3) Keeping a melee combatant out of melee? Unless you give it a bow, I think the party going to be a little mad when the fighter died because you wouldn't send your Eidolon in to flank.
Do fighters stay out of melee just because there is a chance they can be killed? Why would an Eidolon be kept out. He is saying you wont throw it away as a disposable resource.
The problem I have with the summoner is that he is, without his eidolon, a completely playable class. Maybe not the best, but I would play him with minor tweeks(1 min per lvl SLA). Add in a pet that is comprable to annother PC, fully customizable, currently very breakable, and only a minor inconvienence when killed, and you have a totaly busted combination.
The summoner alone is about 90% of the power level I want to see in a class. I feel the Eidolon alone is annother 100% capable melee fighter. This makes him way more powerful than others, and totaly busted.
How many level 4 rogues have a +15 in 6 skills?
How many Eidolons can disarm magical traps?
How many level 4 rogues have a +15 in 6 skills?How many Eidolons can disarm magical traps?
Depends on how many Eidolons get DISPEL MAGIC as a SLA.
This thread reminds me of all the whine threads about magicians back in everquest. I have no idea why there are people who take offence to a class in a game having a strong pet and feel the need to lie to try to "prove" the pet is too strong. Back in everquest we used to have people that never played a magician whine that the pet was stronger than their fighter/ranger/rogue/monk/Knight. And these people also tried to claim the Mage without his pet was just as good as a wizard.
Classes are balanced by overall power level and playabilty, not single class abilityies. The claims that the eidiolon is as powerful as a fighter is just a flat out lie, or the person making the claim has no idea how to build a fighter. And like pet classes in all games, two 75% powered people are not more powerful than a full powered person
This thread reminds me of all the whine threads about magicians back in everquest. I have no idea why there are people who take offence to a class in a game having a strong pet and feel the need to lie to try to "prove" the pet is too strong. Back in everquest we used to have people that never played a magician whine that the pet was stronger than their fighter/ranger/rogue/monk/Knight. And these people also tried to claim the Mage without his pet was just as good as a wizard.
Classes are balanced by overall power level and playabilty, not single class abilityies. The claims that the eidiolon is as powerful as a fighter is just a flat out lie, or the person making the claim has no idea how to build a fighter. And like pet classes in all games, two 75% powered people are not more powerful than a full powered person
I never said that the summoner was as good as a wizard. I said it was playable and would be fun with some minor tweaks without the eidolon.
I have seen numberous playtest reports with people saying that their eidolon was outshining their melee party members. This is a problem and shows that it is too powerful.
By level 4 I can have a +15 in 6 skills then spend the rest of my points min maxing his damage. How many level 4 rogues have a +15 in 6 skills?I dont think it can replace a rogue in a campaign where rogues matter.I would rather play as an Eidolon than a fighter, barbarian, monk, or rogue. The Eidolon can quickly eclipse any of those characters in survivability and damage output or skills in regards to the rogue..
Forget about the summoner let me play an Eidolon!
I am going to recheck the mechanics, but while I am doing that, the point of the rogue is not to excel in only 6 skills. He gets 8 with no intelligence, and no favor class points, and he has trapfinding. Now in a campaign the does not use skills a lot or traps then the rogue can be replaced.
I would rather take my "good enough" modifiers in 10 + skills, which means the rogue is doing his job of being versatile, than not have a skill I need, and be better at fighting, which the rogue is already decent enough at.
Edit: I did not know about the skilled evolution, but if I want a fighter with 6 skill points I can make a ranger. He still is not doing the rogue's job.
Edit 2: ninja'd by Zurai
This thread reminds me of all the whine threads about magicians back in everquest. I have no idea why there are people who take offence to a class in a game having a strong pet and feel the need to lie to try to "prove" the pet is too strong. Back in everquest we used to have people that never played a magician whine that the pet was stronger than their fighter/ranger/rogue/monk/Knight. And these people also tried to claim the Mage without his pet was just as good as a wizard.
Classes are balanced by overall power level and playabilty, not single class abilityies. The claims that the eidiolon is as powerful as a fighter is just a flat out lie, or the person making the claim has no idea how to build a fighter. And like pet classes in all games, two 75% powered people are not more powerful than a full powered person
I never said that the summoner was as good as a wizard. I said it was playable and would be fun with some minor tweaks without the eidolon.
