|
Size increases do not increase reach.
You can't enlarge person your eidolon.
You can't trip a prone person when they are trying to stand up.
Since when?
Sure you can: read the share spell ability of the eidolon. It spells out that you can cast spells on it that usually do not work on the outsider type. The summoner has enlarge person on his spell list. What's the problem?
You can trip as part of an AoO. Trip and disarm are the only two maneuvres that can be used in place of a melee attack (the other maneuvres are standard actions).
---------------------
Please read the rules before making blanket statements such as these, as this only slows down the progress of this playtest.
Please read the rules before making blanket statements such as these, as this only slows down the progress of this playtest.
Maybe you should read the posts you are replying to before posting something like this? No one suggested you couldn't trip as an AoO.
The OP is pointing out that a level 20 eidolon has the damage and durability to handle basically anything solo. Quibbling about plot-device powers is rather missing the point.finally someone who see the real issue at hand, i thank you sir.
You have yet to prove anything.
I am also surprised with all of the "no you can't", "yes I can" going on. Normally the posters will post a link to a reference, put the reference here, or give a page number.
Another point is that if you have an issue just say it, and bring some facts. Talking around the issue is not helping anyone.
This has been your friendly neighborhood wraithstrike.
Sure you can: read the share spell ability of the eidolon. It spells out that you can cast spells on it that usually do not work on the outsider type. The summoner has enlarge person on his spell list. What's the problem?
This would be the problem. Of course you would have known that if you kept up with this thread.
there is one question that hasn't been asked of th OP....where is the Summoner in relation to its eidolon and more importantly, in relation to the Tarrasque itself? now assuming you are a sensible minded summoner, you want to be 80 feet away from said Tarrasque, that wayy you are far enough as to not be attacked by it but, close enough as to not automatically have your eidolon lose HP due to it being 100+ feet away from you in which case it's total and max hp are slashed in half.
moreover you forget that the tarrasque has a ranged spine attack that can travel 120 ft, so assuming the tarrasque acts first it attacks both summoner and eidolon(if they are within 30 ft of eachother) if not, it can rush, letting it travel at a speed of 150 for 1 round every minute...which also increases its acrobatics modifier to a +87 which lets it travel a max distance of 115 ft with a long jump so with that said...no a summoner and its eidolon can't really take on the tarrasque alone
and one more thing the tarrasque negates magic and has a 30% chance of reflecting those spells back at the caster at full force. so soory but you are wrong
there is one question that hasn't been asked of th OP....where is the Summoner in relation to its eidolon and more importantly, in relation to the Tarrasque itself? now assuming you are a sensible minded summoner, you want to be 80 feet away from said Tarrasque, that wayy you are far enough as to not be attacked by it but, close enough as to not automatically have your eidolon lose HP due to it being 100+ feet away from you in which case it's total and max hp are slashed in half.
moreover you forget that the tarrasque has a ranged spine attack that can travel 120 ft, so assuming the tarrasque acts first it attacks both summoner and eidolon(if they are within 30 ft of eachother) if not, it can rush, letting it travel at a speed of 150 for 1 round every minute...which also increases its acrobatics modifier to a +87 which lets it travel a max distance of 115 ft with a long jump so with that said...no a summoner and its eidolon can't really take on the tarrasque alone
and one more thing the tarrasque negates magic and has a 30% chance of reflecting those spells back at the caster at full force. so soory but you are wrong
It was assumed that the summoner hid inside the Eidolon...
Edit: And what spells?
It was assumed that the summoner hid inside the Eidolon...
Edit: And what spells?
Spells such as magic missile, AoE, cones, line and rays
Spells such as magic missile, AoE, cones, line and raysIt was assumed that the summoner hid inside the Eidolon...
Edit: And what spells?
none of those spells are used, all damage done is pure melee damage
It's probably best to just restart this thread from scratch, possibly at a more reasonable level and using a better cross-sample of level-appropriate opposition.
already working on this
|
|
Sure you can: read the share spell ability of the eidolon. It spells out that you can cast spells on it that usually do not work on the outsider type. The summoner has enlarge person on his spell list. What's the problem?This would be the problem. Of course you would have known that if you kept up with this thread.
I don't see a problem. Show me the problem. This time use your words.
1)
The size increases for the Eidolon explain exactly what the Eidolon gets.
it doesn't say "the creature becomes large".
It says it becomes large then spends a full paragraph detailing exactly what that means. Expanded reach isn't there.
Same for Huge size. Whether it was omitted accidentally or intentionally left off, is currently unanswered.
(Jason was asked the question and specifically did not answer it, saying they would have to think on it.) As of the moment though- the paragraphs detailing exactly what you get have the extended reach omitted. The only way to get the reach is to take the Reach evolution.
