|
I've been play-testing a summoner in one of my home games, and I think most of the changes to the class are perfect, but I wanted to share my thoughts on the matter, based on testing the class both before and after the recent changes.
1) The changes to the summon monster spell-like abilities are perfect. Absolutely perfect. I wouldn't change a thing. Min./level, standard action, no more than one active at a time is just what the doctor ordered in my opinion. Actually, there's one thing that could maybe change, and I suggested it last time I made this thread: I still think the summoner could stand to have access to summon nature's ally lists through this ability. This is not a deal-breaker in any way, though.
2) I thought the summoner's abilities and the levels at which they're gained were pretty much perfect before, and given that they haven't changed much, I'm still happy. I don't remember if there was a restriction before on ability score increase as an evolution to apply to the summoner with aspect, but I think it makes good sense.
3) Adding maximum number of attack limits to the eidolon is a great idea, and I think reducing the creature's total hit dice at high levels also makes a lot of sense. At high levels, the eidolon previously outshone a lot of parties' fighters, etc., etc. However, I think reducing hit dice from 2 to 1 at first level is a little too harsh. Eidolons don't get maximum hit points at 1st-level, which means they probably have, what? 5, 6hp? The summoner is a really bad caster with a good fighter for a pet. If the summoner is a really bad caster with a really bad, fragile fighter for a pet, he's in pretty bad shape. As it stands, what can the summoner do at first level? Cast shield on himself or his eidolon and just hope nobody gets hit? That extra early HD kept the eidolon (and by extension the summoner) relevant at first level.
4) And then there's the spell list. The summoner was a pretty terrible caster before, and he only got worse with the updates. Before, the eidolon was a tad too powerful (mostly because of having the potential to have so many attacks each round), but I didn't feel like the summoner himself needed any nerfing. Here's what I think about the spell level changes. First of all, it seems to me that the summoner is a caster for the purposes of hiding, evading, and buffing his summons' and eidolon, as well as summoning (duh). To that effect, I believe those are the types of effects he should be seeing at level-appropriate opportunities.
The bard gets confusion and crushing despair at 7th-level instead of 10th, and dominate person at 10th-level instead of 13th because those are level-appropriate times for him to get effects that fit his theme of fascinating and mind-controlling. He also gets greater dispel magic at 13th-level rather than 16th because it's an important effect for all casters, and should thereby be granted when it's useful and level-appropriate. A caster having to wait until 16th-level to upgrade dispel magic is in pretty sad shape, and at a huge disadvantage. I don't care whether they're primary or secondary. Dispel Magic effects are staples of their repertoire. The bard is still getting these spells later than or at the same time as the wizard or sorcerer, and the majority of the bard's spell list is still stunted with comparison to the wizard or sorcerer, but certain tactics just shouldn't be delayed because they're essential to the nature of the bard. If you want to cast mind-affecting enchantments, you shouldn't be punished for playing a bard, since that's one of their focuses. And that same train of thought applies to the summoner and effects that allow him to hide or buff his eidolon.
In particular, dimension door, greater invisibility, teleport, greater dispel magic, mass invisibility, spell turning, and greater teleport all seem like the type of spells that absolutely qualify, and should be lowered for the purpose of the summoner's spell list. Haste also seems like a summoner signature spell, and whereas I realize 7th-level is when the bard gets the spell, and that sorcerers only get it a level earlier at 6th, and that wizards only a level earlier than that at 5th, it seems to me like that spell is the epitome of everything the summoner aims to do with his spells and it really does seem too late for that spell to first rear its head at level 7. Is 4 too early? I don't know. It didn't seem game-breaking when I was running around with a level 4 summoner. It seemed incredibly helpful and I certainly used it all the time, but it didn't make us invincible or mean that we destroyed our opponents in half a round or anything like that. If I were the Paizo guys, I'd seriously consider reinstating haste as a 2nd-level spell, along with lower-level versions of the other spells I listed. Other stuff like slow, baleful polymorph, black tentacles, insect plague, creeping doom, much of that stuff doesn't even seem appropriate for the summoner to me and I certainly don't think it needs any of that stuff at a lower level than other classes. I really do believe that hiding and buffing spells should be given special consideration, though, in the same way that the bard gets special consideration for mind-affecting enchantments.
This is not even to mention the actual summon spells. I realize the summoner is getting the spell-like abilities either way, and honestly I don't see many people actually using their spells known on further summons, but the option should be there for flavour alone. It feels weird that a summoner's spell slots wouldn't allow him to cast the better summon spells, thereby allowing him to cast multiple summons at once. Right now a wizard at high-level is a significantly better mass-summoner, and the summoner should outshine all other casting classes when it comes to summoning. I see summon monster I as a 1st-level spell, summon monster III as a 2nd-level (a level earlier than a wizard gets it), summon monster IV as a 3rd-level, summon monster VI as a 4th-level (again, a level earlier than a wizard), summon monster VII as a 5th-level, and summon monster IX and gate as 6th-level spells (again, a level earlier). I don't remember where these spells fell on the list before the revision, but I don't think a breakdown like this would be anywhere close to over-powered, and really would make a lot of sense for a summoner. Again, I also think corresponding summon nature's ally spells should be on the list too. The summoner summons. Make it happen.
