An optimized level 20 Summoner, for comparisons


Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Final Playtest


As requested, I'm going to write up an optimized level 20 Summoner and Eidolon in the style of my previous FighterMan character so that we can compare oranges to tangelos. It's still not going to be a perfect oranges to oranges comparison because there's about fifty different ways to build a viable Summoner+Eidolon duo, but I'm going to do the best I can.

The parameters for FighterMan were as follows:

  • 25 point buy
  • Core only
  • No multiclassing
  • Maximum first HD, average for the rest
  • Full wealth by level
  • Only hours/level buffs allowed to be pre-cast, but can take buffs from other characters (assumed to be part of a party, even if the other party members aren't present at this exact moment)
  • Compared against a Balor
  • No specialized anti-Balor gear
  • The purpose is to compare them in an actual fight, so tricks like banishment are discarded

    Obviously the "Core only" has to get extended to Core + Playtest material. I'm also going to restrict myself to only buffs that SummonerGirl can provide, just so I don't have to dig through the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid spell lists. FighterMan didn't use any buffs at all, so this is still fair IMO. This means SummonerGirl doesn't get to start with any summoned monsters. I'm also not going to calculate crits and not going to use the capstone ability; again, these are the same parameters FighterMan used.

    Alright, that said, here are SummonerGirl and her little friend, MightyEidolon:

    SummonerGirl
    Female Human Summoner 20
    Alignment: LN

    Str: 20 (+5) [5 points, +6 enhancement]
    Dex: 30 (+10) [10 points, +5 level, +6 enhancement, +3 inherent]
    Con: 12 (+1) [0 points, +2 enhancement]
    Int: 10 (+0) [0 points]
    Wis: 20 (+5) [5 points, +6 enhancement]
    Cha: 16 (+3) [5 points, +2 race]

    Special Abilities
    Summon monster or gate 6/day
    Maker's call or transposition 4/day

    Hit Points: 133 (20d8+40)
    AC: 24 (+8 armor, +6 Dex) [Touch 16, Flat-footed 18]
    Init: +16 (+10 Dex, +4 feat, +1 competence, +1 luck)
    Speed: 30 ft., fly 40 ft.

    Saves:
    Fortitude +11 [+6 base, +1 Con, +2 feat, +1 competence, +1 luck]
    Reflex +18 [+6 base, +10 Dex, +1 competence, +1 luck]
    Will +21 [+12 base, +5 Wis, +2 feat, +1 competence, +1 luck]

    BAB: +15
    CMB: +20
    CMD: 40
    Ranged Atk: +5 composite longbow +28/+28/+23/+18 (1d8+11 plus 2d6 / x3)

    Skills:
    Fly +43 (20 ranks, +8 Dex, +3 class skill, +10 spell, +1 competence, +1 luck)
    Spellcraft +25 (20 ranks, +3 class skill, +1 competence, +1 luck)
    Stealth +30 (20 ranks, +8 Dex, +1 competence, +1 luck)

    Feats:
    Point Blank Shot (1 HD)
    Precise Shot (Human bonus)
    Martial Weapon Proficiency: Longbow (3 HD)
    Rapid Shot (5 HD)
    Weapon Focus: Longbow (7 HD)
    Manyshot (9 HD)
    Arcane Strike (11 HD)
    Improved Initiative (13 HD)
    Improved Precise Shot (15 HD)
    Great Fortitude (17 HD)
    Iron Will (19 HD)

    Spells Known:
    6th (5/day)--dimensional lock, mass invisibility, greater planar binding, greater teleport, simulacrum
    5th (5/day)--baleful polymorph, greater heroism, hold monster, true seeing, wall of stone
    4th (3/day)--dimension door, greater invisibility, overland flight, solid fog, magic jar, sending
    3rd (5/day)--dimensional anchor, haste, magic circle against evil, greater magic fang, slow, stoneskin
    2nd (6/day)--barkskin, bear's endurance, bull's strength, cat's grace, see invisibility, resist energy
    1st (5/day)--mage armor, shield, unseen servant, expeditious retreat, alarm, mount
    0 (at will)--detect magic, read magic, acid splash, arcane mark, light, mage hand

    Equipment:
    +5 mithral chain shirt
    +5 composite longbow (+5 Strength)
    belt of incredible dexterity and giant's strength +6
    headband of inspired wisdom +6
    ring of invisibility
    bag of holding type 1
    pale green prism ioun stone
    pink rhomboid ioun stone
    greater bracers of archery
    manual of quickness in action +3
    (already used)
    luckstone
    20 +1 holy arrows
    20 +1 unholy arrows
    20 +1 axiomatic arrows
    50 adamantine arrows
    40 arrows

    --------------
    Eidolon
    --------------
    MightyEidolon
    LN Huge Outsider (extraplanar)
    Init +6; Senses Darkvision 60'; Perception +29
    --------------
    Defense
    --------------
    AC 45, touch 18, flat-footed 39 (+4 Dexterity, +4 armor, +23 natural armor, +5 deflection, +1 insight, -2 size)
    hp 172 (15d10+90)
    Fort +23, Ref +15, Will +19 (+23 vs enchantment)
    Immune fire
    --------------
    Offense
    --------------
    Speed 30 ft., fly 40 ft.
    Melee huge +5 glaive +32/+27/+22 (3d8+30 / x3) and 4 huge +5 bastard swords +32/+27/+22 (3d8+13 / 19-20) and 6 tentacles +27 (3d6+13)
    Space 15 ft.; Reach 10 ft. (20 ft. with glaive)
    --------------
    Stats
    --------------
    Str 44, Dex 19, Con 23, Int 7, Wis 12, Cha 11
    BAB +15; CMB +33 (+37 when grappling); CMD 45
    Feats Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), Martial Weapon Proficiency (glaive), Power Attack, Multiweapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Natural Attack (tentacle), Iron Will
    Skills Perception +29, Fly +30, Stealth +16
    SQ bipedal base form, devotion, evolutions, greater shield ally, improved evasion, link, multiattack, share spells
    Gear huge +5 glaive, 4 huge+5 bastard swords, ring of protection +5, cloak of resistance +5, dusty rose prism ioun stone, pale green prism ioun stone, luckstone, amulet of mighty fists +5, pale blue rhomboid ioun stone, pink rhomboid ioun stone, incandescent blue sphere ioun stone
    --------------
    Special Abilities
    --------------
    Devotion (Ex): An Eidolon gains a +4 morale bonus on Will saves against enchantment spells and effects.
    Evolutions: limbs (arms x3, legs, 4 points), claws (0 points), large (huge, 8 points), tentacles (x6, 6 points), ability increase (dex, 2 points), immunity (fire, 2 points), grab (2 points), skilled (perception, 1 point), improved damage (tentacle, 1 point)

    --------------
    Pre-cast Spells
    --------------
    Overland flight on both SummonerGirl and MightyEidolon
    Mage armor on MightyEidolon

    Money spent:

    880,000
    - (SummonerGirl)
    26,000
    50,000
    90,000
    36,000
    20,000
    2,500
    30,000
    8,000
    25,000
    82,500
    20,000
    7,200
    7,200
    7,200
    3,000
    - (MightyEidolon)
    50,000
    50,000
    50,000
    50,000
    50,000
    50,000
    25,000
    5,000
    30,000
    20,000
    125,000
    8,000
    8,000
    8,000
    =
    7,400

    ________________________________________________________________________

    Alright, so there's a whole sheet-ton of stats. Now, how do those resolve down to actual comparisons?

