Armor Evolution - Explain why it's overpowered?


Round 2: Summoner and Witch


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

im sorry i must have missed it but someone explain why the armor evolution is over powered to me. so it can wear armor. why not? a druiids animal compainion can wear armor. and you run into the same problem in both cases. you have to find it some suitable armor or have it made. its all well and good to think what if, but why is armor on a companion or a eidloon overpowered? it still gets all the same drawback anything else does when wearign armor. and when it comes down to it even if the evolution is dropped does that mean they have to ban people from giving it the feats?

seriously someone give me a in game experience when it was broken. what if is great but if somone goes through the trouble to get a smith to make a +5 mithiral full plate for there huge eidloon with 4sets ofextra limbs and wings more power to them, they are now poor.

Shadow Lodge

Arconz2000 wrote:
what if is great but if somone goes through the trouble to get a smith to make a +5 mithiral full plate for there huge eidloon with 4sets ofextra limbs and wings more power to them, they are now poor.

And actually finding a smith skilled enough to craft the armor for an Eidolon with 4 extra sets of limbs and wings is going to be harder than getting the gold for it. So the Eidolon can wear armor and get a high AC, has anyone looked at the monk?

Thanks for making this thread, btw.


Arconz2000 wrote:

im sorry i must have missed it but someone explain why the armor evolution is over powered to me. so it can wear armor. why not? a druiids animal compainion can wear armor. and you run into the same problem in both cases. you have to find it some suitable armor or have it made. its all well and good to think what if, but why is armor on a companion or a eidloon overpowered? it still gets all the same drawback anything else does when wearign armor. and when it comes down to it even if the evolution is dropped does that mean they have to ban people from giving it the feats?

seriously someone give me a in game experience when it was broken. what if is great but if somone goes through the trouble to get a smith to make a +5 mithiral full plate for there huge eidloon with 4sets ofextra limbs and wings more power to them, they are now poor.

I don't like removing the armor proficiency evolution for flavor reasons, but here's why it's broken:

1. Eidolons already get a higher boost to their natural armor just for leveling than animal companions do.
2. Eidolons also have the Improved Natural Armor evolution (which, I would argue, is the bigger offender here), which animal companions do not get.

Put together, you can easily put together an eidolon with an AC that even at higher levels is quite literally unhittable. To me, the bigger offender is the super high Natural Armor, but for playtesting purposes, just pulling the armor proficiency option was probably easier. Remember that none of the changes for playtesting are set in stone. I'm hoping for a reduction in the automatic bonus to natural armor and having an either/or line for the armor proficiency/Improved Nat Armor evolutions myself.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
So the Eidolon can wear armor and get a high AC, has anyone looked at the monk?

The issue is that with the monk you have to try to hit the truly crazy ACs, and that you actually lose something for doing so. Getting to AC 50 or better with an eidolon only requires 7 or so of its 26 evolution points at higher levels. It has lots of room to play with other abilities.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MaverickWolf wrote:


The issue is that with the monk you have to try to hit the truly crazy ACs, and that you actually lose something for doing so. Getting to AC 50 or better with an eidolon only requires 7 or so of its 26 evolution points at higher levels. It has lots of room to play with other abilities.

so like anything else if you try to break it you will. still its not like anyone is goign to find a easy time finding the armor for it. sure when you reach level 20 it is insane ac, but whats the touch AC at that point, like 12? i do appereiacate the break down of the issues.

if your going to compare the summoner to druid, look at everythign that makes the druid better, the rest of the equation. wild shape is a biggy there. eventually the summoner gets similar but to reach that point you have to live that long. something my recent DMs have always made sure to point is its good to plan for the future but you have to make sure you can survive the present.


Serpentine base
10 Base
+2 base armor
+16 nat. armor (chart)
+8 imp. nat armor evo (4 pts)
+3 base dex
+2 dex(ability bump)
+4 dex(ability increase evo) (8 pts)
-1 dex
+2 nat. armor Large (3 pts)
-1 dex
+3 nat armor Huge (4 pts)
+4 dex(chart)
52 AC (19 points)

+5 shield of faith spell-like ability (1)
+5 barkskin spell-like ability (2) (need Quickened SLA feat)
+4 shield cast by summoner
+4 mage armor cast by summoner (quickened)

70 AC by round 2 for part of a CR 19 encounter, compared to a great wyrm gold (CR 23) with a 42 plus spells, that he has to cast himself, taking him until round 3 to start, and still only achieving a 55, as they have no access to barkskin, if i'm not mistaken.