2) The Enlarge issue is being hashed out still. I tend to favor "not allowing" it until they say otherwise, simply because its easier to work with than to do the reverse. (afterall, if its over powered without it, then it'll be overpowered with it. the reverse is not necessarily true)
As of the moment there is no clear answer on whether or not they will work. Both sides have good arguments.
3) AoO's happen before the action. You can't trip someone for standing while they are prone because you can't trip a prone person. i.e. chain tripping has been removed.
It has nothing to do with tripping as an AoO. You can do that. Just not to someone who is prone.
edit: spelling.
Now, as ultimately the GM of my players and thereby having some relation to this creation I'll make it my issue to clarify a few things.
This was never done as an attempt at anything I would ever even consider allowing for play. It was a purely hypothetical "this seems powerful, how powerful can we make it?".
We (mainly one of my players) are currently working on a 16th level Sommoner's Eidolon, matching it against a fighter of same level. There will be significantly fewer high-level-ish buffs (no tomes, no enlarge, just some AC buff spells and maybe a bull's strength or such). So far our results says the Eidolon is vastly superior. I would consider this problematic.
The Tarrasque was probably a mistake as an opponent. That's why we're testing the 16th level Eidolon against a 16th level Fighter (worked specifically to be as effective against this Eidolon as we can). I'm considering to work on (myself or players) similar lower level tests.
The issue of a character (the Summoner) having: [list]
No. I don't consider this class bad. I love the concept. But I do not like thinking of playing a conjurer wizard on the team. I wouldn't want to play a fighter on the team. Í'd be sad to play anything the summoner tried a bit to focus his summons and his Eidolon towards. How can that not be a bit game disruptive. Oh, by all means, the summoner is not nearly as specialized, doesn't have nearly the same spell capacity, and so on. But manages to be overall good WHILE having a extreme speciality. I wouldn't call that balance. Could be just me.
For the purpose of being constructive I'll however try to think through some changes to the summoner that might turn the class into something more fun to play along with. Because as a GM, right now, I don't want to allow summoners for non-solo play. I'd feel sorry for all the other players trying hard to get spot-light, while the summoner on nearly every area snatches some of it.
Surely, the summoner is for Advanced Players. Surely though, Advanced Players don't NEED such extremely powerful advantages and might in fact want some slightly more flavour - less ability classes(my point of view, feel perfectly free to disagree, but please, give me some thought-through arguments or stay silent. Not too much to ask I'm sure).
I could see one, it depends.
Are these lines two separate things or is the second a continuation of the first.
"Share Spells (Ex): The summoner may cast a spell
with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with
a range of touch) instead of on himself.A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells
normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type
(outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the
summoner spell list. This ability does not allow the
eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if
they function like spells."
I've been thinking on this. Trying to develop a proof, of sorts, that would solve this one way or the other.
I can't.
What I did come up with is a test that can be used by individuals to determine how it should work in their games. Since there are a few classes that have access to this ability, I will refer to them as "ClassA" and "Pet," so that the test can be easily adapted as needed.
NOTE: Some of these situations are fairly silly in that no ClassA would consider doing that. That isn't the point. The point is if the spell "works" with the Pet.
If a Class A casts:
- Disrupt Undead on the Pet, does it take damage?
- Control Undead on the Pet, does it fall under ClassA's control?
- Detect Undead, does it register the Pet?
- Repair <level> Damage on the Pet, does it gain hit points?
- Control Plant on the Pet, does the Pet fall under ClassA's Control?
- Repel Vermin, is the area warded from the Pet?
- Shatter on the Pet, does it take damage?
If any one of these doesn't make sense to you, then Enlarge Person shouldn't work on the Pet. The "type clause" of Share Spells should be considered to augment the "target clause" of Share Spells as a clarification in case there is ever a spell with a target of "you" that only effects a specific type, or excludes a type that your Pet is.
On the other hand, if all of the above make sense to you, then Enlarge Person should effect your Pet, since any spell cast by ClassA works on the Pet. Which brings up some really weird situations that makes me wonder "how far should it go?"
In my test, I was careful to select spells that effect "creatures." Depending on individual definitions of Type, weird things can happen like:
- Detect Poison registering the Pet.
- Pyrotechnics working when cast on the Pet.
- Transmute Rock to Mud turning the Pet into an intelligent puddle of mud.
- (Greater) Magic Weapon working on the Pet.
- Animate Object giving the Pet different (and possibly better) attributes.
And other weird anomalies.
This test does help further cement my idea of how Share Spells should be, and the probable intention of Share Spells... But it isn't solid enough to be a proof either way.
The issue of a character (the Summoner) having:
- A pet that seems to or at least close and maybe more than equal the fighter in combat (rendering the fighter and other melee classes less useful).
- Buffing spells, plenty for at least the pet, rendering the usual buffers (say a Bard) far less useful.
- Excellent chance to summon other creatures to assist in whatever migt be needed, fx. ranged attacks, more melee or spell prowess (once again rendering other team members less useful).