    Our foe, a Balor, is AC 36 and has DR 15/cold iron and good (which all of our heroes' attacks can bypass, thanks to all being +5 weapons).
    It has +11 Initiative vs SummonerGirl's +18 (MightyEidolon will act on SG's turn because that's how I've always seen pets handled in D&D).
    SG has a Stealth of +16 (ME is significantly less stealthy than SG) vs the Balor's Perception of +38.
    The Balor has a Stealth of +26 against SG's Perception of +29 (gogo gadget Skilled evolution!).

    Here's where things start to go sour for SummonerGirl compared to FighterMan:
    FighterMan won both sides of the Stealth vs Perception battle with the Balor, so he was able to decide the engagement range in open terrain and avoid ambushes. That is NOT true of SG and ME (ME's Stealth is pretty bad for a level 20 encounter). The Balor will spot ME long before ME spots the large flaming bat-winged demon. That means the Balor gets to decide the engagement range. Since ME is very obviously a melee brute, he decides that keeping a bit of distance is the best choice. We'll say that the opening engagement range is 200 feet (for the record, ME's effective Perception at 200 feet is only +9 vs the Balor's +26 Stealth, which is almost certainly to go in the Balor's favor.

    That means the Balor not only gets its choice of engagement range, it gets to attack from hiding, earning a surprise round. Its initial action is likely to be either summoning in help (unlikely IMO; I run Demons in general as being much less likely to call on aid than Devils. Chaos is more individualistic than Law) or dominating ME. That dominate monster is a DC 27 vs ME's +23 Will save vs enchantment effects, so only a 15% chance to fail, but the Balor has no way to know that.

    So, the surprise round isn't likely to do too much damage, and we'll be generous and say that the Balor reveals himself casting dominate (even though that doesn't make much sense logically), just for the sake of argument.

    Now, SG wins initiative in round 1 and has a choice. She can either attack through the whole fight, or she can buff herself and ME and then attack. First, let's run the numbers for attacking. She's in the 2nd range increment of her bow, so she hits at +26/+26/+21/+16 for 1d8+2d6+11 damage per hit, with the first shot being two arrows (Manyshot). The math for that salvo is (0.55*3*22.5)+(0.3*22.5)+(0.05*22.5) = 45 expected damage.

    ME then gets his turn, but he's 200 feet from the Balor and can only fly 160 feet with a run action. He goes ahead and does so.

    Now, the Balor acts again. He greater teleports adjacent to SummonerGirl.

    SG uses master's call to pull ME adjacent to her.

    ME 5' steps away from SG and finally gets its full attack. It attacks at +32/+27/+22 for 3d8+30, +32/+27/+22 four times for 3d8+13, and +27 six times for 3d6+13. That totals out to (0.85*43.5)+(0.6*43.5)+(0.35*43.5)+4*((0.85*26.5)+(0.6*26.5)+(0.35*26.5))+( 0.6*6*23.5) = 353 expected damage (total of 393 damage, enough to bring the Balor to -23, but it doesn't die until -36, so it isn't dead yet. FighterMan has done ~511 damage at this point, for the record). *

    Alternately, SG could have cast a spell on the first round. The most likely choice is haste, which would let ME zoom into melee range of the Balor, at which point the Balor would probably decide to attack it, instead. It attacks at +31/+26/+21/+16 for 2d6+13 and +30/+25/+20 for 1d4+7 and entangle (ME is immune to the fire damage), and every attack has a chance to vorpal (which should probably kill ME). Those resolve to (0.35*20)+(0.1*20)+(0.05*2*20)+(0.3*9.5)+(0.05*2*9.5) = only 14 expected damage, but 1-(0.95^7) = a 30.17% chance to instantly kill ME. **

    Now, the heroes get to act again, which will end up with a round of arrows from SG (for 64 expected damage) and a full attack from ME (for 422 expected damage, 486 total) * and explode the Balor into giblets. Note again that FighterMan still did ~511 at this point in the fight.

    Now, there's other things that either party could have done. I intentionally ran this Balor more than a little stupid; they would almost certainly know what an Eidolon was (+30 Knowledge: Planes and a giant glowing rune on SG's and ME's foreheads gives it away) and would know to handle them differently. I also lead off with a very ineffective attack. Basically, I was aiming for a worst case scenario with the Balor.

    Final conclusion: If the Balor acts incredibly stupidly, SummonerGirl and MightyEidolon can be either about as effective as FighterMan (if SG hastes the first round), or considerably less effective but still enough to drop the Balor (if SG attacks the first round, but see the first footnote). If the Balor is more intelligent, we could be here for years debating how it would act and how SG/ME would react.

    * - I'm actually not certain that Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting apply to every off-hand attack. MightyEidolon does qualify for them (Multiweapon Fighting specifically says it replaces Two-Weapon Fighting), but there's no clear rules or examples to say that the second, third, and fourth off-hand attack would gain the benefit. I went ahead and allowed it as a "worst-case scenario". I think it's more likely that it does NOT apply to all four offhands, which dramatically reduces ME's expected damage per round.

    ** - Heh, now imagine an Eidolon that's allowed to wear actual armor. That +4 from mage armor becomes a +14 from +5 full plate and you've got an Eidolon that the Balor has to roll a 20 to hit even with its first attack. Also, it's not actually a 30% chance to vorpal; the crit has to be confirmed, which isn't terribly likely to happen.


  • Another note, SG and ME are much more vulnerable to save-or-dies than FighterMan is. FM had +24/+25/+20 saves, with a Will re-roll. SG has +11/+18/+21 with no specials and ME has +23/+15/+19, with +4 Will vs enchantment and improved evasion. SG is hideously vulnerable to Fortitude save-or-dies. The Balor can't really take advantage of that, but plenty of other high-level enemies can (like Pit Fiends or Tarn Linnorms with their insanely nasty poison). They also have to spread out their resources a lot more and rely on more expensive slotless alternatives (thus all the +2 enhancement bonus ioun stones) than FighterMan, who frankly had a lot of not-terribly-important gear that he could have done without.

    So, they're somewhere between approximately as efficient at damage as FighterMan (if everything goes perfectly their way including DM rulings on Multiweapon Fighting) and much, much weaker (if nothing goes their way including the DM rulings). If they're approximately as efficient at damage, that honestly doesn't really worry me; Fighters aren't a very good class to use as a yardstick for balance, so saying "but they're better than a Fighter" isn't terribly alarming. If they're much worse, that IS alarming, because the Eidolon needs to be able to at least hold the Fighter's jock strap. This was an extremely damage-optimized Eidolon; if the TWF thing doesn't pan out and it loses 6 attacks, its damage is going to plummet into the "pretty pitiful, actually" levels.

    For the record, it only has 6 tentacles because it's only allowed 6 tentacles. Bipedal Eidolons start with 2 claws, and they can only get up to 8 natural attacks. I can't trade in those claws for tentacles and it was more damage-efficient to put weapons in those claws and swing those rather than use them as natural attacks.


