Exactly the problem. If I want to play a character focused on summoning monsters, I should want to play the specialized Summoner class, not a generic wizard.And i completely agree with you Caineach, a major reason this thread was such a great idea. It solves the two schools of thought on what a summoner IS. Neither one being able to complete exactly what both groups expect from a class. Except with this split progression.
Not everyone wants to play a Elidolon or feel like that is the center of attention for their class. And not everyone wants the ability to summon monsters many at a time.
Again many compliments on the concept!
I have a major concern about this concept even though I was one of the early cheerleaders.
I don't think there should be any class that makes a specialist wizard that is better than an actual specialist wizard. I'm not trying to quash the idea, but I am VERY concerned about this concept being rehashed to make an evocation specialist or an enchantment specialist with increased damage and DCs and spell penetration. This would be an AWFUL precedent that would undermine the entire reason for creating Pathfinder in the first place.
Like I said, I'm not trying to derail this, just giving a warning.
Exactly the problem. If I want to play a character focused on summoning monsters, I should want to play the specialized Summoner class, not a generic wizard.
1. You wouldn't be playing a generic wizard, you'd be playing a specialist Conjurer.
2. The Summoner class isn't intended to replace Conjurers.You should want to play the class that actually does what you want it to do, instead of trying to force a round peg of a class that isn't intended to do that into the square hole of your expectations. Conjurers are square pegs for your square hole.
I have a major concern about this concept even though I was one of the early cheerleaders.
I don't think there should be any class that makes a specialist wizard that is better than an actual specialist wizard. I'm not trying to quash the idea, but I am VERY concerned about this concept being rehashed to make an evocation specialist or an enchantment specialist with increased damage and DCs and spell penetration. This would be an AWFUL precedent that would undermine the entire reason for creating Pathfinder in the first place.
Like I said, I'm not trying to derail this, just giving a warning.
We've already covered that this is far from a 'strictly better' specialist wizard. The summoner we've been building up is better than said specialist in one way: summoning. Wizard beats the summoner in every other facet of spellcasting, no contest or even comparison.
That said... I wouldn't worry. I doubt anything as complex as these whole parallel schemes will be making it into a final version of the summoner.
On the other hand... I've had a new thought, much simpler than the previous one:
Legion Summoner: Most summoners specialize in a single eidolon, but a few choose to study summoning more broadly. Such summoners do not gain the services of an eidolon, nor any of the abilities that relate to them (life link, bond senses, shield ally, maker's call, transposition, aspect, greater shield ally, life bond, merge forms, greater aspect, and twin eidolon).
Instead, the summoner gains the ability to use his Summon Monster spell-like ability as a standard action, and have as many active at once as he wishes. If he elects to spend a full-round action using this ability, he may choose his summoned monster as though he were casting the Summon Monster spell one level higher than his normal maximum (a 3rd level summoner could use Summon Monster III). The summoner adds his charisma modifier to the duration of his summon spells, and creatures he summons add his charisma modifier to their will saves against Banishment and Dismissal effects.
This sort of summoner gains an additional daily use of his Summon Monster spell-like ability for every 4 levels he possesses.
Exactly the problem. If I want to play a character focused on summoning monsters, I should want to play the specialized Summoner class, not a generic wizard.1. You wouldn't be playing a generic wizard, you'd be playing a specialist Conjurer.
2. The Summoner class isn't intended to replace Conjurers.You should want to play the class that actually does what you want it to do, instead of trying to force a round peg of a class that isn't intended to do that into the square hole of your expectations. Conjurers are square pegs for your square hole.
If I want to summon and the Summoner isn't the best class to do it, it is incorrectly named. I recently played a Conjurer, and felt that summoning was rarely my best option.
I have no problem with the class as is (except its name), but the Conjurer IMO fails to make summoning worthwhile and does not allow for utility summons until you get the plannar bindings, which you must negotiate with and don't get to level 9. The 2-3 summons per day, not necessarily your highest level, if you want other useful spells, is not nearly enough for it to be your schtick through multiple combats. These are things I would like to see a Summoner be able to do.