- Some usually popular utility spells like teleport, see invisibility true seeing etc.
- An acceptable BAB to make for a few extra attacks (Like those were needed).
- Just to reassure this clear not powerful class doesn't get hurt, it's got a special damage transfering ability to keep himself or his pet going, light armored spell-casting, d8 HD and at high levels a "I'm invulnerable because I hide inside my pet"-effect.
What do you mean by this list? Is the existence of the entire list "bad," or should the list be read point by point?
I ask because is seems like you feel that if a new class makes an older class less effective if both are in the same group, that is "bad." And if that is the case, then you are fundamentally against any new classes.
The reason I say this is that every new class fills some previous niche. And just by filling that niche, makes the classes that filled that niche less effective if both classes are in the same party.
If it is the whole list taken as a whole, it makes me wonder just how useless the Summoner has to be made before it fits your definition of not an "issue."
What do you mean by this list? Is the existence of the entire list "bad," or should the list be read point by point?I ask because is seems like you feel that if a new class makes an older class less effective if both are in the same group, that is "bad." And if that is the case, then you are fundamentally against any new classes.
The reason I say this is that every new class fills some previous niche. And just by filling that niche, makes the classes that filled that niche less effective if both classes are in the same party.If it is the whole list taken as a whole, it makes me wonder just how useless the Summoner has to be made before it fits your definition of not an "issue."
I realize I have not explained myself clearly, seeing as what you seem to read is as good as the contrary of my intention. I apologize deeply.
I would prefer the list to be read point by point, it's not neccesarily bad things, but things that could be considered "potential troublemakers" if not looked at carefully. In my sincere opinion, which I will not, ever, claim is any way an objectively acceptabel truth.
I believe that if a new class takes an old class ENTIRE function and does it better, that new class shouldn't exist. It would make an old class void and empty to anyone wanting to play something able to do it will never consider the original class made for it, since the new one will do it better anyway.
That's just waste to me.
I do NOT believe the Summoner in anyway does this.
I do find it problematic that the summoner's PET can best most fighter of SAME level as the summoner (we are currently running some tests on this, but so far the results are pretty much clear. We're not using anything that has been even mentioned as a rule-problem in this thread.)
If that's not problematic, I don't know what is.
I do find it troubling that the summoner will never need a different character to buff his creatures, while having creatures so powerful that the idea of buffing them in the first place is almost disgusting. Look at the example we made here. Look at how many buffs from the summoners spell list we did NOT use.
That's in itself not problematic. But it certainly is on top of the above.
I am honestly concerned that the Summoner's Eidolon steals the Summoners place of focus, and that it will make many people playing along with a summoner character, feel that their characters are very incapable - and that's never the point of the game.
I have made a new thread discussing the entire Summoner Eidolon issue, which I believe should clarify my intentions. If this post has not accomplished that.
I will still have my opinions, and everyone are free to have theirs. If you do not feel you can discuss what I see as an issue within the Summoner class, without repeatedly telling me I do not understand anything at all, feel free to think so. Don't expect me to take your point of view to much to heart though. Don't expect me to actually read whatever else you might be writingly in a positive light. I try to keep objective in my posts and notify when I am giving my opinion, since I do not expect people to count it for anything more than they want to.
I do hope I do not seem insulted. Not the intention. I am merely trying to clarify my intentions and behaviour as well as any questions you or any one else might have.
I could see one, it depends.
Are these lines two separate things or is the second a continuation of the first.
"Share Spells (Ex): The summoner may cast a spell
with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with
a range of touch) instead of on himself.A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells
normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type
(outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the
summoner spell list. This ability does not allow the
eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if
they function like spells."I've been thinking on this. Trying to develop a proof, of sorts, that would solve this one way or the other.
I think it this was taken care of on another thread. If I can locate it I will post a link or the results here.
Edit: The wording from the familiars and animal companions was used.
It was also compared to the 3.5 version of share spells, and the only difference was that a spell cast on the caster, no longer automatically affects the "master"..
PRD:
The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself.
A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal). Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.
Share Spells (Ex) : The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list. This ability does not allow the eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.
SRD 3.5
At the master’s option, he may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) he casts on himself also affect his familiar. The familiar must be within 5 feet at the time of casting to receive the benefit.If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the familiar if it moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the familiar again even if it returns to the master before the duration expires. Additionally, the master may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch range spell) instead of on himself.
A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast).
The reason for the second sentence is this. If the caster were to try to cast a spell with a target of you on the Eidolon, that could not target outsiders the spell would fail since there is no clause allowing an exception to the rule. With the second sentence a spell with a target of "you" can affect the outsider/animal companion/familiar, even if it normally could not do so.
Looking at the 3.5 version it can be seen that the only purpose of share spell is to allow the "you" spells to be transferable. It was never intended to get around the creature type for any other spell.