Or, cut out one natural armor and use the rest of your points on extra intelligence. Then spend a feat on combat expertise and the skills on acrobatics. you can then fight defensively with a 57, or 75 after the spells. 58-76 with dodge.

or keep the natural armor and drop huge to free up points.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
default wrote:

Or, cut out one natural armor and use the rest of your points on extra intelligence. Then spend a feat on combat expertise and the skills on acrobatics. you can then fight defensively with a 57, or 75 after the spells. 58-76 with dodge.

or keep the natural armor and drop huge to free up points.

Thank you for the Break down, you have proven the natural Armor evo is broken, but what part of the Armor Evolution was broken. OR letting it wear armor untrained, or after taking the apporperate feats?


default wrote:

+5 shield of faith spell-like ability (1)

+5 barkskin spell-like ability (2) (need Quickened SLA feat)

two problems here. You did not explain how you got two spell like abilities, since you can only take the evolution to get one once. And if these were refering to the spell like ability evolution, neither barkskin nor shield of faith are on the sorcerer/wizard spell list.


Arconz2000 wrote:
Thank you for the Break down, you have proven the natural Armor evo is broken, but what part of the Armor Evolution was broken. OR letting it wear armor untrained, or after taking the apporperate feats?

because adding 14 armor on top of the evolutions is stupid, but it would cap the max dex down to 4 from mithril full plate, meaning the above example's AC would only go up by 7, and would free up points to be spent on more offensive related evolutions.


default wrote:

Serpentine base

10 Base
+2 base armor
+16 nat. armor (chart)
+8 imp. nat armor evo (4 pts)
+3 base dex
+2 dex(ability bump)
+4 dex(ability increase evo) (8 pts)
-1 dex
+2 nat. armor Large (3 pts)
-1 dex
+3 nat armor Huge (4 pts)
+4 dex(chart)
52 AC (19 points)

+5 shield of faith spell-like ability (1)
+5 barkskin spell-like ability (2) (need Quickened SLA feat)
+4 shield cast by summoner
+4 mage armor cast by summoner (quickened)

70 AC by round 2 for part of a CR 19 encounter, compared to a great wyrm gold (CR 23) with a 42 plus spells, that he has to cast himself, taking him until round 3 to start, and still only achieving a 55, as they have no access to barkskin, if i'm not mistaken.

You missed buying arms and adding a shield on, as well as the improved natural armor feat.

Shadow Lodge

deathmaster wrote:
default wrote:

+5 shield of faith spell-like ability (1)

+5 barkskin spell-like ability (2) (need Quickened SLA feat)
two problems here. You did not explain how you got two spell like abilities, since you can only take the evolution to get one once. And if these were refering to the spell like ability evolution, neither barkskin nor shield of faith are on the sorcerer/wizard spell list.

There is nothing saying you can't have more than one spell-like ability. Spend one point for burning hands, another point for magic missile, etc,


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deathmaster wrote:
Arconz2000 wrote:
Thank you for the Break down, you have proven the natural Armor evo is broken, but what part of the Armor Evolution was broken. OR letting it wear armor untrained, or after taking the apporperate feats?
because adding 14 armor on top of the evolutions is stupid, but it would cap the max dex down to 4 from mithril full plate, meaning the above example's AC would only go up by 7, and would free up points to be spent on more offensive related evolutions.

thats my point, it appears broken on top of the other mods. its not broekn, the Natural armor mod is. and no matter how you slice it there is a major Flaw in saying "its AC is in the 100's" for any creature. whats the touch AC? and look at the price of that armor. just regulaur full plate for the creature would cost 12,000 GP, before magic and not figureing in speacil materials. your not finding that on the open market. and i dont even want to touch how long most smiths would take to make it


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dragonborn3 wrote:
There is nothing saying you can't have more than one spell-like ability. Spend one point for burning hands, another point for magic missile, etc,

The last line uner the evolutions section on page 8 is "Unless otherwise noted, each evolution can only be selected once."

Since there is no such notation for SLA you could select it only once. But you aren't any magical items on your character so I think your arguments of high AC are still valid.

Shadow Lodge

Maezer wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
There is nothing saying you can't have more than one spell-like ability. Spend one point for burning hands, another point for magic missile, etc,

The last line uner the evolutions section on page 8 is "Unless otherwise noted, each evolution can only be selected once."

Since there is no such notation for SLA you could select it only once.

Oops, guess I need to tell my friend that then.


Arconz2000 wrote:


Thank you for the Break down, you have proven the natural Armor evo is broken, but what part of the Armor Evolution was broken. OR letting it wear armor untrained, or after taking the apporperate feats?

Because the goal was to heftily reduce the Eidolon's maximum AC for playtesting and it was easier to achieve that goal by doing it in one step (removing the ability to wear armor) than two (changing the natural armor gains from hit dice + remove the natural armor evolution).

