires a UMD for him( those spells not being on the summoner's spell list ).
Here's the deal:
The summoner lacks potent offensive magic, so being a blaster, like a sorcerer or wizard, really isn't a feasible option.And unlike the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian, the Summoner doesn't get many melee boosting abilities. So being a damage dealing brute isn't really an option either.
So...the summons are all he really has.
Since he's so mediocre at magic and melee, he needs to rely on his monsters to do anything worthwhile.As a matter of fact, if he stocks up on support spells and concentrates on buffing his monsters, he might never need to "lift a finger" in battle.
I see him as more of a "General" for his monster army.
He can get involved in combat if he wants to, but he's probably more useful sending his troops into battle.
Nukes suck. The ability to nuke has no effect on the summoner's balance.
You're right, they have no melee abilities, except the uber tank that follows them around.
No, summons are not all the summoner has. In fact, they have a rather potent array of crowd control, buffing, and utility spells.
And none of this addresses the problem that the class feature is too specific. Some summoners will want to just focus on the eidolon, rather than cluster the field with summoner monster spells, and they don't get much in the way of options. Yes, I know the name is summoner, but the class seems like it was designed with the eidolon in mind. It seems strange not to give it multiple options.
|
|
When the Wizard runs out of spells he starts using his wand of Fireballs/Scorching Ray/etc. While the summoner can as well, it requires a UMD for him( those spells not being on the summoner's spell list ).I don't know if it's the nova-ability that's the issue here. The fact is that the guy's a summoner. That's what he does. I have no problems with him being able to summon at a whim, multiple times a day, as good or better then a wizard can. The issue revolves around resource use. If a wizard burns all his spells, he becomes no better then a speed bump the rest of the way. The summoner, on the other hand, picks up a weapon and uses his d8 average BAB and goes to town.
Both flavour *and* crunch seem to point to a class like the summoner having a d6/below average BAB.
Would it be ok if we could perhaps hear the reasoning behind giving the summoner d8s? Maybe that would help us understand the summoner's underlying role a little bit better?
or he could whip out a wand of summon monster instead.. using an item to supplement a character's resource use affects all classes equally, and doesn't solve the underlying issue..
"Can you find any *evidence* that in the hands of a skilled player, the summoner as written ruins the game or ruins the fun for the other people playing because he has so many summoned creatures out that his turns take too long?
Summon monster V allows you to summon 1d4 + 1 leopards. Thus, on average, you’re going to have three leopards per summon. Now, these leopards aren’t really powerhouses; they’re there to soak up attacks and be annoying to the enemy. Thus, you set them in the back, and then they charge.
With their pounce ability, the leopards charge at your enemies and make full attacks. That means you’re rolling a bite attack and two claw attacks for each leopard. That means you’re rolling nine attacks in a round. And that’s not even getting into the good stuff, either.
Once your kitties are done mauling at the enemy, your eidolon gets a turn. We’ll say that he has three natural attacks—a bite, a tail slap, and a gore. That’s not too far out of the question.
Here’s what the turn looks like:
1. Summoner moves.
2. Summoner casts summon monster V as an SLA. Three leopards appear.
3. Leopard moves.
4. Leopard attacks. Roll 1d20 + 8 vs. AC. Hit? 1d3+3 damage.
5. Leopard attacks. Roll 1d20 + 8 vs. AC. Hit? 1d3+3 damage.
6. Leopard attacks. Roll 1d20 + 8 vs. AC. Hit? 1d6 + 3 damage and CMB +4 vs. CMD to start a grapple. Hit? You and target gain grappled condition.
7. Leopard moves.
8. Leopard attacks. Roll 1d20 + 8 vs. AC. Hit? 1d3+3 damage.
9. Leopard attacks. Roll 1d20 + 8 vs. AC. Hit? 1d3+3 damage.
10. Leopard attacks. Roll 1d20 + 8 vs. AC. Hit? 1d6 + 3 damage and CMB +4 vs. CMD to start a grapple. Hit? You and target gain grappled condition.
11. Leopard moves.
12. Leopard attacks. Roll 1d20 + 8 vs. AC. Hit? 1d3+3 damage.
13. Leopard attacks. Roll 1d20 + 8 vs. AC. Hit? 1d3+3 damage.
14. Leopard attacks. Roll 1d20 + 8 vs. AC. Hit? 1d6 + 3 damage and CMB +4 vs. CMD to start a grapple. Hit? You and target gain grappled condition.