So some of you don't think the Tarrasque is a good choice. And he made some rules errors, which when dealing with all the rules-bloat at high level plus a rapidly morphing beta test where you have to read every post of every thread to get all the rulings is about impossible.
Can't you just say "a good data point, let's see some more?" This is why I personally don't bother with doing the hard work to do a "real playtest" and post to these boards. First everyone says "analysis isn't enough, you should do a playtest." Then someone does a build and runs a playtest, obviously taking many hours of work. But then it's "oh so and so used suboptimal tactics" or "oh that isn't the right opponent for them to fight" or "oh that build isn't 100% legal" or "in my game I would have ruled that X can't happen" or "oh you made a mistake why don't you rebuild from scratch and rerun your test five times" like this person is some kind of intern working for you.
How about some of you guys stop acting like a-holes. If you think there's rules mistakes, post them and move on. If you want to see an eidolon against another opponent, say "Hey maybe you could run this against a balor, I'd be interested to see that!"
But "this playtest is totally invalid, and you don't understand the rules, and you should scrap it all" - I'm surprised the OP hasn't told you all to go sit on it because I sure would have by now. Good job both on the test and on handling these people, Luthia.
So some of you don't think the Tarrasque is a good choice. And he made some rules errors, which when dealing with all the rules-bloat at high level plus a rapidly morphing beta test where you have to read every post of every thread to get all the rulings is about impossible.
Can't you just say "a good data point, let's see some more?" This is why I personally don't bother with doing the hard work to do a "real playtest" and post to these boards. First everyone says "analysis isn't enough, you should do a playtest." Then someone does a build and runs a playtest, obviously taking many hours of work. But then it's "oh so and so used suboptimal tactics" or "oh that isn't the right opponent for them to fight" or "oh that build isn't 100% legal" or "in my game I would have ruled that X can't happen" or "oh you made a mistake why don't you rebuild from scratch and rerun your test five times" like this person is some kind of intern working for you.
How about some of you guys stop acting like a-holes. If you think there's rules mistakes, post them and move on. If you want to see an eidolon against another opponent, say "Hey maybe you could run this against a balor, I'd be interested to see that!"
But "this playtest is totally invalid, and you don't understand the rules, and you should scrap it all" - I'm surprised the OP hasn't told you all to go sit on it because I sure would have by now. Good job both on the test and on handling these people, Luthia.
Nobody is being a jerk. If you were in any business you and submitted a report, and it was full of errors you get sent back to the drawing board. None of us get paid for this, but we are all participating, and we expect accurate data.
If the tactics are bad of course it invalidates the playtest. If I take a 20th level wizard and only use magic missile, causing him to lose to 5th level characters the data should not be accepted. If I allow my 5th level caster to use a scroll that is above his level without making a caster level check which ends an encounter I should be told about that too. The playtest are time consuming, and that is why I may not be able to run one. If I can't do it correctly I wont bother with it.If you want to accept errors then you may do so, but pressuring the rest of us to do so will get you nowhere. I am sure if another poster had ran Big T, and made errors the OP would have been just as critical.
I agree that it would be sad to play someone the Eidolon was trying to emulate. But, thats largely an issue of group dynamics.
While the Eidolon seems capable of doing nearly anything I think the cost of evolutions prevent it from being lots of things. Because of that, a Summoner is very nearly the perfect party member.
They can design their Eidolon not to replace an existing party member but rather to replace one who isn't there.
No rogue? No problem. He can design a rogue'ish eidolon.
NO meat shield? No problem, he can do that.
no.. whatever. he can do that.
But he works With the party not against it or in competition with it.
If the player is working to overwrite another player then that isn't so much a rules issue as it is a player issue.
-S
Addendum:
If the player was here telling us what happened in his campaign then I agree that folks should be supportive, maybe say how things work in their campaign, and move on. Afterall- what your Dm says you can do, you can do. Period.
This however is a playtest. Play tests exist for a specific reason. If folks do not correct the issues at hand then you have a play test that was made using erroneous rules that has not been corrected and that can lead to potentially false conclusions to be had.
"My Eidolon in a game last night did X Y Z" is different from " We ran a play test last night to see if the Summoner was over powered and this is what happened". In the former you are saying what happened in your game with your Dm. In the latter you are trying to persuade others that some function or option within the game has some issue- either for good or bad.
I have nothing against the OP or his hard work. But there were rules issues in his play test. Unfortunately, they are to the extent that they invalidate the play test conclusion. It needs to be redone.
You do not have to like that. But that doesn't make us jerks or a-holes for pointing it out.
