So if your Eldonon is a Summon would it then benefit from Augment Summoning?
So if your Eldonon is a Summon would it then benefit from Augment Summoning?
From d20pfsrd collection of responses from Jason.
"Q: Does the feat Augment Summoning affect Eidolon during the summon like other spell-like abilities?
A: (Jason Bulmahn 11/30/09) Summoning the eidolon is actually a supernatural ability and is not subject to the Augment Summoning feat."
So if your Eldonon is a Summon would it then benefit from Augment Summoning?From d20pfsrd collection of responses from Jason.
"Q: Does the feat Augment Summoning affect Eidolon during the summon like other spell-like abilities?
A: (Jason Bulmahn 11/30/09) Summoning the eidolon is actually a supernatural ability and is not subject to the Augment Summoning feat."
I think that is a cop out. It should. When he made that ruling there was a bunch of cries for nerfs. Augment summoning takes 2 feat with almost no benefit to the summoner.
I think that is a cop out. It should. When he made that ruling there was a bunch of cries for nerfs. Augment summoning takes 2 feat with almost no benefit to the summoner.
I have to agree with Mahrdol on this. Every summoner is going to want Augment Summoning, but Spell Focus (Conjuration) is utterly useless to them. The only way the 'doesn't work on eidolon' rule needs to be in place is if the summoner ends up with Augment Summoning as a bonus feat (as it should be).
I think that is a cop out. It should. When he made that ruling there was a bunch of cries for nerfs. Augment summoning takes 2 feat with almost no benefit to the summoner.I have to agree with Mahrdol on this. Every summoner is going to want Augment Summoning, but Spell Focus (Conjuration) is utterly useless to them. The only way the 'doesn't work on eidolon' rule needs to be in place is if the summoner ends up with Augment Summoning as a bonus feat (as it should be).
Um... Grease, and glitterdust alone mean spell focus conjuration is not useless.
And it is very reasonable for augment summoning to not work on the eidolon. That is 8 pointsof evolutions that an eidolon could not normally have untill level 6 potentially attainable at level 1 (human).
As for almost no benefit for augment summoning, um what? We looking at the same class? The summoner can summon monsters as a spell like ability 3+charisma times a day. That alone is more then all but the most hyper focused conjuration speclialist will ever EVER do. Not to mention if they are worried about getting the most out of augment summoning they can also take the spell. Adding +4 str and +4 con to critters you can summon in every fight all day long is a great benefit. Adding +4 strength and +4 con to an already beefy eidolon outside the limits of evolution points is rediculous.
Ya it is summoned with a "Ritual". That smacks as a spell to me.
The Eidolon is a Supernatural ability and thus not subject to Augment Summoning or any effect related to that (Beckon the Frozen, etc). This is how it should be; the last thing the Eidolon needs is MORE strength.
Summoners have plenty of use for the Augment Summoning feat and need all the DC bonuses they can get, so neither Augment Summoning nor Spell Focus: Conjuration are wasted feats for them.
I think that is a cop out. It should. When he made that ruling there was a bunch of cries for nerfs. Augment summoning takes 2 feat with almost no benefit to the summoner.I have to agree with Mahrdol on this. Every summoner is going to want Augment Summoning, but Spell Focus (Conjuration) is utterly useless to them. The only way the 'doesn't work on eidolon' rule needs to be in place is if the summoner ends up with Augment Summoning as a bonus feat (as it should be).Um... Grease, and glitterdust alone mean spell focus conjuration is not useless.
And it is very reasonable for augment summoning to not work on the eidolon. That is 8 pointsof evolutions that an eidolon could not normally have untill level 6 potentially attainable at level 1 (human).
As for almost no benefit for augment summoning, um what? We looking at the same class? The summoner can summon monsters as a spell like ability 3+charisma times a day. That alone is more then all but the most hyper focused conjuration speclialist will ever EVER do. Not to mention if they are worried about getting the most out of augment summoning they can also take the spell. Adding +4 str and +4 con to critters you can summon in every fight all day long is a great benefit. Adding +4 strength and +4 con to an already beefy eidolon outside the limits of evolution points is rediculous.
Ya they can summon monsters with a cap of 1 which makes it less useful then a normal summon monster spell. Then on top of it they have very few spells known so you want them to waste more precious spell slots on more summon monsters spells to get a benefit?