I have seen numberous playtest reports with people saying that their eidolon was outshining their melee party members. This is a problem and shows that it is too powerful.
The Eidolon is the star of the show. It's supposed to be equal to a PC. It's the one class where the class ability is supposed to be on center stage. Considering that many people find the fighter subpar, you can't really hold it as the epitome of balance.
I would rather take my "good enough" modifiers in 10 + skills, which means the rogue is doing his job of being versatile, than not have a skill I need, and be better at fighting, which the rogue is already decent enough at.
I can't imagine any player I have ever met saying the same (that having some secondary skills is worth being worse at your primary skills and also worse in combat), but okay. At least you're straightforward with your assertions, rather than pretending that the eidolon ISN'T a better scout and a better combatant.
... Considering that many people find the fighter subpar ...
Sorry, that excuse doesn't work anymore. This community has collectively done a LOT of number crunching since the PRPG came out and have generally agreed that the new fighter kicks ass.
The Eidolon is better than the Fighter or Barbarian. Even if the summoner levitated 50' up invisible and took a nap the Eidolon would still be a match for a fighter or barbarian. With better damage and survivability.
The Eidolon is better than the Fighter or Barbarian. Even if the summoner levitated 50' up invisible and took a nap the Eidolon would still be a match for a fighter or barbarian. With better damage and survivability.
False.
There is one significant functional problem to this debate.
If the Eidolon is NOT about as good as a Fighter, Barbarian, etc all, then it would be foolish for the summoner to lay it's buffs on the Eidolon rather than put them on the beatstick class that matters more in combat.
HOWEVER, if the Eidolon IS about as good as a Fighter, Barbarian, etc all, and then the summoner starts applying the buffs, it is going to superceed the beatsticks.
I think this is a great point, and I think that an ideal rewrite of the class would be a little better at buffing his eidolon than buffing anyone else.
However, I also have no problem with a summoner who casts most of his spells on his friends while his summon kicks ass on its own.
It's also worth noting that some of the summoner's buffs would be superfluous on other party members because other party members can actually wear equipment. For instance, after Jason's update, it's hard to get a permanent enhancement bonus on the eidolon's physical stats because he can't wear belts or gloves.
It might be a good design choice to be even stricter with his use of equipment, as this weakens the eidolon WHILE encouraging the summoner to buff him manually.
The Eidolon is better than the Fighter or Barbarian. Even if the summoner levitated 50' up invisible and took a nap the Eidolon would still be a match for a fighter or barbarian. With better damage and survivability.
False.
This has been hashed out in other threads, guys. But I'm sure those other threads could use the contributions if you feel you have new insights on the issue.
The Eidolon is better than the Fighter or Barbarian. Even if the summoner levitated 50' up invisible and took a nap the Eidolon would still be a match for a fighter or barbarian. With better damage and survivability.This has been hashed out in other threads, guys. But I'm sure those other threads could use the contributions if you feel you have new insights on the issue.
False.
Are you sure you're posting in the right thread? Read the title and first post. It's entirely on topic.
|
Having DM'd a couple of Summoner Playtests, I've got to say I don't see the Eidolon matching a fighter, paladin or cavalier in their roles alone.
As for the Summoner's SLA, I'll say it again, the issue is not that the SLA is too powerful, just that it causes time management problems. Now that he has been reduced to one summon at a time, that issue has been fixed (I disagree with removing the minute/level as utility summons are both sweet and tight.
Are you sure you're posting in the right thread? Read the title and first post. It's entirely on topic.
I'm not saying it isn't, and if you want to turn this into another math-thread you're more than welcome to, but you'll be starting from the ground up.
I would rather take my "good enough" modifiers in 10 + skills, which means the rogue is doing his job of being versatile, than not have a skill I need, and be better at fighting, which the rogue is already decent enough at.I can't imagine any player I have ever met saying the same (that having some secondary skills is worth being worse at your primary skills and also worse in combat), but okay. At least you're straightforward with your assertions, rather than pretending that the eidolon ISN'T a better scout and a better combatant.
... Considering that many people find the fighter subpar ...Sorry, that excuse doesn't work anymore. This community has collectively done a LOT of number crunching since the PRPG came out and have generally agreed that the new fighter kicks ass.
What secondary skills? The rogue has almost every skill in the game. It's better to be good at everything, than be great at some things, while sucking at everything else.