    Zurai wrote:
    ME 5' steps away from SG and finally gets its full attack. It attacks at +32/+27/+22 for 3d8+30, +32/+27/+22 four times for 3d8+13, and +27 six times for 3d6+13. That totals out to (0.85*43.5)+(0.6*43.5)+(0.35*43.5)+4*((0.85*26.5)+(0.6*26.5)+(0.35*26.5))+( 0.6*6*23.5) = 353 expected damage (total of 393 damage, enough to bring the Balor to -23, but it doesn't die until -36, so it isn't dead yet. FighterMan has done ~511 damage at this point, for the record). *

    isnt that 21 attacks? I thought they only got 8?

    EDIT: you posted while i was reading, So only allowed 8 natural attacks
    While you showed they can be close to fighterMan i think this build is boring. Who wants a huge Eidolon, Personally, i want a Quadruped so he wont be wielding weapons. Guess not doing that he will fall way behind in power.

    *applauds* I think you did a great job showing they are not what everone makes them out to be


    8 natural attacks. I double-checked.


    Just two things to notice in your build.

    First, if the Eidolon rushes for 160 ft with the Overland Flight to reach the Balor, his hp immediately drops to 86 (since it goes over 100 ft. from the Summoner); even when called back with the Master's Call ability, only his maximum hp become 172 again (but the loss of hp is still present). Not that it really matters in the aforementioned example (Balor had no chances to attack back ME), but it's still worth noticing.

    Second, while it's true that Multiweapon Fighting replaces Two-Weapon Fighting, the text for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting states clearly that:
    "In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with [/b]it, albeit at a –5 penalty."
    and
    "You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty."
    They are clearly stated as 'singular off-hand weapon', as opposite to the text of Multiweapon Fighting:
    "Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands."
    So, I believe that either you use the (IMHO horribly broken) splat feats from 3.x Savage Species/ Epic Level Handbook/ Deities and Demigods - Improved Multiweapon Fighting and Greater Multiweapon Fighting - , or you have to take Imp. TWF and Great. TWF once for each off-hand attack.

    Other than that, your build is (as always) very good - and shows that the Eidolon has still some problems regarding the inflation of attacks. What previously was obtained with multiple natural attacks, now can be obtained with multiples manufactured weapons (but at least there is a little balancing effect with the expenditure of feats and the purchasing of multiple weapons).


    Yeah, the balor is exceedingly dumb, and couldn't even use his dominate Monster at 200 ft. range.

    I'll try a quick makeup of a fight vs. a more intelligent, but not all-knowing enemy. (but with it's knowledge skills it should know fairly well, what it's up against)

    Note: This is not to invalidate Zurai's point, this is just for fun :P
    Note 2: a few stats seem to be off, like the eidolons fly skill and it's CMD

    Same Setup: Balor has surprise round:

    1. Cast quickened telekinesis and try to disarm summoner ( only obvious ranged weapon) CMB +28 ( CL+Cha) against CMD 35 (FF) almost certain success.
    2. Cast dispel magic, greater at summonergirl and ME ( they have no obvious ability to fly, either they have a spell or are in trouble)
    50% chance to dispel either overland flight, if the ME's flight is not dispelled, 50% chance to dispel ME's mage armor.
    Lets assume that teh balor is kind of luckless and he dispels the summoners flight and ME's mage armor.

    1st. Round:
    SG picks up bow and casts haste. ( Balor now knows SG is a caster)
    Eidolon closes in (15ft away from balor, so that it only needs a 5ft step next round to full attack. Provokes AOO from balor ( whip has range 20ft) +26(no TWF, Power Attack) vs. AC 37 (moved more than 2*speed, no mage armor, no haste, no dex) = 45% for 1d4+12(Pa)+12(Str)+1 = 0.45*27.5 = 12 Dmg no chance for entangle.
    Balor uses greater teleport to reappear 30ft above summoner

    2nd round:
    summoner calls ME
    ME moves up and attacks with glaive for +32 against AC 36, 0.85*42.5 = 36 dmg for the balor
    Balor casts Blasphemy.
    ME +19 vs DC 25 = 75% chance of success: is only paralyzed for 1 Round, weakened by 3 points for 5 rounds and dazed for 1 round.
    SG +21 vs. DC 25 = 85% chance of success is unaffected
    balor moves to close in to summoner going to the ground 20ft away from him, well away from the eidolon.

    3rd round:
    Eidolon is paralyzed
    Summoner is hardly pressed and summons astral deva.
    Balor casts Implosion on summoner
    For +11 against DC 27 = 20% chance of success. Summoner takes 200 Points of damage. 144 go to summoner, 56 to eidolon (68 total)

    4th round:
    summoner fails to stabilize, eidolon takes 1 dmg. (69 total)
    eidolon closes in, deal 36 dmg to the balor (72 total) (staying at 20ft, not provoking an aoo)
    Astral deva casts heal on summoner, bringing him back to 119 HP ( I did wonder what he would be able to do, having chosen him pretty much at random from the SM9 list)
    Balor casts Power word stun on eidolon. Eidolon is stunned for 3 rounds (5 if he had taken 3 more dmg)
    5th round
    Eidolon is stunned. (and dropped all its weapons)
    Summoner casts stoneskin ( he hasn't many options right now)
    Astral deva casts dispel evil on himself and moves to ME
    Balor moves and attacks astral deva with whip. (without PA) +32 vs. AC 33. deals 15 dmg and entangles ( CMB +33 vs CMD 37)
    6th round.
    Eidolon is stunned
    summoner full attacks balor for 45 dmg (117 total)- a tad more.
    Astral deva tries to escape (no chance)
    Balor moves to summoner(what happens with the astral deval is not clear,he simply drops him :P), attacks with PA and longsword: +26 vs. AC 24 , 95% chance of success for 2d6+25 Summoner takes 30 dmg on avg
    (Summoner is at 89 HP)
    7th round
    astral deva uses dispel evil on eidolon
    Summoner swaps places with eidolon
    eidolon full attacks ( without weapons) and deals 6*0.55*8.5 (DR) 28.5 dmg (145 total)
    ...
    Right now the fight has come to very much of a halt. the balor can power word stun everyone (exept for the astral deva). Probably Summoner and eidolon will win in the long run, but it will take them some serious efforts and time.
    The balor is not a brutish enemy for a long run. His SLa make him CR 20. If you want a CR 20 Brutish stand up- fight, maybe take an ancient Gold dragon instead.

    Again, this is just an experiment of thought and not an attempt to make an argument. (Except maybe that mock-up fights are a bad metric to estimate the power of a class. these things are too much dependant on tactics and other factors to really say anything (if the fighter couldn't choose range ( or wasn't build as an archer), or didn't win Initiative he would have been in way more trouble too.