-S
I am honestly concerned that the Summoner's Eidolon steals the Summoners place of focus, and that it will make many people playing along with a summoner character, feel that their characters are very incapable - and that's never the point of the game.See, this is where I think people are coming at the Summoner the wrong way. The eidolon isn't an animal companion, or a super-powerful familiar, it's the *core class ability* - much more so than the spells. In fact, trying to play the summoner class and complain that the 'summoner' itself isn't doing a lot is a lot like playing a druid - but focusing on the animal companion as the powerhouse of that duo. The druid simply isn't designed or intended to be played that way, much like the focus of the summoner is *not* meant to be on the 'summoner,' but on the eidolon.
What would you post if I started a thread complaining about how I couldn't get my druid's animal companion to shine when I compare it to my wildshaping, nature-spelling, druid? You might give me some tips on how to make the AC better, but most people would explain that it just wasn't going to work.
TLDR: The Eidolon *is* the summoner class, as much as *spells* are the wizard class. Saying it overshadows the summoner is like saying a wizard's spells overshadow his bonus feats.
Yes the Eidolon *is* the Summoners class and that for some people is a bad thing. Some people just don't like playing Buffy the Summoner as the focus is on the Eidolon and not the actual summoner. There is no need for the snark because someone doesn't like the direction the class has taken.
I don't like the class for that very reason but it doesn't stop me from playtesting it and trying to find a way for me as a player to use one. As it stands I will never want to play a Pokemon Master!
Yes the Eidolon *is* the Summoners class and that for some people is a bad thing. Some people just don't like playing Buffy the Summoner as the focus is on the Eidolon and not the actual summoner. There is no need for the snark because someone doesn't like the direction the class has taken.
I don't like the class for that very reason but it doesn't stop me from playtesting it and trying to find a way for me as a player to use one. As it stands I will never want to play a Pokemon Master!
There are already classes that have a side kick but the focus remains on the pc. What is wrong with a 'pokemon master' existing? If you dont want to play a class that focuses on its pet, you have a host of other choices already. Why badmouth something that clearly other players are excited about. Not to mention if you are concerned about the summoner being overshadowed by his pet, all you have to do is make the pet work for the summoner. Focus on fighting with your summoner (high strength, fighting feats) and give your pet a spell like ability to buff YOU. Have it use its actions to trip, flank and aid you in fighting while you buff yourself. Will this be the absolute more powerful way to play a summoner? No. But you CAN play it that way, it will be an effective member of the party and the focus is clearly on the summoner.
Just because the optimized focus of the class is on the pet doesnt mean it has to be for you if you dont like that kind of play. But again right now there are other options for you. If i want a big stompy monster that i can focus on as a player, the options for me a far fewer. To criticize a class for what it is trying to achieve is not being constuctive.
Now in terms of power I think the summoner is too strong at the moment. I think the openess of the class is its greatest strength and greatest flaw. You can spend all of your evolution points and make the thing a beast, then buff it and make it pretty rediculous. IF however you had to spend some of your points on say movement, or utility (skills, senses, etc) the class would probably be more balanced when compared to say a druid.
The reason for the second sentence is this. If the caster were to try to cast a spell with a target of you on the Eidolon, that could not target outsiders the spell would fail since there is no clause allowing an exception to the rule. With the second sentence a spell with a target of "you" can affect the outsider/animal companion/familiar, even if it normally could not do so.
Looking at the 3.5 version it can be seen that the only purpose of share spell is to allow the "you" spells to be transferable. It was never intended to get around the creature type for any other spell.
While this analysis is all well and good, why do you think they changed the language from 3.5 SRD to PF? Is it a typo, or is it a deeper mechanical change. If the intent was to keep things as 3.5, then the language change was not necessary. If the language change was not meant to alter the intent, it was a mistake to change the language.
It's too bad we cannot divine the designers intent on this. As written, you can cast spells on the AC or Familiar or Eidolon that bypass the "Type: Outsider" restriction (which, as I posted above, does NOT mean anything goes).
The only change is that you can not cast one spell have it affect both simultaneously. Other than that nerf I see no change. The 2nd sentence is in the 3.5 version also. Nobody ever thought it worked that way then, so it should not work that way now. There is nothing written to indicate a change in intent.
There are already classes that have a side kick but the focus remains on the pc. What is wrong with a 'pokemon master' existing? If you dont want to play a class that focuses on its pet, you have a host of other choices already. Why badmouth something that clearly other players are excited about.
Kolokotroni FTW!!!
There are already classes that have a side kick but the focus remains on the pc. What is wrong with a 'pokemon master' existing? If you dont want to play a class that focuses on its pet, you have a host of other choices already. Why badmouth something that clearly other players are excited about.Kolokotroni FTW!!!
+1
Yes the Eidolon *is* the Summoners class and that for some people is a bad thing. Some people just don't like playing Buffy the Summoner as the focus is on the Eidolon and not the actual summoner. There is no need for the snark because someone doesn't like the direction the class has taken.
I don't like the class for that very reason but it doesn't stop me from playtesting it and trying to find a way for me as a player to use one. As it stands I will never want to play a Pokemon Master!