No they haven't. They agreed that it does damage, which it did in 3.5.
What does it do now, that it did not do before?
I also liked the minute/level summons, and I think keeping that but restricting it to one summon at a time would be the most fun approach. And it leaves him with some incentive to take actual summoning spells because he can have more than one of those at once.
If you allowed multiple short-duration summons you'd still have issues at high level (being able to cast a top-tier summoning spell ten times in a row is a big deal. People would still try to spam it pre-combat, which would be cheesy, unbalanced, and require an unfun degree of duration bookeeping).
As it stands its alright, but a little lackluster. And it leaves him with little reason to ever learn a real summoning spell.
What secondary skills? The rogue has almost every skill in the game. It's better to be good at everything, than be great at some things, while sucking at everything else.
I'm not sure if you're playing the same game as the rest of us.
That's not really a bad thing. Your style isn't wrong. But it's pretty idiosyncratic at the very least, and I'm afraid others probably won't find your views relevant.
There is a reason why Skill Focus gives +3 to your best skill, while other feats give +2 to your best and presumably second-best skills. There's also a reason why an 18, a 10, and a 10 cost the same as a 14, a 14, and a 15, which is the same reason that all magic bonuses have exponential rather than linear gp costs, which is very similar to the reason that two CR8 creatures aren't CR 16.
In D&D, specialization is king. Your primary skill is much more important than all of your secondary skills, and in most games, combat is EVERYONE's primary skill.
On a more technical level, no, rogues don't get "almost every skill in the game". Even a genius can only max out thirteen skills.
Edit: What I'm trying to say is, if you feel that diversity is THAT much more important than aptitude, I really can't prove you wrong. Balance is subjective. But the axioms of balance that you are working on are not the ones that this game is in every other way built around.
What secondary skills? The rogue has almost every skill in the game. It's better to be good at everything, than be great at some things, while sucking at everything else.
I'm not sure if you're playing the same game as the rest of us.
That's not really a bad thing. Your style isn't wrong. But it's pretty idiosyncratic at the very least, and I'm afraid others probably won't find your views relevant.
There is a reason why Skill Focus gives +3 to your best skill, while other feats give +2 to your best and presumably second-best skills. There's also a reason why an 18, a 10, and a 10 cost the same as a 14, a 14, and a 15, which is the same reason that all magic bonuses have exponential rather than linear gp costs, which is very similar to the reason that two CR8 creatures aren't CR 16.
In D&D, specialization is king. Your primary skill is much more important than all of your secondary skills, and in most games, combat is EVERYONE's primary skill.
On a more technical level, no, rogues don't get "almost every skill in the game". Even a genius can only max out thirteen skills.
Edit: What I'm trying to say is, if you feel that diversity is THAT much more important than aptitude, I really can't prove you wrong. Balance is subjective. But the axioms of balance that you are working on are not the ones that this game is in every other way built around.
You can have both. Why sacrifice? If a rogue can have a high enough stealth, disable device, perception, acorbatics, bluff, and diplomacy(assuming that is what he wanted) to pass the majority of the time, and still have UMD, and seven other skills, then why drop the skills beyond the first 6?
You would also lose a class ability for no reason when you can excel at the first 6, keep the class ability, and have 4 more skills to go along with the class ability.--------------------------------------
Eidolon: I can do these(list skills) very well, and I can fight.
Rogue: I do those well enough to keep my party alive. I can find also traps(magical ones), and I can do 4 other things the party may need. I also fight well enough to contribute. In other words I can everything you can do and then some.
Rogue: I do those well enough to keep my party alive. I can find also traps(magical ones), and I can do 4 other things the party may need. I also fight well enough to contribute. In other words I can everything you can do and then some.
"... But I can't do them as well."
In D&D, how good you are at doing things counts.
A lot.
Rogue: I do those well enough to keep my party alive. I can find also traps(magical ones), and I can do 4 other things the party may need. I also fight well enough to contribute. In other words I can everything you can do and then some."... But I can't do them as well."
In D&D, how good you are at doing things counts.
A lot.
I guess it's a good thing that Rogues outperform Eidolons at the traditional Rogue class skills (Perception to find traps and Disable Devices), then, isn't it?
Rogue: I do those well enough to keep my party alive. I can find also traps(magical ones), and I can do 4 other things the party may need. I also fight well enough to contribute. In other words I can everything you can do and then some."... But I can't do them as well."