    Azmahel wrote:


    Note 2: a few stats seem to be off, like the eidolons fly skill and it's CMD

    Regarding the Fly skill (which is right), the number includes:

    Spoiler:

    15 ranks
    +3 Class Skill
    +10 Spell (Overland Flight, Caster level 20, from the Summoner)
    +4 Dex
    -4 Huge size
    +1 Competence (Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone)
    +1 Luck (Luckstone)
    = +30

    Regarding CMB (which you didn't mention), the number shown by Zurai is actually LOWER - it should be +34 (+38 while grappling)

    Spoiler:

    +15 BaB
    +2 Size (Huge special size modifier)
    +17 Strength
    (+4 Grab ability - Grapple only)
    = +34 (+38 Grapple only)

    And regarding CMD (which is based on CMB), the number is WAY LOWER - in fact, it should be 55.

    Spoiler:

    10 Base
    +15 BaB
    +2 Size (Huge special size modifier)
    +17 Strength
    +4 Dex
    +5 Deflection (Ring of Protection +5)
    +1 Insight (Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone)
    +1 Luck* (Luckstone)
    *CMD states that 'A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD', without mentioning luck bonuses - I think it's an omission, but in case it is intentional, do not include the luck bonus to CMD
    = 55 (or 54, without the Luck bonus)


    The Wraith wrote:
    Azmahel wrote:


    Note 2: a few stats seem to be off, like the eidolons fly skill and it's CMD

    And regarding CMD (which is based on CMB), the number is WAY LOWER - in fact, it should be 55.

    ** spoiler omitted **

    It was just a quick glance. That the CMD should be way HIGHER was clear though.

    I actually didn't do the math. The things just seemed to be off (Esp. CMD) ;)


    Just for the record, an ancient gold dragon is going to kick any and every single character's ass handily, simply by virtue of being a total melee brute with access to antimagic field and heal. There's basically nothing that anyone can do to kill a powerful gold before they're engulfed in that AMF with several tons of pissed-off gold dragon in melee range.


    thats exactly the point :) the balor is not really a brute and will suck if played as one.
    :P

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    could some one please do the math for an ME: base quadraped with Huge(8), +8 str (8), limbs[arms] (2), tentacles x7 (7) and pounce (1)...

    if you leave SG the same but replace ME's 5 weapons with a +5 huge falchion, boots of speed (x2, 1 pair for SG), a belt of str +6, and whatever else you want, then start over with feats: take wpn prof[falchion], wpn focus[falchion], power attack, imp crit[falchion], power crit, wpn focus[tentacle], iron will and imp. iron will or whatever (and get multi-attack free as eidolon)-

    first round SG casts greater teleport and moves herself and ME within 60' of balor; then eidolon charges and full-attacks for (heres where the math comes in...) i think, around 400 dpr...

    id love to see the breakdown if anyone has time?

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    ok, here's rough math, im sure someone will find something to correct...

    with +2 from charge and a full attack (thanks to pounce) with the origianl gear modified as in my last post, in the first round ME should use his falchion at +41/41/36/31 for 3d6+50 (avg=60.5), 7 tentacles at +39 for 2d6+20 (avg=27), and a bite at +38 for the same (in damage below bite is grouped with tentacles because they are, for this fight, statistically equivalent); so including crits it should look something like:

    falchion-
    [3*((60.5*.95)+(.3*60.5*.95))]+((60.5*.75)+(.3*60.5*.95))= 286.77 dpr

    natural attacks-
    8*((27*.95)+(.05*27*.95))= 215.46 dpr

    for a total expected first round damage of 502! i won't do anymore math but if your balor had 1,000 health (and didnt just teleport away)SG could cast greater heroism 2nd round (to, more than, make up for loss of charge bonus) and ME's damage would go up even a little higher...


    Once more, you're breaking rules. Summoners and their Eidolon share magic item slots; they cannot both have a magic item in the same slot. You're also not treating the natural attacks as secondary weapons. You're also getting +9 to hit from ... somewhere unexplained (+1 from haste, +2 from charging, +4 from not quintuple-wielding. Where's the other +2 from?). You're also dealing Power Attack level damage without subtracting chance to hit for using Power attack (and even then the math doesn't add up; 48 strength is +28 damage with a 2h weapon, +5 for the weapon enchantment is +33, +12 for power attack with 15 BAB is +45; you've got a phantom +5 in there). You're also, as best I can tell, working in critical hit chance, but doing it badly, and my examples specifically excluded crits, which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the first post.

    So, yes, please stop doing math. All you're really doing is mental masturbation, because while you're really excited about your ideas, you're not being productive and all you're accomplishing is to make a mess.

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    as clearly stated, the numbers assume a belt of strength +6, which, with huge, +8 str evol, str bonus from eidolon level and 2 of the 3 floating "ability score increase" gives him a 54 str- now try the numbers again

    if you need help, thats +15 bab +22 str +1 wf +5 enhancement +1 haste +1 competence (from luckstone) +2 charging -2 size -4 power attack for +41(or 41/41/36/31) with his falchion; tentacles are same -2 for secondary attacks (since all eidolons get multi-attack for free) for 7@+39 and the bite loses wpn focus to drop to +38 (as stated).

    since you had trouble with damage too here it is:
    falchion- +33 str (1.5*str mod for 2 hander)+ 12 power attack +5 enhancement for +50; tentacles and bite all get +11 str (.5*str mod for secondary attacks)+4 power attack and +5 enhancement for +20 (again, exactly as stated).

    i didn't know that you had a (non-sensical) rule against matching item slots- its not listed in your rules at the top- but SG never used her haste boots so that's a moot point. if you need help understanding any other math please feel free to ask.


    nate lange wrote:
    i didn't know that you had a (non-sensical) rule against matching item slots- its not listed in your rules at the top- but SG never used her haste boots so that's a moot point. if you need help understanding any other math please feel free to ask.

    It's not my rule, it's Paizo's. Read the damn class before you call it overpowered. SG has a belt on, so ME can't benefit from one.

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    oh- and thats the correct formula for crit damage, you may use it in the future if you wish- if you dont want to use it feel free to recalculate using a greatsword instead of a falchion, damage should be pretty similar

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Zurai wrote:
    nate lange wrote:
    i didn't know that you had a (non-sensical) rule against matching item slots- its not listed in your rules at the top- but SG never used her haste boots so that's a moot point. if you need help understanding any other math please feel free to ask.
    It's not my rule, it's Paizo's. Read the damn class before you call it overpowered. SG has a belt on, so ME can't benefit from one.

    lol- so take off SGs belt, she didnt use it at all, and wont need it often since ME can destroy almost anything in the 1st round once she teleports him into charge range =P


    nate lange wrote:
    oh- and thats the correct formula for crit damage

    No, it isn't. I'm not sure what you're doing, but you're doing it wrong. Here's the actual correct formula:

    (ChanceToHitButNotCrit * AverageNonCritDamage) + (ChanceToSuccessfullyCrit * AverageCritDamage)

    You used the following formula:

    (ChanceToHit * AverageNonCritDamage) + (ChanceToThreatenACrit * AverageNonCritDamage * ChanceToHit)

    As a comparison, we'll use an attack that deals 10 average damage, 20 critical damage, hits 75% of the time, and confirms a critical hit 25% of that 75%.

    Correct formula:
    (0.5 * 10) + (0.25 * 20) = 10

    Your formula:
    (0.75 * 10) + (0.25* 10 * 0.75 ) = 9.375

    And I'll repeat, for the THIRD TIME, crits were intentionally not used. Throwing crits in on your very shoddy math just proves you have no respect for an actual comparison and just want to troll people with big numbers.