15. Eidolon moves.
16. Eidolon attacks. Roll 1d20 + modifier vs. AC. Hit? X damage.
17. Eidolon attacks. Roll 1d20 + modifiers vs. AC. Hit? X damage.
18. Eidolon attacks. Roll 1d20 + modifiers vs. AC. Hit? X damage.
On the next round, you have all those leopards making CMB + 4 vs. CMD checks. And then if they succeed, they start making rake attacks.
Oh, and if you think this is exaggerating, think again. Lions, dire lions, tigers, dire tigers, deinonychuses, giant octopuses, giant squids, hezrous, ice devils, glabrezus, and trumpet archons all have lots of attacks to make. And what happens when you gain access to gate, where you can summon in a total number of creatures with HD equal to twice your caster level?
Well, we won’t even think about that. And heck, just for kicks and giggles, you can pull in some powerful dragons, each of which has five attacks, breath weapons, and various SLAs to deal with.
Alright, so maybe a courteous player won't nova, but a hateful GM might, as I did in playtest. Dominated the summoner who was already invisible and hiding, commanded his eidolon to attack, and started summoning 1d3 lions each round. They focused fire on the succubus first after failing to dispel the dominate. She died midway through 2nd round. Eidolon was pinning the sorcerer at this point, fighter was confused, druid tried summoning but was grappled while casting, and cleric tried to heal. So, it continued, fighter, druid, and cleric had enough AC that they were surviving. But sorcerer died that round, and eidolon moved on to cleric. So at that point, fighter and druid kill the summoner, takes 3 rounds. At this point the the 8 lions kept on fighting, finishing off weakened cleric that round, druid in next, and fighter two rounds later, with 4 lions to spare.
So the lesson we all learned was if the summoner starts to act funny, pin his face to the ground. And he was to never be out of sight from the party at any time. We also house ruled at the table that they were to be standard action extended, instead of how presented for a quick fix.
|
Yes, in a standard group the summoner can go overboard with all of his summoned creatures' actions... and a courteous player won't dominate the game that way. Just as another character with summonings, animal companions, and cohorts should give the other players time to play.
Hey Sean, normally I'm pretty in agreement with you on a lot of issues, but this one strikes me as kind of odd. It seems wrong for a player taking full advantage of his class abilities to be labeled discourteous. If a paladin, a fighter, or any other class really uses their abilities to the fullest, it's usually for the benefit and appreciation of the party. While I'm certain the Summoner's abilities are a benefit, it also looks to be the only class abilities where using them to the fullest will just annoy other players.
In short, if you have to tell players to 'restrain themselves' when it comes to their class abilities, I think the class is doing something wrong.
Dominated the summoner who was already invisible and hiding, commanded his eidolon to attack
Just want to point out that this isn't as cut-and-dry as you state.
Eidolons are not forced to obey their summoner's commands, unless I'm missing something, nor does dominate person transfer to the Eidolon. A good-aligned Eidolon isn't going to just turn on his long-time travel companions for no reason.
Dominated the summoner who was already invisible and hiding, commanded his eidolon to attackJust want to point out that this isn't as cut-and-dry as you state.
Eidolons are not forced to obey their summoner's commands, unless I'm missing something, nor does dominate person transfer to the Eidolon. A good-aligned Eidolon isn't going to just turn on his long-time travel companions for no reason.
You're right to point it out, this was an issue that came up at the table. We made determination that eidolon follows order without question to avoid other issues, but other play groups may play this differently.
That makes no sense at all because you are assuming that all house rules affect everyone equally. What if I say fireball has a cap of 5d6? I have just nerfed the arcane guy and left the other classes untouched.
Sure, a GM can nerf anything he wants, but if you let your fear of being nerfed discourage you from trying new things, you'll end up missing out on a lot of the fun.
GMs usually nerf certain rules to keep them from being abused (I'm looking at you, Munchkins).
As long as you're not abusive about how you play the game, there's probably nothing to worry about.
Summon monster V allows you to summon 1d4 + 1 leopards.
Sure... and that's just one spell plus the eidolon! But note that the wizard conjurer can *already* create a similar situation using the core rules. I'd like to see if, in PLAY, a summoner's conjured army is a significant problem. It very well may be. But speculation and numbered lists of actions aren't conclusive. I want to see playtest results.