In D&D, how good you are at doing things counts.
A lot.
In any situation you only need to meet the minimum to succeed.
Anything else is overkill. :)
Rogue: I do those well enough to keep my party alive. I can find also traps(magical ones), and I can do 4 other things the party may need. I also fight well enough to contribute. In other words I can everything you can do and then some."... But I can't do them as well."
In D&D, how good you are at doing things counts.
A lot.
Is the Eidolon willing to be the one to set the traps off? Is the party willing to risk them being set off? Some traps kill or at least hurt really badly, and not just the person that set it off.
Is the Eidolon willing to be the one to set the traps off? Is the party willing to risk them being set off? Some traps kill or at least hurt really badly, and not just the person that set it off.
I seem to recall a disjunction trap and two mirrors of opposition facing each other in a T-section hallway in a certain Paizo module....
Depends on how many Eidolons get DISPEL MAGIC as a SLA.How many level 4 rogues have a +15 in 6 skills?How many Eidolons can disarm magical traps?
That won't work terribly well. For one thing, most magical traps cannot be dispelled, not permanently anyway. For another, the most an Eidolon can get is 3 dispel magics per day.
Rogue: I do those well enough to keep my party alive. I can find also traps(magical ones), and I can do 4 other things the party may need. I also fight well enough to contribute. In other words I can everything you can do and then some."... But I can't do them as well."
In D&D, how good you are at doing things counts.
A lot.In any situation you only need to meet the minimum to succeed.
Anything else is overkill. :)
Varied playstyles and balance-paradigms or no, this is simply not true.
Having a 90% chance of "meeting the minimum" is better than having a 50% chance of "meeting the minimum".
Furthermore, D&D is an open-enough game that there are often multiple ways to confront any given obstacle. A rogue with no Diplomacy ranks will avoid using that skill; he'll almost never use it, instead leaving things to the sorcerer. One with a few ranks may use it occasionally, if his is the best modifier in the part and if diplomacy is clearly the best tactic. One with max ranks in it will be comfortable using it whenever the situation calls for it. A rogue with an exceptionally high diplomacy mod will go out of his way to use it even in unlikely situations because he knows that it will usually work. And a character with a truly exceptional mod will use it constantly, applying it in every situation that his DM lets him.
As aptitude increases linearly, usefulness increases exponentially, because the better you are at something the more you rely on that thing and the more valuable additional bonuses become. In most cases, there simply is no "good enough".
This is where we get the term "min-maxer".
Having a 90% chance of "meeting the minimum" is better than having a 50% chance of "meeting the minimum".
Probably true. But having a 90% chance of "meeting the minimum" on 4 skills is probably worse than having an 80% chance of "meeting the minimum" on 8 skills. Don't forget that Eidolons have horrible mental stats, and most skills rely on mental stats.
Is the Eidolon willing to be the one to set the traps off? Is the party willing to risk them being set off? Some traps kill or at least hurt really badly, and not just the person that set it off.I seem to recall a disjunction trap and two mirrors of opposition facing each other in a T-section hallway in a certain Paizo module....
I hope I get to play err...DM that one. It sounds like fun.
Rogue: I do those well enough to keep my party alive. I can find also traps(magical ones), and I can do 4 other things the party may need. I also fight well enough to contribute. In other words I can everything you can do and then some."... But I can't do them as well."
In D&D, how good you are at doing things counts.
A lot.In any situation you only need to meet the minimum to succeed.
Anything else is overkill. :)Varied playstyles and balance-paradigms or no, this is simply not true.
Having a 90% chance of "meeting the minimum" is better than having a 50% chance of "meeting the minimum".
Furthermore, D&D is an open-enough game that there are often multiple ways to confront any given obstacle. A rogue with no Diplomacy ranks will avoid using that skill; he'll almost never use it, instead leaving things to the sorcerer. One with a few ranks may use it occasionally, if his is the best modifier in the part and if diplomacy is clearly the best tactic. One with max ranks in it will be comfortable using it whenever the situation calls for it. A rogue with an exceptionally high diplomacy mod will go out of his way to use it even in unlikely situations because he knows that it will usually work. And a character with a truly exceptional mod will use it constantly, applying it in every situation that his DM lets him.
As aptitude increases linearly, usefulness increases exponentially, because the better you are at something the more you rely on that thing and the more valuable additional bonuses become. In most cases, there simply is no "good enough".
