Turn the Eidolon invisible and make it look like the Summoner is riding nothing...
Why do that when you can share spells? Cast greater invisibility and watch as you both go invisible. So long as you stay mounted, you both benefit.
This is especially cool with short term, powerful buffs like greater heroism. Charge in with a full attacking eidolon along with a full attacking rider both of whom are benefiting from enlarge person, bull's strength, greater heroism, greater invisibility, haste, and other buffs and you will annihilate most threats pretty quickly. If you have another powerful summon on the field it only gets nastier as, at higher levels, you have all kinds of "mass" buffs that can hit them and your other allies as well.
Summoners are NASTY combatants. The entire time they are harassing you, putting some serious hurt on with their buffs, you are simply trying to hit them (the spell buffs along with greater shield ally and high natural armor make both of you nigh impossible to strike). Even they do get a lucky hit on you, it isn't likely to do any good since you and your eidolon share hp. And that's if they even try. They may end up attacking your allies or summons instead.
Alternatively, you can use battlefield control spells like slow, stinking cloud, wall of X, etc. and let your allies, eidolons, and summons finish off the divided/crippled enemies.
This gives summoners real versatility as they can draw agro and tank, put the hurt on, divide/debilitate enemies, scout while invisible, etc. Depending on how you build your eidolon, you could even act as the party "face."
Minor nitpick: A humanoid eidolon could potentially have 57 strength.
16 base
16 size
08 evolutions
06 belt of strength
05 manual of strength
04 hit dice
02 enlarge person (via share spell)
I was counting base only. Investing that many evolution points into Strength (15 out of 26) precludes most of the other abuse SN was talking about, and certainly precludes it being much use as a tank.
There's also considerable doubt as to whether Eidolons can gain a permanent benefit from the various stat-boosting tomes (for the same reason as I gave in your universal solvent thread).
There's also considerable doubt as to whether Eidolons can gain a permanent benefit from the various stat-boosting tomes (for the same reason as I gave in your universal solvent thread).
Some doubt sure, but I don't think it is as "considerable" as you imply. Saying the bonus doesn't stick with them seems to me like you are just making up a rule--over thinking things in other words.
i'm sorry, the most knowledge i have with summoner is a few skimmings of the pdf, it's the same thing with the whole playtest. i never got a chance to use it, and thus never bothered to do more than a skimming. and thus, i didn't know the evolution pool wat that low, i thought it was higher.
|
I have to agree entirely. The Summoner can go into melee just about as well as a Bard.
On this I agree. It's just that in general a bard isn't the best thing to have in melee.
And when people talk about gimping other parts of the character to make a sub-par fighter, then I elect to be the voice of dissent.
It's one thing to help out a little in the damage department, but it's another thing to cripple decent focal strengths of the character to attempt to accomplish it.
You say this, yet you have failed to demonstrate that anything gets 'gimped'. CHA just isn't very important to summoners (or bards). You can start a summoner with a 12 CHA and be highly effective throughout game play. Arguably a lot more effective at lower levels.
Regarding the multiple 2H weapons build, you forget to consider the fact that only 1 hand i primary and the rest is off-hands (as written in the multi-weapon fighting feat in the bestiary).
In my eyes this can lead to different results:
- A strict GM might disallow multiple twohanded weapons altoghter, since the text for light and 1H weapons specifically allow them to be used in offhands. 2H weapons does not.
- My interpretation would be that off-hand wielded twohanded weapons only gets ½ str. bonus. This is the case with both light and 1H wielded in offhands.
- A nicer GM might give the full strenght bonus (but not 1½), dropping it one step due to being offhand. This is similar to onehanded weapons wielded in offhands.
I fail to see how you can give 1½ strenght in bonus to twohanded weapons wielded in the offhands without being overtly creative with the rules.
|
Why do that when you can share spells? Cast greater invisibility and watch as you both go invisible. So long as you stay mounted, you both benefit.
It looks to me like they nerfed Share Spells. It allows you to use spells on your familiar/companion/eidolon that are personal or otherwise wouldn't be usable on the companion's creature type, but you still target them and they get the spell effect instead of you.
It looks to me like they nerfed Share Spells. It allows you to use spells on your familiar/companion/eidolon that are personal or otherwise wouldn't be usable on the companion's creature type, but you still target them and they get the spell effect instead of you.
The summoner may cast a spell
with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell witha range of touch) instead of on himself.
Instead of, they don't actually 'share' the spell.
Why do that when you can share spells? Cast greater invisibility and watch as you both go invisible. So long as you stay mounted, you both benefit.It looks to me like they nerfed Share Spells. It allows you to use spells on your familiar/companion/eidolon that are personal or otherwise wouldn't be usable on the companion's creature type, but you still target them and they get the spell effect instead of you.
Im curious about this. If you cast invis on someone riding a mount, Does the rider and mount disappear? Does your mount act as gear while your riding him?
|
|
I'm curious about this. If you cast invis on someone riding a mount, Does the rider and mount disappear? Does your mount act as gear while your riding him?