In short, if you have to tell players to 'restrain themselves' when it comes to their class abilities, I think the class is doing something wrong.
As I've said several times now, there almost certainly will be text in the class description that says, "this class can be cumbersome and it's best in the hands of an experienced player who can juggle many creatures quickly." A high-level wizard with two dozen available spells can slow down the game if the player takes a long time sifting through the list to figure out what to do; a wizard requires more player skill than a fighter. A summoner may have a similar problem. Can we have a playtest and see if that's the case, instead of deciding outright based on discussions one day after the class is available?
And finally, this sort of thing is why we playtest at all. So... roll up some characters, play them in some combats, and let us know the results. It's quite possible that the summoner does have too many monsters on the table--in which case, we'll make a change. That's the point of the open playtest. Jason's already considering changes. Keep it up.
The only thing I really disagree with is the assertion that you can have 5 combats in 20 minutes. Sure it's possible.. Sort of. But extremely unlikely. It takes me 20 minutes just to get up and get ready for work... And that's with a very quick shower and ignoring breakfast.
In the real world, yes. In D&D, the hurry up offense works fine. I've had this happen when groups are under the influence of really powerful buffs or whatnot - "We'll loot later! I double move to the next room!" Heck, they do that sometimes with 1 round/level buffs - you make everyone's weapon brilliant, chop through something in 2 rounds, run on. At a minute per level, heck, you can do a combat per minute easily, that even has extra rounds for healing/other buffs in it.
And finally, this sort of thing is why we playtest at all. So... roll up some characters, play them in some combats, and let us know the results. It's quite possible that the summoner does have too many monsters on the table--in which case, we'll make a change. That's the point of the open playtest. Jason's already considering changes. Keep it up.
I think you're going to far in extolling playtest over obvious analysis. Especially given the very short duration of this playtest. How the summoner behaves in one sample combat is not all that interesting. How does it work over time? One combat full of critters, other PCs can live with. When it's every combat of every game session for an entire campaign, it's different, speaking from experience. Many of the summoner concerns as well are about performance over time - SM SLAs lasting for multiple combats, etc. A night of playtest doesn't illustrate that much.
I love the summoner concept, but between the d8s and the 1 minute SLAs and the magic items on the AC 55 eidolon, this class would have the dubious distinction of being the first Pathfinder class banned from our game. And it wouldn't take us much "playtest" to come to that conclusion.
I love the summoner concept, but between the d8s and the 1 minute SLAs and the magic items on the AC 55 eidolon, this class would have the dubious distinction of being the first Pathfinder class banned from our game. And it wouldn't take us much "playtest" to come to that conclusion.
Better to have playtest feedback from one session than from zero sessions.
some thoughts on the summoner. ( and im biased, right off i love em )
first: SM spells have a tendency to loose there combat effectiveness at the higher levels ( they do remain the most utilitarian ones however ).
second: at mid levels ( 7th + ) a druid will be about 6 summons a day ( the highest level SM available at the level in question )behind the summoner, with all the other spells the druid has available to them i don't believe this makes the summoner OP.
third: i do not see why the summoner has a d8 HD and a 3/4 BAB. this seems a little out of concept even though there not "full" casters.
fourth: as for the eidolon. i love the idea, but there are people out there ( as we can see from these forums ) that will build them for pure power and not care what they look like or how they fit into the game, or even the theme of their characters. i hate to say it, but for this reason they should probably be changed.
i haven't run for one yet, and mine is only 3rd level, so i will reserve judgment on them for now. they are however the first "true" pet class we have seen, as i think there freaken cool : )
The only thing I really disagree with is the assertion that you can have 5 combats in 20 minutes. Sure it's possible.. Sort of. But extremely unlikely. It takes me 20 minutes just to get up and get ready for work... And that's with a very quick shower and ignoring breakfast.In the real world, yes. In D&D, the hurry up offense works fine. I've had this happen when groups are under the influence of really powerful buffs or whatnot - "We'll loot later! I double move to the next room!" Heck, they do that sometimes with 1 round/level buffs - you make everyone's weapon brilliant, chop through something in 2 rounds, run on. At a minute per level, heck, you can do a combat per minute easily, that even has extra rounds for healing/other buffs in it.