If I want to summon and the Summoner isn't the best class to do it, it is incorrectly named.
Summoner is correctly named. It's a class entirely devoted to summoning a Huge Freaking Monster. What else would you call it?
If I want to summon and the Summoner isn't the best class to do it, it is incorrectly named.Summoner is correctly named. It's a class entirely devoted to summoning a Huge Freaking Monster. What else would you call it?
Babysitter?
Huntard
Warlock
^ He went there!!!!!
If I want to summon and the Summoner isn't the best class to do it, it is incorrectly named. I recently played a Conjurer, and felt that summoning was rarely my best option.
I have no problem with the class as is (except its name)...
I voiced this same opinion in another summoner related thread. The main focus of the class (as it stands now)is the binding of a specific outsider to the character where summoning is secondary.
Its like making a class called the "Master of Blades" and the major abilities being tied to one specific bladed weapon where the class' others abilities only make the character marginally better with others blade weapons. Its a bit of a misnomer.
I don't know. I might be needlessly splitting hairs. In the end, so long as the class is a solid concept with some cool perks the name doesn't really matter.
If I want to summon and the Summoner isn't the best class to do it, it is incorrectly named.Summoner is correctly named. It's a class entirely devoted to summoning a Huge Freaking Monster. What else would you call it?
Thats the thing. The classes primary combat function is not to summon a big monster. Its already done that and has had him all day. The class will rarely use its summons as written, and usually to get a flanker. Its primary combat role is a buffer for the big monster it brought.
|
I have a major concern about this concept even though I was one of the early cheerleaders.I don't think there should be any class that makes a specialist wizard that is better than an actual specialist wizard. I'm not trying to quash the idea, but I am VERY concerned about this concept being rehashed to make an evocation specialist or an enchantment specialist with increased damage and DCs and spell penetration. This would be an AWFUL precedent that would undermine the entire reason for creating Pathfinder in the first place.
Like I said, I'm not trying to derail this, just giving a warning.
This is a bit of a silly concern. I'm not trying to belittle you but I think its a fairly narrow minded approach. Its sort of like saying there shouldn't be a Monk because its better at punching dudes in the face than a Fighter could possibly be. I realize that comparison isn't entirely apt but its close enough.
In terms of raw power, a Conjurer is going to eclipse a Summoner fairly quickly. Can the Summoner on the Legion/Menagerist/whatever-we-call-it tree use one spell better than a Conjurer? Yes. But the otherwise limited spell list and far less spells known and cast will be telling.
Its really less of a specialist wizard and more of a specialist Conjurer. And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure that eventually there will be classes that are specialist Evokers who do better with a single element at the cost of versatility. One might also look at the Paladin as a sort of specialist Inquisitor sacrificing the versatility of Judgments for the much more powerful Smite.
I never enjoyed those games either, and i did have a animal companion with a druid summoner the same as he is speaking about. This split idea would at least keep the class alive for a large percentage of players whom would probably not play it at all as the current changes sit. I thank you again for your effort in starting this thread and hope the concerns are seen by paizo...
I'm glad you appreciate our work here, but I think we're not really forestalling the pc-as-pet dynamic so much as presenting an alternative for summoners who would, erm, like to have multiple creatures overshadow the party instead of just the one eidolon :D
Hey Yuengling, have any thoughts on my much shorter proposal up here? Its potent, but brief enough to be a viable sidebar-type variant.
|
|
Hey Yuengling, have any thoughts on my much shorter proposal up here? Its potent, but brief enough to be a viable sidebar-type variant.
I'll need to noodle that one a bit. The better duration is useful without being game breaking. The increased summon level though...
Right off the top of my head, I don't think it adds specific combat critters that would be so much better than and Eidolon as to be unbalanced but please note that thats just what I can think of right now. The biggest problem with such an ability is the Dire Bat. Jason and other developers have said that their adventure design for lower level play assumes that no one is flying until at least lvl 5. This would break that convention. I think its a good idea, just one that couldn't fully implemented until lvl 5 so as to maintain their design conventions.