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    that is my bad on the shared item slots though- i hadn't noticed that change in the revised class. (but still, just drop SGs belt and problem solved or pay extra for an atypical slot item, there's plenty of money leftover from scrapping those 4 +5 bastard swords)

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    LOL- "chance to successfuly crit" = "chance to threaten" * "chance to confirm" which is what i did- i just showed both steps; the math doesn't match because in the second calculation the first number needs to be how often you threaten, not how often you confirm. and, as mentioned, feel free to run and post the numbers with a greatsword and no crits...

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    i think (with no crits) greatsword dpr would drop to 230.4 (down from 286.77 with a criting falchion) and natural attacks would drop to 205.2 (from 215.46) so total DPR would 'only' be 435.6, still enough to drop balor in first round...


    nate lange wrote:


    LOL- "chance to successfuly crit" = "chance to threaten" * "chance to confirm" which is what i did- i just showed both steps; the math doesn't match because in the second calculation the first number needs to be how often you threaten, not how often you confirm.

    No, it doesn't match because yours is wrong. Anyone with an elementary school education can tell you that if you hit half the time for 10 damage, 1/4 the time for 20 damage, and 1/4 the time for 0 damage, your average damage is 10. The fact that your numbers do not produce 10 means your calculation is wrong. That's why I chose the very simple numbers I did.

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Zurai wrote:


    No, it doesn't match because yours is wrong. Anyone with an elementary school education can tell you that if you hit half the time for 10 damage, 1/4 the time for 20 damage, and 1/4 the time for 0 damage, your average damage is 10. The fact that your numbers do not produce 10 means your calculation is wrong. That's why I chose the very simple numbers I did.

    haha- you get nasty when you're wrong.

    if you hit 75% of the time and CONFIRM a crit 25% of the time that means you THREATEN a crit 33.333% of the time...

    (10*.75)+(.33*10*.75)=10

    (if you actually multiply the number will be slightly off since i dropped the repeating 3, but its impossible to threaten 1/3 of the time on a d20 so the anomily disappears if you choose an example that can happen)
    and, once again, if there is any other math you need help with please feel free to ask

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    nate lange wrote:
    Zurai wrote:


    No, it doesn't match because yours is wrong. Anyone with an elementary school education can tell you that if you hit half the time for 10 damage, 1/4 the time for 20 damage, and 1/4 the time for 0 damage, your average damage is 10. The fact that your numbers do not produce 10 means your calculation is wrong. That's why I chose the very simple numbers I did.

    haha- you get nasty when you're wrong.

    if you hit 75% of the time and CONFIRM a crit 25% of the time that means you THREATEN a crit 33.333% of the time...

    (10*.75)+(.33*10*.75)=10

    (if you actually multiply the number will be slightly off since i dropped the repeating 3, but its impossible to threaten 1/3 of the time on a d20 so the anomily disappears if you choose an example that can happen)
    and, once again, if there is any other math you need help with please feel free to ask

    You know Nate, people would take you alot more seriously if you didn't LOL so much...


    I know it's not really on topic, but the average damage calculation I've always used is:

    (Hit chance * average noncrit damage) + ([chance to threaten * chance to confirm] * [crit damage - average damage])

    Representing the average damage on any hit (including all potential critical hits) and then adding in the extra damage for the occasions when you do manage to confirm the critical. So with a longsword at +10 doing d8+2 against AC 15 it'd be:

    (.80 * 6.5) + ([.10 * .80] * [13 - 6.5]) = 5.72

    Is that just totally wrong?


    Joseph Davis wrote:
    nate lange wrote:
    Zurai wrote:


    No, it doesn't match because yours is wrong. Anyone with an elementary school education can tell you that if you hit half the time for 10 damage, 1/4 the time for 20 damage, and 1/4 the time for 0 damage, your average damage is 10. The fact that your numbers do not produce 10 means your calculation is wrong. That's why I chose the very simple numbers I did.

    haha- you get nasty when you're wrong.

    if you hit 75% of the time and CONFIRM a crit 25% of the time that means you THREATEN a crit 33.333% of the time...

    (10*.75)+(.33*10*.75)=10

    (if you actually multiply the number will be slightly off since i dropped the repeating 3, but its impossible to threaten 1/3 of the time on a d20 so the anomily disappears if you choose an example that can happen)
    and, once again, if there is any other math you need help with please feel free to ask

    You know Nate, people would take you alot more seriously if you didn't LOL so much...

    If you realy want to prove a point Nale, give a full stat block write up, where you show your ( correct) math, according to the rules ( no crits), also you hadn't factored in DR for your natrual attacks, which would drop your quick pull-out-of-the-nose DPR by a considerable 120 DPR. (+ factoring out crits)

    also you didn't tkae into accord: The balors suprise action, the 2 AOOs the ME provoked by charging, the possiblility of difficult terrain ( the balor was hiding after all)
    and some other factors.
    edit: didn't see the amulet of mighty fists. This is why you need a stat block :)

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    thanks az,
    the reason i didn't post a full stat block is that i dont have time- honestly ive spent waaaaay more time on this than i intended; and it probly would have been faster, in the end, to just do one instead of trying to modify the original. this is actually probably gonna be my last post cause i cant afford to keep this up.
    My math is correct and the numbers (with no crits or buffs) came down to 435.6 dpr. youre right about the AOO, from the whip, (though moving through multiple squares only provokes 1 AOO per enemy, core180) but ME can take that damage, is not susceptible to entangle and vorpal (which shouldnt count since we're ignoring crits) would only have around a 3% chance for insta-death.
    edit: oh, the terrain- in the example ME has overland flight so he shouldn't have to worry about it

    mael,
    you are calculating that correctly- i'll post a quick explanation of the 2 formulas (in spoiler) for anyone who wants to see.

    Spoiler:

    the formula you used is the same as mine. zurai's will always (if used properly) give the same result but requires an extra step or two before you can use the final formula. here's an example that's as close as possible in a d20 system to the one he used:

    you have a (crappy) 9th level fighter with 14 str (i told you he was crappy), using a +2 keen falchion he found (but has no feats or wpn training for) and who has crit focus. together he has +13 to hit (and could iterate, but we'll assume he had to move but couldn't charge) for 2d4+5 (since he forgot to take power attack) for an average of 10 damage. he's fighting a naked monk with 19AC, which gives him a 75% chance to hit. his keen falchion threatens a crit 30% of the time and with crit focus he'll confirm 95% of those threats.

    for our formula just calculate dpr normally then add the bonus damage from one of your hits being a crit times the chance to threaten a crit times the chance to confirm that threat- in this case:
    (10*.75)+(10*.3*.95)=10.35

    to use zurai's formula- first calculate chance to roll a confirmed crit (chance to threaten*chance to confirm): (.3*.95)=.285
    then subtract that from the overall chance to hit to find "chance to hit but not crit": (.75-.285)=.465
    now you can calculate expected non-crit dpr plus expected crit dpr:
    (.465*10)+(.285*20)=10.35

    like i said, if used correctly they work equally well so use whichever you prefer. i like the first one cause its more efficient and has less steps where you could make a mistake. hope this helped.