A wizard, sorcerer or Druid get more benefit for augment summoning over the summoner. Go figure!!!
Um... Grease, and glitterdust alone mean spell focus conjuration is not useless.
You mean two very low-level spells, one of which is exceedingly useful even without the save, and the other which has better out of combat uses than in combat? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
I agree with you about Augment Summoning (and should have phrased my wording differently) however. I just think it should be a bonus feat, instead of a two-feat tax for taking the class.
And having reread Augment Summoning (I don't really play casters, nor have I played with many players who summoned often), the wording of that feat means it doesn't apply to eidolons anyway, as they aren't summoned by a spell.
That doesn't change the 2-feat tax for getting into the class, which is where my complaint lies.
That doesn't change the 2-feat tax for getting into the class, which is where my complaint lies.
What two feat tax to play the class? Augment Summoning isn't even a particularly good feat. Most summoned monsters past the first few levels are useless in combat as direct attackers anyway, so increasing their direct combat attributes does absolutely nothing for them. It's nowhere near the requirement for an archer to have Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, which really are required for the character to function.
I think that is a cop out. It should. When he made that ruling there was a bunch of cries for nerfs. Augment summoning takes 2 feat with almost no benefit to the summoner.I have to agree with Mahrdol on this. Every summoner is going to want Augment Summoning, but Spell Focus (Conjuration) is utterly useless to them. The only way the 'doesn't work on eidolon' rule needs to be in place is if the summoner ends up with Augment Summoning as a bonus feat (as it should be).Um... Grease, and glitterdust alone mean spell focus conjuration is not useless.
And it is very reasonable for augment summoning to not work on the eidolon. That is 8 pointsof evolutions that an eidolon could not normally have untill level 6 potentially attainable at level 1 (human).
As for almost no benefit for augment summoning, um what? We looking at the same class? The summoner can summon monsters as a spell like ability 3+charisma times a day. That alone is more then all but the most hyper focused conjuration speclialist will ever EVER do. Not to mention if they are worried about getting the most out of augment summoning they can also take the spell. Adding +4 str and +4 con to critters you can summon in every fight all day long is a great benefit. Adding +4 strength and +4 con to an already beefy eidolon outside the limits of evolution points is rediculous.
Ya they can summon monsters with a cap of 1 which makes it less useful then a normal summon monster spell. Then on top of it they have very few spells known so you want them to waste more precious spell slots on more summon monsters spells to get a benefit?
A wizard, sorcerer or Druid get more benefit for augment summoning over the summoner. Go figure!!!
How many wizards or druids cast more then one summon spell at a time? If they do how often does hit happen? This amounts to just about almost never, because summoning for them is a more limited resource. And no as a summoner I would not take summon monster spells, I would still consider augment summoning because I am likely to be able to make use of it in every fight. How many feats that a wizard takes does he use in every single fight?
A level 5 summoner with a 16 charisma will have 6 summons a day. 3-4 fights a day. He can potentially use all 6 summons if the fights last, but will certainly use at least 3-4 of them. Thats 3-4 summon monster III's with augment summoning on them a day. A wizard at level 5 with a 16 intelligence can cast 2 read it 2 3rd level spells a day. And 3 second level spells. If he has completely lost his mind and prepares all Summon Monster II and Summon Monster III spells, then he will get 5 uses of augment summoning that day. But no wizard on earth would ever do this. In reality he has prepared one or 2 summoning spells. Thats one or two uses a day.
A druid is in the same boat. He isnt going to turn all his spells into summon natures ally. He will do it one or two times per day at level 5. Maybe a few more at higher level but regardless, he will be hard pressed to do it in EVERY fight, which the summoner almost certainly will, and he will summon better monsters doing it.
Um... Grease, and glitterdust alone mean spell focus conjuration is not useless.You mean two very low-level spells, one of which is exceedingly useful even without the save, and the other which has better out of combat uses than in combat? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
I agree with you about Augment Summoning (and should have phrased my wording differently) however. I just think it should be a bonus feat, instead of a two-feat tax for taking the class.
And having reread Augment Summoning (I don't really play casters, nor have I played with many players who summoned often), the wording of that feat means it doesn't apply to eidolons anyway, as they aren't summoned by a spell.
That doesn't change the 2-feat tax for getting into the class, which is where my complaint lies.
I wouldnt mind seeing it as a bonus feat especially if they leave the SLA as it is (short duration and 1 at a time), but which of the two spells do you think is not useful in combat?