You actually let your players do this? If my players did this they would quickly find that other minions and denizens of the region had cleared the room they left behind of useful information and gear... and they will find fights further and further apart, or with more traps and locked doors between them. At my table that would be pretty outrageous behavior that I would actively discourage.
|
|
You actually let your players do this? If my players did this they would quickly find that other minions and denizens of the region had cleared the room they left behind of useful information and gear... and they will find fights further and further apart, or with more traps and locked doors between them. At my table that would be pretty outrageous behavior that I would actively discourage.The only thing I really disagree with is the assertion that you can have 5 combats in 20 minutes. Sure it's possible.. Sort of. But extremely unlikely. It takes me 20 minutes just to get up and get ready for work... And that's with a very quick shower and ignoring breakfast.In the real world, yes. In D&D, the hurry up offense works fine. I've had this happen when groups are under the influence of really powerful buffs or whatnot - "We'll loot later! I double move to the next room!" Heck, they do that sometimes with 1 round/level buffs - you make everyone's weapon brilliant, chop through something in 2 rounds, run on. At a minute per level, heck, you can do a combat per minute easily, that even has extra rounds for healing/other buffs in it.
Why? It's perfectly understandable and a good 'blitz' tactic. I usually do the APs so this is easier, but generally speaking I always have my forts/castles/dungeons/whatever 'populated' first, with placements based on whether they've been alerted or not. If the PCs just RUSH through, they *can* get easily overwhelmed but they can just as easily overwhelm the enemy.
Why would you purposefully try to meta-game and separate the enemies just because the PCs have a good tactic? I think the best way to approach any adventure is to decide what the enemies will do early on, how they'll react to various things, and then go with it.
I personally like the idea of summon monster as a SLA, but some restrictions to prevent arguments at the game table are reasonable. Restricting it to one use of the SLA at a time is not unfair. Automatically give them the summon monster spells over and above the number known from the table, and then if they want to fill a field, they still can with their regular spells. Limiting the active SLA to one also prevents people who are still learning, but still want to try the class out, from burning all their abilities in one shot. I would argue against anything more restrictive than that, but one at a time is a reasonable constraint while automatically knowing the summon monster spells as you gain new spells leaves the possibility for spamming the field for those who really want to. Concerning comments that wizards can do the same thing, that's true but each casting takes a round, and wizards have other perfectly valid options to choose from. Unless you put a limit in the rules for the summoner's SLA (balanced by auto knowledge of the summon spells for regular casting), you're going to end up telling a player that they can't play their class the way it was designed. A small restriction with a proper bonus somewhere else removes the problem without reducing the class's effectiveness in a large group.
You actually let your players do this? If my players did this they would quickly find that other minions and denizens of the region had cleared the room they left behind of useful information and gear... and they will find fights further and further apart, or with more traps and locked doors between them. At my table that would be pretty outrageous behavior that I would actively discourage.The only thing I really disagree with is the assertion that you can have 5 combats in 20 minutes. Sure it's possible.. Sort of. But extremely unlikely. It takes me 20 minutes just to get up and get ready for work... And that's with a very quick shower and ignoring breakfast.In the real world, yes. In D&D, the hurry up offense works fine. I've had this happen when groups are under the influence of really powerful buffs or whatnot - "We'll loot later! I double move to the next room!" Heck, they do that sometimes with 1 round/level buffs - you make everyone's weapon brilliant, chop through something in 2 rounds, run on. At a minute per level, heck, you can do a combat per minute easily, that even has extra rounds for healing/other buffs in it.
Why? It's perfectly understandable and a good 'blitz' tactic. I usually do the APs so this is easier, but generally speaking I always have my forts/castles/dungeons/whatever 'populated' first, with placements based on whether they've been alerted or not. If the PCs just RUSH through, they *can* get easily overwhelmed but they can just as easily overwhelm the enemy.
Why would you purposefully try to meta-game and separate the enemies just because the PCs have a good tactic? I think the best way to approach any adventure is to decide what the enemies will do early on, how they'll react to various things, and then go with it.