    Maeloke wrote:

    I know it's not really on topic, but the average damage calculation I've always used is:

    (Hit chance * average noncrit damage) + ([chance to threaten * chance to confirm] * [crit damage - average damage])

    Representing the average damage on any hit (including all potential critical hits) and then adding in the extra damage for the occasions when you do manage to confirm the critical. So with a longsword at +10 doing d8+2 against AC 15 it'd be:

    (.80 * 6.5) + ([.10 * .80] * [13 - 6.5]) = 5.72

    Is that just totally wrong?

    That is correct as long as the chance to hit is greater than the chance to threat. If you use that formula for damage on a longsword where you need a 20 to hit it will not be correct. Because of that, you can get some error when using it on attacks that are at a significant minus to hit(Like iterative attacks on a full attack action)


    Somethings to consider that don't look like they were properly taken into consideration:

    1. The Balor has less stealth than the Eidolon has perception... so the Balor didn't win on both accounts.

    2. The Eidolon and Summoner both get to check on perception, now they might both not see the Balor however, with two checks they have a better chance of spotting him than a single check would have.


    Abraham spalding wrote:
    1. The Balor has less stealth than the Eidolon has perception... so the Balor didn't win on both accounts.

    I never said it did.

    Quote:
    2. The Eidolon and Summoner both get to check on perception, now they might both not see the Balor however, with two checks they have a better chance of spotting him than a single check would have.

    SG has a 0% chance to spot the Balor, even if it rolled a 1 on its Stealth check and was burning a bush immediately adjacent to her.


    Zurai wrote:
    Abraham spalding wrote:
    1. The Balor has less stealth than the Eidolon has perception... so the Balor didn't win on both accounts.

    I never said it did.

    Quote:
    2. The Eidolon and Summoner both get to check on perception, now they might both not see the Balor however, with two checks they have a better chance of spotting him than a single check would have.
    SG has a 0% chance to spot the Balor, even if it rolled a 1 on its Stealth check and was burning a bush immediately adjacent to her.

    You are correct on the first part... you stated that fighterman would win both checks not that summonergirl wouldn't win either.

    Actually without cover of some sort the Balor can't even make a stealth check to be hidden... so you are assuming terrain that was not established in the initial rules and ignoring the fact that he doesn't have hide in plain sight. It could be that he is invisible however with See invisibility on the Summoner's list it would also be a fair chance that said spell would be active rendering it useless too (meaning again no stealth check as the Balor is visible).

    And I'm not at all clear why you chose to not take perception instead of stealth for summoner girl. Perception is much more useful and more likely and the summoner would have a perception check of +25.

    So the Balor is HIGHLY unlikely to get a surprise round... he can simply not engage if he so desires since he would be able to see the summonergirl however he isn't really going to hide either.

    **************************

    Now yes if you add terrain where he can hide and he just happens to be hiding when summonergirl is coming up on his position then at 200 feet (which also nets him a -20 on his perception check meaning he's only +18 at this range) he might get one... but it seems fallious to me to simply assume he's going to start from hiding.

    This is my main argument. That it is a false start to simply assume the Balor "knows" to hide because someone might be coming up on him, and that he'll have something to hide behind.


    Abraham spalding wrote:
    Actually without cover of some sort the Balor can't even make a stealth check to be hidden... so you are assuming terrain that was not established in the initial rules and ignoring the fact that he doesn't have hide in plain sight.

    Actually that's pretty irrelevant, because the Balor has a higher Perception check than either SG or ME, so it would still see them first. Which means it still gets to decide engagement range. Which is the premise the OP was working under.

    Even if it was relevant, there is no such thing as a vast featureless plain. The intent was to test in as close to a real-world scenario as possible without having to specify an actual concrete arena, which would make the test too specific.

    Quote:
    It could be that he is invisible however with See invisibility on the Summoner's list it would also be a fair chance that said spell would be active rendering it useless too (meaning again no stealth check as the Balor is visible).

    False. Read the OP. Only hours/level spells are allowed to be pre-cast.

    Quote:
    And I'm not at all clear why you chose to not take perception instead of stealth for summoner girl. Perception is much more useful and more likely and the summoner would have a perception check of +25.

    Because ME already has Perception at +29.

    Quote:
    So the Balor is HIGHLY unlikely to get a surprise round

    False. It's almost impossible for him to NOT get a surprise round.


    Zurai wrote:
    Abraham spalding wrote:
    Actually without cover of some sort the Balor can't even make a stealth check to be hidden... so you are assuming terrain that was not established in the initial rules and ignoring the fact that he doesn't have hide in plain sight.

    Actually that's pretty irrelevant, because the Balor has a higher Perception check than either SG or ME, so it would still see them first. Which means it still gets to decide engagement range. Which is the premise the OP was working under.

    Even if it was relevant, there is no such thing as a vast featureless plain. The intent was to test in as close to a real-world scenario as possible without having to specify an actual concrete arena, which would make the test too specific.

    Quote:
    It could be that he is invisible however with See invisibility on the Summoner's list it would also be a fair chance that said spell would be active rendering it useless too (meaning again no stealth check as the Balor is visible).

    False. Read the OP. Only hours/level spells are allowed to be pre-cast.

    Quote:
    And I'm not at all clear why you chose to not take perception instead of stealth for summoner girl. Perception is much more useful and more likely and the summoner would have a perception check of +25.

    Because ME already has Perception at +29.

    Quote:
    So the Balor is HIGHLY unlikely to get a surprise round
    False. It's almost impossible for him to NOT get a surprise round.

    It seems like the Balor is set up to lose. It is going to know exactly what it is facing with a +30 knowledge planes roll.

    Ok if the Balor goes first why wouldn't it

    1. teleport away and summon in a marilith. No way for the summoner to even know he was there since sp have no verbal components

    2. come back buffed up

    3. get his surprise round and Blasphemy on Eidolon and Summoner. Eidolon is paralyzed 1 round no matter what and loses 2d6 str for 1/2 of 2d4 rounds. Marilith starts harassing the summoner.

    I know it is all hypothetical but the Balor should be given every advantage possible to justify its CR. %100 chance to bring in a marilith should be used. That is like saying a summoner can't use it's sla ability.


    Does it really hurt to read at least the first post before you respond to a thread? I know it was a long post, but it doesn't hold a candle to any of VV's.

    What you are talking about was covered in the initial post. Here, I'll quote it for you since it's too much trouble to ask you to read before you respond:

    Quote:
    I intentionally ran this Balor more than a little stupid; they would almost certainly know what an Eidolon was (+30 Knowledge: Planes and a giant glowing rune on SG's and ME's foreheads gives it away) and would know to handle them differently. I also lead off with a very ineffective attack. Basically, I was aiming for a worst case scenario with the Balor.

    RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

    Folks, cool down. Shouting doesn't resolve anything.

    Shadow Lodge

    Zurai wrote:
    Final conclusion: If the Balor acts incredibly stupidly, SummonerGirl and MightyEidolon can be either about as effective as FighterMan (if SG hastes the first round), or considerably less effective but still enough to drop the Balor (if SG attacks the first round, but see the first footnote). If the Balor is more intelligent, we could be here for years debating how it would act and how SG/ME would react.