Just because the optimized focus of the class is on the pet doesnt mean it has to be for you if you dont like that kind of play. But again right now there are other options for you. If i want a big stompy monster that i can focus on as a player, the options for me a far fewer. To criticize a class for what it is trying to achieve is not being constuctive.
Where did I criticize the class? I said I don't like the class (because the Eidolon overshadows the PC) but I am trying to find a way that I can play it *and* enjoy it. That is being constructive as there are people who feel the same as me.
Unless of course people with an opposing view can't post just in case someone loves the idea and gets upset.
Spacelard:
(i still can't figure out how to quote. call me a noob ;p)
I think if you are wanting the Summoner to mechanically be stronger than the Eidolon, that ship has already sailed. They have already said that the intent was for the critter to be better than the actual 'PC' so to speak.
I think alot of it though is in your perception. A general doesn't have to be better than the seals for the seals to be effective or for the general to be effective.
The summoner has to be within 100 feet but not on the Big E's backside. He can stand back and direct, thanks to the Link, and remain perfectly in control. If you want to RP the summoner rather than the beast then just keep the Summoner in complete control. The Big E (or little E if thats your critter) is in subjugation to the Summoner and does what he says, when he says, how he says. The rules themselves are very loose on just what their relationship is.
Role play up the Summoner and role play "down" the Eidolon. Keep the RP center on the character not the beast. The beast may over shadow it in combat but remember they are actually the same character. You are controlling them, just as if it was an actual summoned creature.
Alot of it isn't really in the mechanics of the class, but rather in your perception and how you play them.
just my .o2
-S
The reason for the second sentence is this. If the caster were to try to cast a spell with a target of you on the Eidolon, that could not target outsiders the spell would fail since there is no clause allowing an exception to the rule. With the second sentence a spell with a target of "you" can affect the outsider/animal companion/familiar, even if it normally could not do so.
Looking at the 3.5 version it can be seen that the only purpose of share spell is to allow the "you" spells to be transferable. It was never intended to get around the creature type for any other spell.
While this analysis is all well and good, why do you think they changed the language from 3.5 SRD to PF? Is it a typo, or is it a deeper mechanical change. If the intent was to keep things as 3.5, then the language change was not necessary. If the language change was not meant to alter the intent, it was a mistake to change the language.
It's too bad we cannot divine the designers intent on this. As written, you can cast spells on the AC or Familiar or Eidolon that bypass the "Type: Outsider" restriction (which, as I posted above, does NOT mean anything goes).
It was my post which wraithstrike quoted, so I'll jump in and give you my opinion. I've seen a couple of places where the PF rules seem to have copied over pieces of the 3.5 wording when it is no longer needed due to the changes made in the PF rules. This is one of them. I don't think that there are any Target:you spells which specify anything about what the target must be. I think the only remaining reason to have left this in is to end arguments when someone wants to cast spells which could be interpreted as requiring a humanoid target (like Alter Self) on his familiar.
Ideally, I think they should have changed the name of the ability from Shared Spells to something else. I can see the backwards compatibility argument, but this does not now allow spells to be shared. It simply allows you to cast personalized spells on your pet instead of yourself.
There are actually very few spells which fall into this category. Looking at d20pfsrd spell database, the only spells which seems to be at issue are Enlarge and Reduce Person. (There may be others, but these were the only ones I saw that seemed relevant without getting silly.)There simply aren't many buffing spells which care about whether the target is humanoid or not. (There are offensive spells like Charm Person that do, but why would a wizard want to charm his familiar?)
Spacelard:
(i still can't figure out how to quote. call me a noob ;p)I think if you are wanting the Summoner to mechanically be stronger than the Eidolon, that ship has already sailed. They have already said that the intent was for the critter to be better than the actual 'PC' so to speak.
I think alot of it though is in your perception. A general doesn't have to be better than the seals for the seals to be effective or for the general to be effective.
The summoner has to be within 100 feet but not on the Big E's backside. He can stand back and direct, thanks to the Link, and remain perfectly in control. If you want to RP the summoner rather than the beast then just keep the Summoner in complete control. The Big E (or little E if thats your critter) is in subjugation to the Summoner and does what he says, when he says, how he says. The rules themselves are very loose on just what their relationship is.
Role play up the Summoner and role play "down" the Eidolon. Keep the RP center on the character not the beast. The beast may over shadow it in combat but remember they are actually the same character. You are controlling them, just as if it was an actual summoned creature.
Alot of it isn't really in the mechanics of the class, but rather in your perception and how you play them.
just my .o2
-S
I would never call anyone a Noob!
I have no problem in understanding the concept.I have no problem about how to roleplay the situation.
I have no problem with the Summoner class.
It just isn't a class, which presented straight out of the tin, I would enjoy playing. Like the Barbarian or Bard or Sorcerer or Arcane Archer or Assassin. I have already stated in another thread that my main problem is my attitude to the class.