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

I also think that if the armor use evolution stays, it should be 1 point per feat, not 1 point for 2 (light and shield, followed by medium and heavy.) If animal companions and classes that don't get armor as class features need to spend a feat on each level of armor use, then I don't see why an eidolon can't spend at least 1 point per feat.


Zurai wrote:
Arconz2000 wrote:


Thank you for the Break down, you have proven the natural Armor evo is broken, but what part of the Armor Evolution was broken. OR letting it wear armor untrained, or after taking the apporperate feats?
Because the goal was to heftily reduce the Eidolon's maximum AC for playtesting and it was easier to achieve that goal by doing it in one step (removing the ability to wear armor) than two (changing the natural armor gains from hit dice + remove the natural armor evolution).

But it's silly in the sense that it doesn't really mirror what should be the goal- an end product that gets tested.

Simply lowering the chart and removing the natural armor evolution would be a better solution to this in that if that's the end goal it would then get playtested.

Perhaps eidolons get too many evolution points, etc. This won't get playtested with this 'fix'.

-James


james maissen wrote:
But it's silly in the sense that it doesn't really mirror what should be the goal- an end product that gets tested.

There's about a dozen different ways they can change the AC. The goal was to test Eidolons with lower AC so they can filter out some of the noise they were getting. The way they did it successfully accomplished that goal. It has already been said that the changes in the "Summoner Update" thread aren't necessarily the changes you'll see in the final document. They're quick fixes for the playtest so that they can gather better targeted data. Remember, the playtest period is only a couple months long. They have to get the most useful data they can in that time period. Wasting time by using a more complex solution to the same problem, when the solution itself is irrelevant, is not a good use of resources.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arconz2000 wrote:


thats my point, it appears broken on top of the other mods. its not broekn, the Natural armor mod is. and no matter how you slice it there is a major Flaw in saying "its AC is in the 100's" for any creature. whats the touch AC? and look at the price of that armor. just regulaur full plate for the creature would cost 12,000 GP, before magic and not figureing in speacil materials. your not finding that on the open market. and i dont even want to touch how long most smiths would take to make it

You are right, its the combination of the natural armor mods and the armor that makes it 'broken'. However the natural armor mods makes lots of sense. Your eidolon is a monster, monsters have natural armro. Finding armor to fit your tentacled, 8 armed summoned friend doesnt. Just like you say, finding/making armor for your eidolon will be a major pain, so by removing that and maintaining the bonuses to natural armor, you still allow the eidolon to have a good AC without being rediculous (if you somehow do get it +5 fullplate), and you avoid the whole 'where the heck did you find armor for that?' issue.


Zurai wrote:
Wasting time by using a more complex solution to the same problem, when the solution itself is irrelevant, is not a good use of resources.

But the solution *IS* relevant.

If, for sake of argument, everyone tests the Eidolon spending 2-3 evolution points on natural armor, then that evolution is removed in the final product (and armor wearing is allowed instead) what happens?

Either they need to lower the amount of evolution points as well, or suddenly every eidolon is sprouting 2-3 more tentacles, etc.

But of course not everyone is going to spend those points on AC, so simply reducing the evolution points isn't going to balance things out.

So how is that testing? I don't see it.

-James


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Wasting time by using a more complex solution to the same problem, when the solution itself is irrelevant, is not a good use of resources.

But the solution *IS* relevant.

If, for sake of argument, everyone tests the Eidolon spending 2-3 evolution points on natural armor, then that evolution is removed in the final product (and armor wearing is allowed instead) what happens?

Either they need to lower the amount of evolution points as well, or suddenly every eidolon is sprouting 2-3 more tentacles, etc.

But of course not everyone is going to spend those points on AC, so simply reducing the evolution points isn't going to balance things out.

So how is that testing? I don't see it.

-James

i have to concure. who here got the chance to playtest the armor mod? or has playtested the current changes. did dropping the Armor evolution actually make a dent in the issue in game? Because when it comes down to it most DMs shold be able to see the flaws in the overconfidence the super AC brings, and the world would adapt. if there is arecuring villan in game, the first time he notices touch attachs still make the Eidloon Scream in pain he would adapt.

Shadow Lodge

Arconz2000 wrote:


i have to concure. who here got the chance to playtest the armor mod? or has playtested the current changes. did dropping the Armor evolution actually make a dent in the issue in game? Because when it comes down to it most DMs shold be able to see the flaws in the overconfidence the super AC brings, and the world would adapt. if there is arecuring villan in game, the first time he notices touch attachs still make the Eidloon Scream in pain he would adapt.

+1


james maissen wrote:

If, for sake of argument, everyone tests the Eidolon spending 2-3 evolution points on natural armor, then that evolution is removed in the final product (and armor wearing is allowed instead) what happens?