    I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to demonstrate exactly here. Essentially, your situation completely neutralizes SG's two secondary class abilities (casting and summoning SLAs) which I've seen work quite effectively. It also ignored the summoners capstone ability as well.

    I know where you got the example from but the circumstances (balor vs PC at 200 feet) play in favor of a ranged fighter (or even more a diviner but that's a whole other issue).

    What is the point of this example?

    What I take from it is:

  • The fighter is more effective at dishing out raw damage (DPR) in this specific situation

  • Dark Archive

    Zurai wrote:

    Another note, SG and ME are much more vulnerable to save-or-dies than FighterMan is. FM had +24/+25/+20 saves, with a Will re-roll. SG has +11/+18/+21 with no specials and ME has +23/+15/+19, with +4 Will vs enchantment and improved evasion. SG is hideously vulnerable to Fortitude save-or-dies. The Balor can't really take advantage of that, but plenty of other high-level enemies can (like Pit Fiends or Tarn Linnorms with their insanely nasty poison). They also have to spread out their resources a lot more and rely on more expensive slotless alternatives (thus all the +2 enhancement bonus ioun stones) than FighterMan, who frankly had a lot of not-terribly-important gear that he could have done without.

    So, they're somewhere between approximately as efficient at damage as FighterMan (if everything goes perfectly their way including DM rulings on Multiweapon Fighting) and much, much weaker (if nothing goes their way including the DM rulings). If they're approximately as efficient at damage, that honestly doesn't really worry me; Fighters aren't a very good class to use as a yardstick for balance, so saying "but they're better than a Fighter" isn't terribly alarming. If they're much worse, that IS alarming, because the Eidolon needs to be able to at least hold the Fighter's jock strap. This was an extremely damage-optimized Eidolon; if the TWF thing doesn't pan out and it loses 6 attacks, its damage is going to plummet into the "pretty pitiful, actually" levels.

    For the record, it only has 6 tentacles because it's only allowed 6 tentacles. Bipedal Eidolons start with 2 claws, and they can only get up to 8 natural attacks. I can't trade in those claws for tentacles and it was more damage-efficient to put weapons in those claws and swing those rather than use them as natural attacks.

    I don't know how it will effect your eidolon build, but you can spend 1 evo point to switch the claws to a slam attack freeing up 1 more natural attack slot for tentacles. This eats up 2 evo points for 1 tentacle, but it would add to your natural attacks available.


    Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    Draeke Raefel wrote:
    I don't know how it will effect your eidolon build, but you can spend 1 evo point to switch the claws to a slam attack freeing up 1 more natural attack slot for tentacles. This eats up 2 evo...

    That seems like a bum deal though, giving up two claws for one slam? Sure the slam does more base damage, but it's the high strength modifiers and other add-on damage that you want repeated over and over again.

    2d4+2X VS 1d8+X. Which would you take?

    Dark Archive

    Ravingdork wrote:
    Draeke Raefel wrote:
    I don't know how it will effect your eidolon build, but you can spend 1 evo point to switch the claws to a slam attack freeing up 1 more natural attack slot for tentacles. This eats up 2 evo...

    That seems like a bum deal though, giving up two claws for one slam? Sure the slam does more base damage, but it's the high strength modifiers and other add-on damage that you want repeated over and over again.

    2d4+2X VS 1d8+X. Which would you take?

    I agree, but I think the OP was using weapons in their hands negating any benefit from the claws... I'll recheck...

    EDIT: Yup. A glaive and 4x Bastard swords. he gains no benefit from the claws. Though I don't know what he'd swap out if he had to spend 2 more points.


    0gre wrote:
    I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to demonstrate exactly here. Essentially, your situation completely neutralizes SG's two secondary class abilities (casting and summoning SLAs) which I've seen work quite effectively.

    Buffs that aren't hours/level aren't allowed to be pre-cast because they can't be guaranteed to be up when the combat occurs. Call this a wandering wilderness encounter.

    Quote:
    It also ignored the summoners capstone ability as well.

    Ignoring capstones is a good idea when you're comparing two classes. Only a tiny percentage of characters will ever reach those capstones, and a capstone that says "you win the game" doesn't help if levels 1-19 are "you lose the game".

    Quote:
    I know where you got the example from but the circumstances (balor vs PC at 200 feet) play in favor of a ranged fighter (or even more a diviner but that's a whole other issue).

    Actually, the engagement range wasn't static. It was chosen by the Balor because it easily won the Stealth vs Perception (or just plain Perception vs Perception) battle.

    Quote:
    What is the point of this example?

    Simply to put the two compared characters on as even a footing as possible. Honestly I shouldn't even have done the in-depth Balor example.


    Actually Zurai I have another issue. I think it comes down to a difference in player set up though so I want to preface it a bit.

    The problem itself is in not allowing the caster buffs that aren't over 1/hour per level. At lower levels this makes some sense, however even then 10 min/ level buffs are generally going to last long enough for a dungeon. At twentieth level by themselves they will last a good 200 mins... 3 hours and 20 minutes. Now that's before the mage does something like extending the spell with a rod of extend metamagic (3,000 gp a pop means this should be considered a regular item for spell casters IMO).

    Now the buffing rule makes a bit more sense for a fighter... but it completely ignores the way spell casters generally operate. At level 20 (indeed after level 10) I personally will keep at least 1 10 minute a level buff up at all times as a spell caster generally one 3rd level or under.

    Now for the fighter to not have access to this makes sense -- it eats up too much of his wealth to keep it active all the time -- however for a mage it's free and a great use of his lower level slots... especially if he grabs a pearl of power or two to keep it going all day... it's just good sense.

    ***************************************

    Beyond that some more feed back on the actual example given:

    I'm a bit unimpressed with the decisions the summoner made in both equipment and action choices however the same can be made of the Balor (something you pointed out yourself) so I put that up to total inefficiency of actions for both parties.

    For example part of the reason I don't think you should give the Balor a give me round is probably a difference in traveling modes -- if I have overland flight active I'm not going to be within 1,400 feet of the ground, especially when traveling (essentially) alone. At this height things can't simply hide from you. For one there isn't any cover (ground is too far, clouds are still too high above you) and for another there isn't a good means of keeping hidden.

    Also the casting of Haste while not a bad tactic at all doesn't work since the Ediolon will move too far away... instead I would recommend using the SLA's to summon a Trumpet Archon on the first action. This gives the Summoner three "party" members giving him more of a chance to force a bad decision on the balor.

    Other considerations: Dimensional Anchor or Lock would prevent the Balor from using teleportation at his leisure, and a Planar Binding for an ally is precisely why the spell was chosen... and this is one spell with a long duration that generally should either be used or not chosen.

    Shadow Lodge

    Zurai wrote:
    0gre wrote:
    I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to demonstrate exactly here. Essentially, your situation completely neutralizes SG's two secondary class abilities (casting and summoning SLAs) which I've seen work quite effectively.
    Buffs that aren't hours/level aren't allowed to be pre-cast because they can't be guaranteed to be up when the combat occurs. Call this a wandering wilderness encounter.