I guess its a matter of dming style, my objective is to create a fun and interesting challenge for the players. If they are bypassing that, I will adapt. But honestly, it isnt metagaming. If you leave the room ravaged with dead bodies and dont pick up the loot and clues, and there are other people or creatures in the area, you are very likely to loose out. And there is a difference between a good tactic and cheese. If the PCs honestly dont care about loot or are not particularly concerned with finding out what is going on, then i might allow it, but if they are loot hungry and investigative, they ought to be stopping. It is they that are metagaming. But then again i have never had a group not stop to search the room after an encounter, so the concept is completely foreign to me.
I also never ever prepopulate a dungeon. It just doesnt work for me and any group ive played with (current count is 6). You can try to prepare for every eventuality but the players will eventually think of something you havent thought of. It always happens. After all there are 4-6 people thinking on that side of the screen, only one on yours. And inevitably they will go or do things you didnt expect, either bypassing challenges they should have faced, or running into ones they arent ready for yet. Nothing is more frustrating to me then to have spent a long time on an encounter, only to have the pc's knock the heavily locked and barred door and walk right past it. So, the encounter I plan is behind the door they open. My maps are not set in stone.
Why? It's perfectly understandable and a good 'blitz' tactic. I usually do the APs so this is easier, but generally speaking I always have my forts/castles/dungeons/whatever 'populated' first, with placements based on whether they've been alerted or not. If the PCs just RUSH through, they *can* get easily overwhelmed but they can just as easily overwhelm the enemy.
Why would you purposefully try to meta-game and separate the enemies just because the PCs have a good tactic? I think the best way to approach any adventure is to decide what the enemies will do early on, how they'll react to various things, and then go with it.
It's not a bad tactic in the right circumstances. However, it is very likely one of the reasons dungeons have traps and other hazards. Fishing the barbarian out from the bottom of a pit trap tends to slow the group down a bit. There are some Paizo modules where this will quickly kill party members.
|
I guess its a matter of dming style, my objective is to create a fun and interesting challenge for the players. If...You actually let your players do this? If my players did this they would quickly find that other minions and denizens of the region had cleared the room they left behind of useful information and gear... and they will find fights further and further apart, or with more traps and locked doors between them. At my table that would be pretty outrageous behavior that I would actively discourage.The only thing I really disagree with is the assertion that you can have 5 combats in 20 minutes. Sure it's possible.. Sort of. But extremely unlikely. It takes me 20 minutes just to get up and get ready for work... And that's with a very quick shower and ignoring breakfast.In the real world, yes. In D&D, the hurry up offense works fine. I've had this happen when groups are under the influence of really powerful buffs or whatnot - "We'll loot later! I double move to the next room!" Heck, they do that sometimes with 1 round/level buffs - you make everyone's weapon brilliant, chop through something in 2 rounds, run on. At a minute per level, heck, you can do a combat per minute easily, that even has extra rounds for healing/other buffs in it.
Why? It's perfectly understandable and a good 'blitz' tactic. I usually do the APs so this is easier, but generally speaking I always have my forts/castles/dungeons/whatever 'populated' first, with placements based on whether they've been alerted or not. If the PCs just RUSH through, they *can* get easily overwhelmed but they can just as easily overwhelm the enemy.
Why would you purposefully try to meta-game and separate the enemies just because the PCs have a good tactic? I think the best way to approach any adventure is to decide what the enemies will do early on, how they'll react to various things, and then go with it.
Rushing through a dungeon or a keep is a situation that comes up a lot in the games I play in. Frequently there is a time limit, doomsday device, or really dangerous reaction force waiting for an alarm to be sprung. No time to loot or extra resources to burn until said threat is dealt with.
But, different play styles and all.
|
|
I didn't read all the posts here just the first 2 pages >.>
I'd like to pop in my two cents though from my own experiences and the issues that seem to be most relevant:
Can it slow the game to a crawl, it can, but as was said; as long as the person is prepared it's not an issue.
I played a wizard based Necromancer who had an undead cohort (unearthed Arcana mod) animated undead, and summon undead spells. By the time level 12 rolled around i was fielding 7-10 undead plus summoned undead.
For every undead, or summoned undead i had I had a complete reference chart for each one. and I'd plan the majority of my next turn as soon as my current turn ended. Over all things went smoothly, and didn't get too bogged down.. it would on occasion when something unforseen happened, but by and large it wasn't a problem.
I do not feel that laying heavy power in the SM SLA is a problem, But I do believe that this isn't a class for a new player, and should be played by someone willing to go be responsible enough to keep everything prepared in advance. Like my Uncle Ben always said: "With great power comes great responsibility."