I have seen glitterdust cause a near party wipe on level 8 gestault characters (granted that was 3.5 glitterdust, but I still see it as a strong spell)....And a grease is useful for the entirety of the game, particularly if you have a rogue in the party looking for easy sneak attacks. Now granted it would be nice if a few new conjuration spells turn up for the summoner in the APG, but its still not completely useless for a summoner. Certainly less useless then say combat expertise for someone who wants to feint or trip.
|
Well I do agree that this is a cop out... Though I dont mind much.
I believe they need to change the wording in their PDF then. It states that they (E) are treated as a summoned creature. This might be splitting hairs but Aug Summonings description is "Your summoned creatures are more powerful and robust". Now in the Bene part it states with any summon spell. I know you are not using the summon spell to actually summon the E but they are to be treated as one. I believe wording needs to be changed is all. Heck look at greater trip the description states "YOU can make free attacks on foes you knockdown" but the bene states it provokes attacks of opportunity doesn't state who's though without reading the description I would think everyone in range.
I don't know if I am getting my point across effectively or I may come off as a babbling idiot (maybe both?) I am still very new to this game and I guess for my nub mind process wording needs to be a cleared up a bit.
Well I do agree that this is a cop out... Though I dont mind much.
I believe they need to change the wording in their PDF then. It states that they (E) are treated as a summoned creature. This might be splitting hairs but Aug Summonings description is "Your summoned creatures are more powerful and robust". Now in the Bene part it states with any summon spell. I know you are not using the summon spell to actually summon the E but they are to be treated as one. I believe wording needs to be changed is all. Heck look at greater trip the description states "YOU can make free attacks on foes you knockdown" but the bene states it provokes attacks of opportunity doesn't state who's though without reading the description I would think everyone in range.
I don't know if I am getting my point across effectively or I may come off as a babbling idiot (maybe both?) I am still very new to this game and I guess for my nub mind process wording needs to be a cleared up a bit.
It would not work because metamagic feats only work on spells. Spell, spell-like abilities, and supernatural affects are all different entities with different rules, even though some of their affects are similar.
It would not work because metamagic feats only work on spells. Spell, spell-like abilities, and supernatural affects are all different entities with different rules, even though some of their affects are similar.
If that's true, though, then the use of Augment Summoning on the summoner's SLA needs to be clarified. If the feat doesn't work with spell-like abilities, doesn't that suggest it won't work for the summoner unless he bothers to take the various summoning spells on his list? That's a substantial hamstringing of the main power of the class, don't you think?
It would not work because metamagic feats only work on spells. Spell, spell-like abilities, and supernatural affects are all different entities with different rules, even though some of their affects are similar.If that's true, though, then the use of Augment Summoning on the summoner's SLA needs to be clarified. If the feat doesn't work with spell-like abilities, doesn't that suggest it won't work for the summoner unless he bothers to take the various summoning spells on his list? That's a substantial hamstringing of the main power of the class, don't you think?
There are specific metamagic feats for spell like abilities, and different ones for spells. They don't cross over. If it works on the SLA of the summoner then it is only because Jason said its an exception to the rule.
There are specific metamagic feats for spell like abilities, and different ones for spells. They don't cross over. If it works on the SLA of the summoner then it is only because Jason said its an exception to the rule.
Which I believe he has stated.
Right at the top of the thread and a few post afterwords explain why it does not work, and no exception was ever made. I wish I would have remembered that since it is at the beginning of the thread.
Except that Augment Summoning isn't a Metamagic.
Right at the top of the thread and a few post afterwords explain why it does not work, and no exception was ever made. I wish I would have remembered that since it is at the beginning of the thread.
Jason answered here that Augment Summoning works on the SLA's.
Except that Augment Summoning isn't a Metamagic.
Augment Summoning
Your summoned creatures are more powerful and robust.
Prerequisite: Spell Focus (conjuration).
Benefit: Each creature you conjure with any summon spell gains a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and Constitution for the duration of the spell that summoned it.
So it really does not matter if its a metamagic feat or not. It still only works on spells, but good call though.
Right at the top of the thread and a few post afterwords explain why it does not work, and no exception was ever made. I wish I would have remembered that since it is at the beginning of the thread.Jason answered here that Augment Summoning works on the SLA's.
So he did make an exception to the rule. I guess I will have to inform my player.