This is where we get the term "min-maxer".
Where is the 50% coming from. If the rogue is that close to failing he probably did something wrong, and/or the party is more trouble than the rogue or an Eidolon can get them out of.
In most cases, there simply is no "good enough".
That statement is not true. If you said "in some cases", you might be correct.
Where is the 50% coming from. If the rogue is that close to failing he probably did something wrong, and/or the party is more trouble than the rogue or an Eidolon can get them out of.
Um...
In a situation like that, a character with a skill mod 8 points higher COULD get them out of it. That's what I'm saying. That is exactly the kind of trouble that an eidolon could get them out of (or a more specialized rogue, for that matter; as has been pointed out there are things the rogue CAN be better at, and I'm mainly just talking about specialization vs diversity). Having a great skill mod is better than having a good skill mod.
You speak as if there is some kind of cap where further proficiency at a skill isn't useful, and (for most skills) that point simply doesn't exist. There is ALWAYS a greater challenge that you could attempt if you were better (or, in many cases, a greater challenge that is thrust upon you whether you like it or not).
Where is the 50% coming from. If the rogue is that close to failing he probably did something wrong, and/or the party is more trouble than the rogue or an Eidolon can get them out of.
Um...
In a situation like that, a character with a skill mod 8 points higher COULD get them out of it. That's what I'm saying. That is exactly the kind of trouble that an eidolon could get them out of (or a more specialized rogue, for that matter; as has been pointed out there are things the rogue CAN be better at, and I'm mainly just talking about specialization vs diversity). Having a great skill mod is better than having a good skill mod.
You speak as if there is some kind of cap where further proficiency at a skill isn't useful, and (for most skills) that point simply doesn't exist. There is ALWAYS a greater challenge that you could attempt if you were better (or, in many cases, a greater challenge that is thrust upon you whether you like it or not).
My point is that if rogues can do the job well enough then why play a character that only do a limited number of things well enough, and can't do some things at all?
Why risk getting the party killed by a trap? No matter what your perception is the trap will never be discovered. Detect magic does not tell you whether a trap is there or not. It only says magic is there, and even a low level spell can foil detect magic.
There is no reason to drop 4 skills. I don't think the Eidolon justifies it. I think there is a trap in AoW that would kill the party with an Eidolon in it, because they force AoE SoD saves. The mirror of opposition trap mentioned above might also get them killed. With two mirrors the party is outnumbered 2 to 1.
Now in a campaign where DM's don't use traps, and my old DM never did I would agree. I guess it's situational, but I would not chance it unless I knew for a fact magical traps were not being used.
PS: Hopefully all typos have been fixed
Where is the 50% coming from. If the rogue is that close to failing he probably did something wrong, and/or the party is more trouble than the rogue or an Eidolon can get them out of.
Um...
In a situation like that, a character with a skill mod 8 points higher COULD get them out of it.
The point is that the Eidolon is NOT 8 points higher. They have cruddy mental stats (including a penalty to Int) and they only get 17 HD over 20 levels, meaning at best they can have 17 ranks in a skill that a PC can have 20 ranks in. They also have fewer feats than characters do.
Ok, back on the subject of the thread. In my play tests the BigE is more powerful than the melee classes when buffed. Our solution was to change the "options" he recieves to a tier system rather than a point buy. It keeps the stronger abilites in line with rest of the party somewhat. Another option we have thought about was giving the summoner the choice at creation of taking the Sla or the "pet". This would bring the class more in line to others without weakening it substantialy. Constructive thoughts?
Most of my problems with it come from pounce, and the high number of attacks. I would raise the price of pounce, and put a limit on the number of natural attacks at certain levels.
I think it can get huge at some point, but the game does have 5 foot corridors and huge creatures can squeeze into them. I think that fact alone will adjust the keep them down to a large size most of the time. I would also take into account the skill of the players of both classes. If one is substantially better than the other that should factor into decisions. I would not use a tier system as part of a playtest because most classes get treated equally.I think more detailed results are in needed to see what the issues with the Eidolon are, and how to fix them. I say this because issues for one group may not be a problem for another, and the class should work with multiple play styles, within reason of course.
In any situation you only need to meet the minimum to succeed.
Anything else is overkill. :)
There is no such thing as overkill, just 'reload' and 'FIREBALL!'.