5) I couldn't find any information in the revision about what happens to an eidolon's equipment when it returns to its home plane, so I assume the previous errata about it dropping it all has been removed. If that's true, I'm on board. That seemed really sloppy before. I like the solution of removing all the proficiency evolutions and requiring those instead to be granted via feats if so desired. I'm fine with banning armour outright too. That all makes a lot of sense to me.
Those are just my thoughts on the class. Either way, I'm a big fan, and I think the summoner's special abilities are really well constructed and among the most interesting of any of the new classes, even though they nearly all relate directly to the eidolon. Keep up the good work, Paizo!
|
|
I've been play-testing a summoner in one of my home games, and I think most of the changes to the class are perfect, but I wanted to share my thoughts on the matter, based on testing the class both before and after the recent changes.
1) The changes to the summon monster spell-like abilities are perfect. Absolutely perfect. I wouldn't change a thing. Min./level, standard action, no more than one active at a time is just what the doctor ordered in my opinion. Actually, there's one thing that could maybe change, and I suggested it last time I made this thread: I still think the summoner could stand to have access to summon nature's ally lists through this ability. This is not a deal-breaker in any way, though.
2) I thought the summoner's abilities and the levels at which they're gained were pretty much perfect before, and given that they haven't changed much, I'm still happy. I don't remember if there was a restriction before on ability score increase as an evolution to apply to the summoner with aspect, but I think it makes good sense.
3) Adding maximum number of attack limits to the eidolon is a great idea, and I think reducing the creature's total hit dice at high levels also makes a lot of sense. At high levels, the eidolon previously outshone a lot of parties' fighters, etc., etc. However, I think reducing hit dice from 2 to 1 at first level is a little too harsh. Eidolons don't get maximum hit points at 1st-level, which means they probably have, what? 5, 6hp? The summoner is a really bad caster with a good fighter for a pet. If the summoner is a really bad caster with a really bad, fragile fighter for a pet, he's in pretty bad shape. As it stands, what can the summoner do at first level? Cast shield on himself or his eidolon and just hope nobody gets hit? That extra early HD kept the eidolon (and by extension the summoner) relevant at first level.
4) And then there's the spell list. The summoner was a pretty terrible caster before, and he only got worse with the updates. Before, the eidolon was a...
I agree down the list; the little more spell omf made them very nice and did not seem to be a problem. The Eidolon was a power house couple that with the buffs/spells the way they where, but after the Eidolon corrections these spells and buffs would not be an issue.
|
However, I think reducing hit dice from 2 to 1 at first level is a little too harsh. Eidolons don't get maximum hit points at 1st-level, which means they probably have, what? 5, 6hp? ...
can anyone tell me why people keep thinking this - where in the rules is it shown that summoners or the druid's AC get 1/2 HD & not max at first level - I have looked but cant find it or is it something people just assume cause thats what monsters do ??
personally I would rather see the E get AC HD type & progression - you could even drop both the summoner & E to D6 HD as at 1st level the E has equivalent access to D12 with the lifelink ability & the summoner gets the same at lev 14 with the lifebond ability thus giving them more hps than any character save a barbarian - no other class gets this kind of ability
can anyone tell me why people keep thinking this - where in the rules is it shown that summoners or the druid's AC get 1/2 HD & not max at first level - I have looked but cant find it or is it something people just assume cause thats what monsters do ??
The rules state that players get maximum hit points at first level. Animal companions and Eidolons are not players.
Actually, I can't even find where it says that much. It's not in the Generating a Character section, it's not in the preface to the Classes chapter, and it's not in the Creating NPCs chapter. The index link to hit point is also unhelpful.
|
|
I know thats why I find it annoying - I cant find anywhere to tell me what hps AC or now Es get apart from what HD they get - I have always played that since they are part of the PC class they get max HPs as this is what PCs get - RAW dont say otherwise as far as I can tell
as a DM if the druid or summoner was a NPC/monster I would give them 1/2 HD like bestiary monsters/NPCs get
For the record, the Pathfinder Society rules (which are different in places from the core Pathfinder rules) explicitly state that Animal Companions don't get maximized first HD.
For the record, the Pathfinder Society rules (which are different in places from the core Pathfinder rules) explicitly state that Animal Companions don't get maximized first HD.
Just a little something something that doesn't really address anything in PFS...
"Hit Points(hp): Hit points are an abstraction signifying how robust and healthy a creature is at the current moment. To determine a creature's hit points, roll the dice indicated by its hit dice. A creature gains maximum hit points if its first hit die roll is for a character class level. Creatures whose first hit die comes from an NPC class or from his race roll their first hit die normally..."
That's on page 12 of the core rulebook.
Zurai can you tell me where I find this in the PFS rules cause I cant locate them & I believe mine is current
HERE.
|
|
thanks oh wonderful fountain of knowledge Zurai - I knew I was not blind but didnt think about it being in a forum - assumed that it would have been in the updated PFS guide
@ Abraham Spalding - thanks for that - skipped that part sicne I assumed it contained all the stuff I knew already - teaches me to assume
so basically ACs & Es get average hps rounded down per HD in PFS & in PF games they roll their HPs unless GM determines otherwise