However I do take exception to be critised because I don't like a class and therefore my comments are invalid. I am playtesting, in a real game, a Summoner just because I don't like a class doesn't mean that my results are invalid. That is the impression I get.
Where did I criticize the class? I said I don't like the class (because the Eidolon overshadows the PC) but I am trying to find a way that I can play it *and* enjoy it. That is being constructive as there are people who feel the same as me.
Unless of course people with an opposing view can't post just in case someone loves the idea and gets upset.
"I said I don't like the class (because the Eidolon overshadows the PC)"
This is criticism against the class for the very thing it was trying to achieve. And people who shree your view are asking the focus of the class to be changed. That is what I am pointing out. People seem to think there is some inherent right to challenge anything existing that doesnt fit their style. You are welcome to not like the class, and even to try to shift its focus if you play one (which i believe is possible). But to say the class should not play the way it does (and was meant to)in the first place is not legitimate commentary in the first place. I really did not mean to single you out specifically, your post just seemed a good one to respond to with what I wish to say.
But the fact remains that the existence of something that you dont like does not impact your enjoyment of the game. Dont like a class with a pet that is better then the pc? Play a druid, ranger, cavalier. This class was intended to have the eidolon shine over the summoner. That was the point, and it is something that has up untill now been missing. To add a second druid would not make any sense.
The only change is that you can not cast one spell have it affect both simultaneously. Other than that nerf I see no change. The 2nd sentence is in the 3.5 version also. Nobody ever thought it worked that way then, so it should not work that way now. There is nothing written to indicate a change in intent.
The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself.
A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).
Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal).
Share Spells (Ex) : The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider).Now, from the 3.5 SRD:
As you...
At the master’s option, he may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) he casts on himself also affect his familiar. The familiar must be within 5 feet at the time of casting to receive the benefit.If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the familiar if it moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the familiar again even if it returns to the master before the duration expires. Additionally, the master may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch range spell) instead of on himself.
A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast).
I think there should be errata since the spells are not really shared anymore.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You can't trip a prone person when they are trying to stand up.Since when?
You can trip as part of an AoO. Trip and disarm are the only two maneuvres that can be used in place of a melee attack (the other maneuvres are standard actions).
It's not that you can't trip on an AoO, it's that the timing of the AoO for standing up from prone prevents you from making a trip attempt. When you trigger an AoO, it resolves immediately prior to the action which triggered it. So, if you trigger an AoO from moving through a threatened area, the attack resolves prior to the movement. If you trigger an AoO from casting a spell, the attack resolves prior to the spell being completed. In the case of standing up from prone, the AoO resolves prior to standing up. As a result, the target is prone at the time the AoO resolves and can't be tripped because they aren't standing.
Our group had a trip expert for a while and we missed this rule for 2-3 levels. It's not particularly obvious on the face of it, but it's in a few FAQs out there and makes sense through the logic above. It's an important check on the power of the trip-build.
I do find it problematic that the summoner's PET can best most fighter of SAME level as the summoner (we are currently running some tests on this, but so far the results are pretty much clear. We're not using anything that has been even mentioned as a rule-problem in this thread.) If that's not problematic, I don't know what is.
That's a problem with the entire 3.0/3.5/3.PF chassis, however, not just with the new summoner. Paizo didn't do nearly enough to make the fighter a viable character past 11th level or so. Most people ignore that simple fact, and say things like, "Well, I never noticed that so it must not be true," or "well, I still enjoy playing fighters," or "my teammates make up for my incompetence," but the core problem still remains.
A 9th level summoner's eidolon destroying a 9th level fighter in combat isn't a problem with the eidolion; it's a problem with the fighter.
Where did I criticize the class? I said I don't like the class (because the Eidolon overshadows the PC) but I am trying to find a way that I can play it *and* enjoy it. That is being constructive as there are people who feel the same as me.
Unless of course people with an opposing view can't post just in case someone loves the idea and gets upset.
"I said I don't like the class (because the Eidolon overshadows the PC)"
This is criticism against the class for the very thing it was trying to achieve. And people who shree your view are asking the focus of the class to be changed. That is what I am pointing out. People seem to think there is some inherent right to challenge anything existing that doesnt fit their style. You are welcome to not like the class, and even to try to shift its focus if you play one (which i believe is possible). But to say the class should not play the way it does (and was meant to)in the first place is not legitimate commentary in the first place. I really did not mean to single you out specifically, your post just seemed a good one to respond to with what I wish to say.
But the fact remains that the existence of something that you dont like does not impact your enjoyment of the game. Dont like a class with a pet that is better then the pc? Play a druid, ranger, cavalier. This class was intended to have the eidolon shine over the summoner. That was the point, and it is something that has up untill now been missing. To add a second druid would not make any sense.