The power to bog down play or keep it smooth is in YOUR hands. The extra paperwork is just part of the class, you don't like it? don't play it.
I didn't read all the posts here just the first 2 pages >.>
I'd like to pop in my two cents though from my own experiences and the issues that seem to be most relevant:
Can it slow the game to a crawl, it can, but as was said; as long as the person is prepared it's not an issue.
I played a wizard based Necromancer who had an undead cohort (unearthed Arcana mod) animated undead, and summon undead spells. By the time level 12 rolled around i was fielding 7-10 undead plus summoned undead.
For every undead, or summoned undead i had I had a complete reference chart for each one. and I'd plan the majority of my next turn as soon as my current turn ended. Over all things went smoothly, and didn't get too bogged down.. it would on occasion when something unforseen happened, but by and large it wasn't a problem.
I do not feel that laying heavy power in the SM SLA is a problem, But I do believe that this isn't a class for a new player, and should be played by someone willing to go be responsible enough to keep everything prepared in advance. Like my Uncle Ben always said: "With great power comes great responsibility."
The power to bog down play or keep it smooth is in YOUR hands. The extra paperwork is just part of the class, you don't like it? don't play it.
perfectly said.
Aestolia,
While I agree that this class is for advanced players who are willing to put in the extra work, I guarantee that many people will try to play it not having the slightest idea of what they are getting themselves into. Therefore, in an edit to my previous post, I suggested capping the SLA to one at a time to avoid any potential abuse before it starts, and in return, automatically give the summoner the summon monster spells as bonus spells to counter any loss of power the SLA cap would incur. It solves a potential problem before it starts, and gives the class something useful and appropriate in return. This way, newer players or adventerous players can play it without causing excessive trouble to themselves or the pace of the game.
Rushing through a dungeon or a keep is a situation that comes up a lot in the games I play in. Frequently there is a time limit, doomsday device, or really dangerous reaction force waiting for an alarm to be sprung. No time to loot or extra resources to burn until said threat is dealt with.
But, different play styles and all.
My group tends to be alot more flexible with time, generally we dont have the counting clock in that fashion as usually the dungeon/keep/castle/woods/cave have alot more encounters in it then the party has resources for in a short period of time. I tend to like big open world type games (not completely open but where the players are free to explore) that involve investigation and exploration. So the ticking clock style game doesnt suit me overly well. One of the challenges in creating rules for things that have time limits i guess.
delphi,
Would mind explaining just what you are posting in response to? I've seen a lot of internet forums, and so far most of what I've seen on this one is pretty respectful and put out there to be taken seriously. Also, while I agree that designing for the lowest common demoninator is stupid, figuring out ways to deal with things that are blatantly obviously ripe for abuse and easy to fix isn't complaining.
It's not a bad tactic in the right circumstances. However, it is very likely one of the reasons dungeons have traps and other hazards. Fishing the barbarian out from the bottom of a pit trap tends to slow the group down a bit. There are some Paizo modules where this will quickly kill party members.Why? It's perfectly understandable and a good 'blitz' tactic. I usually do the APs so this is easier, but generally speaking I always have my forts/castles/dungeons/whatever 'populated' first, with placements based on whether they've been alerted or not. If the PCs just RUSH through, they *can* get easily overwhelmed but they can just as easily overwhelm the enemy.
Why would you purposefully try to meta-game and separate the enemies just because the PCs have a good tactic? I think the best way to approach any adventure is to decide what the enemies will do early on, how they'll react to various things, and then go with it.
Not if you have long term summons to send down the hallway in front of you... "One of my ten leopards fell into a pit trap! Bye Leopard #8! See you on the flip side!" Sure, you have various terrain and secret door divisions which mean you can't necessarily blitz an *entire* dungeon like this, but many dungeons (assuming you take the more-standard approach of mapping and populating a dungeon rather than making it up room by room - I can appreciate Kolo's approach but I think it's fair to say it's atypical) have discrete sections it's easy to clear without someone "coming in behind you to loot."
Having played through RotR and CoCT and part of SD, you can get away with this a lot, things aren't so much "Tomb of Horrors" nowadays. Even better are "outdoor" scenarios like the attack on Sandpoint or the assault on Xin-Shalast where you don't have artificial dungeony things to hinder you from running rampant across groups of enemies.