    Regardless, they are abilities which come into play quite frequently, considering the duration and number of uses per day you are looking at over 2 hours of continuous use for the SLA. Of course that's with your 16! CHA which is quite odd for a primary casting stat and the key ability for a class I think it would be much more likely the character would have a 22-24 CHA by this level for a solid 3 hours of use. Not a guarantee it will be online during any given encounter but a pretty solid bet for most groups. I know you did this to improve her chances in this encounter but find it unlikely many players will make this choice.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    It also ignored the summoners capstone ability as well.
    Ignoring capstones is a good idea when you're comparing two classes. Only a tiny percentage of characters will ever reach those capstones, and a capstone that says "you win the game" doesn't help if levels 1-19 are "you lose the game".

    Fair enough, but this begs the question why make the example at 20th level at all? A more typical 10th level example and more typical encounter with multiple opponents would probably be a better benchmark IMO. I'm not sure about your play style but the whole "You bump into a Balor in the woods" thing just doesn't typify a classic game.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    I know where you got the example from but the circumstances (balor vs PC at 200 feet) play in favor of a ranged fighter (or even more a diviner but that's a whole other issue).

    Actually, the engagement range wasn't static. It was chosen by the Balor because it easily won the Stealth vs Perception (or just plain Perception vs Perception) battle.

    Quote:
    What is the point of this example?
    Simply to put the two compared characters on as even a footing as possible. Honestly I shouldn't even have done the in-depth Balor example.

    It is a good demonstration of a slice of the characters capabilities; calling it a comparison of the two characters is a little presumptuous. Are you suggesting that the capabilities the summoner couldn't bring to the table in this example are worthless? Seems like that is the implication here.

    I'm not trying to put words into your mouth here, just trying to figure out what the scope of this comparison is.


    0gre wrote:
    Of course that's with your 16! CHA which is quite odd for a primary casting stat and the key ability for a class I think it would be much more likely the character would have a 22-24 CHA by this level for a solid 3 hours of use.

    Cha was 16 because the class benefits very, very little from having Cha over 16. Extra spells, OK, but spellcasting is NOT one of the Summoner's strengths with the new spell list changes. Extra SLAs are decent, but 6/day should be plenty, you really don't need to have anything summoned for more than 2 hours straight in the vast majority of cases. The only other thing it provides is DC increases, and you'll note SG only has a couple spells with DCs on her list (and those only for lack of decent buff options).

    Two of the three things Charisma helps just plain aren't helpful, and the third is already at a sufficient level. Just because it's the primary casting stat doesn't mean you need to drive it to the stratosphere. Check the various Bard guides and note that most don't suggest buffing Charisma very high, and Bards actually get more out of the stat than Summoners do!

    Quote:
    Fair enough, but this begs the question why make the example at 20th level at all?

    Because FighterMan is 20th. He was 20th because of the specifics of the challenge he was created under. SG was created partially as a response to the assertion that a poorly-optimized Eidolon would make a Fighter obsolete; thus, the comparison to FighterMan is the intent.

    Quote:
    I'm not sure about your play style but the whole "You bump into a Balor in the woods" thing just doesn't typify a classic game.

    It's not intended to. As I've already explained, the Balor was used because it's what FighterMan was compared against.

    Quote:
    It is a good demonstration of a slice of the characters capabilities; calling it a comparison of the two characters is a little presumptuous. Are you suggesting that the capabilities the summoner couldn't bring to the table in this example are worthless? Seems like that is the implication here.

    It compares the two characters. How is calling it a comparison of the two characters presumptuous?

    And no, that's not what I'm suggesting. I am only suggesting what I state in my conclusions.

    Of course, to be honest, considering your stance on the use of math, I'm not sure what the point of responding to you is. You're not going to agree with the comparison regardless of what I say.

    Shadow Lodge

    Zurai wrote:
    Because FighterMan is 20th. He was 20th because of the specifics of the challenge he was created under. SG was created partially as a response to the assertion that a poorly-optimized Eidolon would make a Fighter obsolete; thus, the comparison to FighterMan is the intent.

    Fair enough.

    Quote:

    It compares the two characters. How is calling it a comparison of the two characters presumptuous?

    And no, that's not what I'm suggesting. I am only suggesting what I state in my conclusions.

    Of course, to be honest, considering your stance on the use of math, I'm not sure what the point of responding to you is. You're not going to agree with the comparison regardless of what I say.

    It is presumptuous in that you are saying it compares two characters. It compares one facet of two characters in a specific situation. There is no attempt to compare the characters themselves, only their ability to handle one specific scenario. Maybe that's splitting hairs but I think it's an important distinction

    I am skeptical that simple math can solve complex multi variable problems. This is actually a perfect example. It is a fabricated encounter which reflects one particular scenario which is in my experience not very common. It goes a long way to debunking the claim that Eidolon's are more deadly than fighters and for that matter some of the weaknesses of the class itself. I just don't think it says much beyond that.

    And I'm not trying to suggest you said something other than that, I was just trying to ferret out exactly what you were trying to say because it wasn't clear to me exactly what you were suggesting.


    0gre wrote:
    It goes a long way to debunking the claim that Eidolon's are more deadly than fighters and for that matter some of the weaknesses of the class itself. I just don't think it says much beyond that.

    This point here is a major bone of contention between those that think the Eidolon is ok or nerfed too hard and those that think it is still too powerful. Proving this alone is, IMO, worth the effort Zurai has put in, and I thank him for that.

    I believe it also puts into perspective the uber-OP claim made by some Summoner detractors. That the Summoner cannot simply destroy this particular opponent leads to some analysis of why, wherein the weaknesses of the class become apparent. That is also a decent thought experiment, since it gives Summoner players ideas on how to shore up their weaknesses and others clues on how to defeat Summoner enemies.

    Shadow Lodge

    Mirror, Mirror wrote:
    0gre wrote:
    It goes a long way to debunking the claim that Eidolon's are more deadly than fighters and for that matter some of the weaknesses of the class itself. I just don't think it says much beyond that.

    This point here is a major bone of contention between those that think the Eidolon is ok or nerfed too hard and those that think it is still too powerful. Proving this alone is, IMO, worth the effort Zurai has put in, and I thank him for that.

    I believe it also puts into perspective the uber-OP claim made by some Summoner detractors. That the Summoner cannot simply destroy this particular opponent leads to some analysis of why, wherein the weaknesses of the class become apparent. That is also a decent thought experiment, since it gives Summoner players ideas on how to shore up their weaknesses and others clues on how to defeat Summoner enemies.

    I agree


    I agree with ogre and mirror mirror too in that it does help with both ends of the argument -- that the summoner is OP and the argument that is actually underpowered as well. IF at 20th level using sub-optimal tactics the summoner and ediolon can still take out a balor then they can hardly be underpowered. The fact that the summoner hasn't actually used any real abilities beyond his class, and wasn't bothering with any of his middle buffing capabilities, or making best use of the ones he already had up lends a little creditably to the thought he might be a bit more powerful than others would like -- however I would quickly add he really still can't do any more than a level 20 wizard could do too.

    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Final Playtest / An optimized level 20 Summoner, for comparisons All Messageboards
    Recent threads in Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Final Playtest