I have never said that the focus should be changed.
I have never said the class should not play the way it does.I said I don't like the class (because the Eidolon overshadows the PC) that is the only critisim I have given (apart from the lack of skill points and interpersonal skills LOL)
This still doesn't stop me from giving objective views when playtesting it in a real game. I couldn't give a monkeys about impacting on my enjoyment of the game 'cos it doesn't!
I'm not challenging anything existing which doesn't fit my style (at least that isn't my intention) I am saying is I understand that people are unhappy with the focus being on the Eidolon and not the Summoner (yea I know they are one and the same) and I can see/understand why.
I understand that people will be delighted with the class just as people need to understand that some of us don't like it.
*EDIT* Am I being snarky? If I am sorry, I have a cold and feel like sh!te. I'm a nice person really!
|
Where did I criticize the class? I said I don't like the class (because the Eidolon overshadows the PC) but I am trying to find a way that I can play it *and* enjoy it. That is being constructive as there are people who feel the same as me.
Unless of course people with an opposing view can't post just in case someone loves the idea and gets upset.
"I said I don't like the class (because the Eidolon overshadows the PC)"
This is criticism against the class for the very thing it was trying to achieve. And people who [share] your view are asking the focus of the class to be changed. That is what I am pointing out.
I haven't seen anything that indicates Spacelard is trying to change the focus of the class. He has merely pointed out the outcomes of his playtests, along with a statement of his personal taste.
But the fact remains that the existence of something that you dont like does not impact your enjoyment of the game. Dont like a class with a pet that is better then the pc? Play a druid, ranger, cavalier.
Not to nitpick, but it does potentially impact his enjoyment of his game. Yes, no one is forcing him to play one, but someone in his party might play one and horn in on his niche, or if he's GMing, some of his players might want to play one and he may not enjoy GMing that character, who knows.
This class was intended to have the eidolon shine over the summoner. That was the point, and it is something that has up untill now been missing. To add a second druid would not make any sense.
Yup. And Spacelard is just pointing out that the eidolon does indeed outshine the summoner. I've never seen him say that it should be any other way, I've just seen him say that he personally wouldn't play such a character.
To put it another way, James Jacobs can offer valid input playtesting a dwarf, even if he loathes every second he spends with that bearded character sheet. ;-)
I have never said that the focus should be changed.
I have never said the class should not play the way it does.
I said I don't like the class (because the Eidolon overshadows the PC) that is the only critisim I have given (apart from the lack of skill points and interpersonal skills LOL)
This still doesn't stop me from giving objective views when playtesting it in a real game. I couldn't give a monkeys about impacting on my enjoyment of the game 'cos it doesn't!
I'm not challenging anything existing which doesn't fit my style (at least that isn't my intention) I am saying is I understand that people are unhappy with the focus being on the Eidolon and not the Summoner (yea I know they are one and the same) and I can see/understand why.
I understand that people will be delighted with the class just as people need to understand that some of us don't like it.
*EDIT* Am I being snarky? If I am sorry, I have a cold and feel like sh!te. I'm a nice person really!
I realize you are less adement the most about the 'not liking' the class. However when you respond in a playtest forum saying 'i dont like this class because of x,y and z, the implication is that you want x,y, and z, to be changed.
|
|
However when you respond in a playtest forum saying 'i dont like this class because of x,y and z, the implication is that you want x,y, and z, to be changed.
Meh. Must be a case of connotation lost to text-based communication.
I've never inferred that sentiment when reading Spacelard's posts. I've always read it along the lines of "I don't like playing wizards because they can't wear full-plate" meaning that they prefer to play heavily armored characters, not that they think wizards should be able to wear full-plate.
Not to nitpick, but it does potentially impact his enjoyment of his game. Yes, no one is forcing him to play one, but someone in his party might play one and horn in on his niche, or if he's GMing, some of his players might want to play one and he may not enjoy GMing that character, who knows.This class was intended to have the eidolon shine over the summoner. That was the point, and it is something that has up untill now been missing. To add a second druid would not make any sense.Yup. And Spacelard is just pointing out that the eidolon does indeed outshine the summoner. I've never seen him say that it should be any other way, I've just seen him say that he personally wouldn't play such a character.
To put it another way, James Jacobs can offer valid input playtesting a dwarf, even if he loathes every second he spends with that bearded character sheet. ;-)
I fail to see how a summoner horning in on someones nitch is any different then one of the other classes. Ever have a barbarian and a fighter in the same party? I have. The summoner is more flexible and can fit most niches, but thats a good thing, and infact makes overlap less likely if the group actually coordinates. If they dont chances are this would have happened anyway.
As for gming a summoner, that seems a pretty big stretch to me. I think a gm who has less fun because of player choice (that doesnt throw off balance) is being pretty petty.
I do apologize for singling out spacelard, that was probably not the best choice. But I still think it needed to be said.