Either they need to lower the amount of evolution points as well, or suddenly every eidolon is sprouting 2-3 more tentacles, etc.

But of course not everyone is going to spend those points on AC, so simply reducing the evolution points isn't going to balance things out.

Uh, thanks for making my point for me?

As you said, not everyone is going to test the class in the exact same way. That means that, no matter which method you use to reduce the Eidolon's potential AC, it will affect some playtesters more than others. That's pretty much exactly what I meant when I said that the exact method used is irrelevant.

This isn't an organized, itemized playtest like you'd find in (for example) a game development studio's in-house QA department. Testing each individual method for lowering AC is utterly impractical. The playtest period ends in three weeks, and there's just not enough time to make changes and get them tested multiple times for the same exact problem. Jason took the most expedient solution that took him to his goal. He needs to know if Eidolon AC really needs to be nerfed more than he needs to know which way of nerfing that AC is best, especially given that most of the side-effects of the various methods are obvious to anyone with half a brain.


A DM shouldn't have to curtail his entire world concept around 1 class. If he wants to, hey that’s great!

But, I think we've all been in those parties where the GM had to amp up all the monsters because one person made a character that outshined everyone else (Heck, I've made a few). If anybody else got attacked by one of these amped up monsters they'd be dead in one hit, or, the DM might have to fudge a bit.

You're going to have power gamers no matter what. They're going to 'forget' intricacies, find 'broken' combos, etc. This is no reason to leave something blatantly broken in just because 'it's going to happen no matter what.'


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Piety Godfury wrote:

A DM shouldn't have to curtail his entire world concept around 1 class. If he wants to, hey that’s great!

But, I think we've all been in those parties where the GM had to amp up all the monsters because one person made a character that outshined everyone else (Heck, I've made a few). If anybody else got attacked by one of these amped up monsters they'd be dead in one hit, or, the DM might have to fudge a bit.

You're going to have power gamers no matter what. They're going to 'forget' intricacies, find 'broken' combos, etc. This is no reason to leave something blatantly broken in just because 'it's going to happen no matter what.'

i'll agree that Power gamers will find away to break the game, no matter what you do. its just a fact.

as for a DM modifing his world to be able to handle one person, in reality you just treat the Eidolon same way you would any fighter in fullplate and luging a tower shield, just cast spells that make his armor usless. its a standard wizard tactic, fighter get hit with area spells and touch attacks.

i personally love the Sumoner Class on concept. my favorite thing in all of Psionics was Astral constructs. the ability to modify your Creatures as you see fit. i just loved the Feel of it, and this class reminds me of it, i would hate to see the level of flexabilty knocked down drastically. yes things need to be streamlined, but the more choices you give the Players i think the more this class will Shine


Zurai wrote:


Uh, thanks for making my point for me?

As you said, not everyone is going to test the class in the exact same way. That means that, no matter which method you use to reduce the Eidolon's potential AC, it will affect some playtesters more than others. That's pretty much exactly what I meant when I said that the exact method used is irrelevant.

Perhaps we do agree then, but I'm doubting it considering what you say at the end.

Yes, the manor in which you alter the Eidolon's AC is going to matter more for some players than others based on how you do it.

Thus if you alter it in a way you're not planning on keeping you skew your playtest! Which makes the playtest mostly irrelevant. What are you going to learn? That in the myriad of ways you can construct an eidolon that you can still crack things out with some random restrictions that aren't planned on being kept??

And I also disagree with your claim that any other way would be 'too difficult' to achieve. Simply lowering it down to the druid chart for example, would not be difficult- in fact it would take less wording than trying to come up with a lame reason why Eidolons out of all corporeal, non-ooze creatures cannot wear armor. As a quick fix for Eidolons as presented I would do that and also remove all the evolutions that mirror feats.

But personally I hope that they scrap the idea of customizable eidolons entirely and do something along the lines of a permanent summon with familiar like traits (ie share spells, etc). But that's just me.

-James


james maissen wrote:
Simply lowering it down to the druid chart for example, would not be difficult

Bur it wouldnt be a fix either. The Eidolon needs to be better then the Animal Companion because the Summoner himself is worse then the Druid.


Teydyn wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Simply lowering it down to the druid chart for example, would not be difficult
Bur it wouldnt be a fix either. The Eidolon needs to be better then the Animal Companion because the Summoner himself is worse then the Druid.

I meant the Natural Armor bonus there. It gains around 4-5 points over an animal companion through advancement, and another like amount through evolutions. But the animal companion can put on full plate...

-James

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Round 2: Summoner and Witch / Armor Evolution - Explain why it's overpowered? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Round 2: Summoner and Witch