Nope. It's still a creature, not an object, therefore can't be part of your gear. If you kill it, it becomes an object and if you can carry it, one invis will cover you both.
|
eidolons are much better tanks than fighters, the 8 attack limit only applies to "Natural" weapons, just go for lots of arms and manufactured weapons, power attack whilst wielding lots of greatswords, or keen falchions, the multiweapon fighting chain makes it even more broken.Why would anyone play a tank in a group that had an Eidolon (and the Eidolon's automatically gets a henchman caster for buffs)?Because other classes are better at it?
I'm pretty sure when the final comes out, that little loophole will be closed.
It looks to me like they nerfed Share Spells. It allows you to use spells on your familiar/companion/eidolon that are personal or otherwise wouldn't be usable on the companion's creature type, but you still target them and they get the spell effect instead of you.The summoner may cast a spell
with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with
a range of touch) instead of on himself.Instead of, they don't actually 'share' the spell.
Well...good. That brings their power back into balance a little bit.
I'm pretty sure when the final comes out, that little loophole will be closed.eidolons are much better tanks than fighters, the 8 attack limit only applies to "Natural" weapons, just go for lots of arms and manufactured weapons, power attack whilst wielding lots of greatswords, or keen falchions, the multiweapon fighting chain makes it even more broken.Why would anyone play a tank in a group that had an Eidolon (and the Eidolon's automatically gets a henchman caster for buffs)?Because other classes are better at it?
And yet another silly rules exception will be born.
|
|
I'm curious about this. If you cast invis on someone riding a mount, Does the rider and mount disappear? Does your mount act as gear while your riding him?Nope. It's still a creature, not an object, therefore can't be part of your gear. If you kill it, it becomes an object and if you can carry it, one invis will cover you both.
Wait, does this mean if you are carrying your familiar and you cast invis that your familiar doesn't disappear? It just sort of levitates in the air?
Wait, does this mean if you are carrying your familiar and you cast invis that your familiar doesn't disappear? It just sort of levitates in the air?I'm curious about this. If you cast invis on someone riding a mount, Does the rider and mount disappear? Does your mount act as gear while your riding him?Nope. It's still a creature, not an object, therefore can't be part of your gear. If you kill it, it becomes an object and if you can carry it, one invis will cover you both.
Of course not. He is just sitting on an invisible creature; not levitating at all.
Wait, does this mean if you are carrying your familiar and you cast invis that your familiar doesn't disappear? It just sort of levitates in the air?I'm curious about this. If you cast invis on someone riding a mount, Does the rider and mount disappear? Does your mount act as gear while your riding him?Nope. It's still a creature, not an object, therefore can't be part of your gear. If you kill it, it becomes an object and if you can carry it, one invis will cover you both.
If he is put inside your clothes, I think he becomes invisible, but if he is not I believe he stays visible
I'm currently playing a Summoner (Halfling). I have a 21 CHA currently, and find the bonus spells useful, since all of my spellcasting is being used for buffing, mostly on my eidolon. Ialso have a high Dex, and find that the Eidolon makes a good meat shield (especially being able to syphon my hp) and with my high dex my best combat ability is with ranged weapons. I think it makes most sense to make him ranged, since you probably have another tank in the party already (fighter, paladin, druid, etc...) and it keeps the summoner in a position to cast outside of threatened squares if needed. So, that's my recommendation.
High Charisma means USE MAGIC DEVICE, fill in those holes in your spell list...
And yet another silly rules exception will be born.
I don't get why people are always complaining about the rules exceptions of the Eidolon. It's better to have a lot of complicated exceptions than a broken class.
If he is put inside your clothes, I think he becomes invisible, but if he is not I believe he stays visibleWait, does this mean if you are carrying your familiar and you cast invis that your familiar doesn't disappear? It just sort of levitates in the air?I'm curious about this. If you cast invis on someone riding a mount, Does the rider and mount disappear? Does your mount act as gear while your riding him?Nope. It's still a creature, not an object, therefore can't be part of your gear. If you kill it, it becomes an object and if you can carry it, one invis will cover you both.
I don't think so. Otherwise, wouldnt that mean you couldn't see anything behind the caster?
I don't think so. Otherwise, wouldnt that mean you couldn't see anything behind the caster?If he is put inside your clothes, I think he becomes invisible, but if he is not I believe he stays visibleWait, does this mean if you are carrying your familiar and you cast invis that your familiar doesn't disappear? It just sort of levitates in the air?I'm curious about this. If you cast invis on someone riding a mount, Does the rider and mount disappear? Does your mount act as gear while your riding him?Nope. It's still a creature, not an object, therefore can't be part of your gear. If you kill it, it becomes an object and if you can carry it, one invis will cover you both.
Honestly, overthinking invisibility just leads to alot of people seeing it is all smoke and mirrors. "You didn't disappear at all - you just stepped out of frame!"
I don't think so. Otherwise, wouldnt that mean you couldn't see anything behind the caster?If he is put inside your clothes, I think he becomes invisible, but if he is not I believe he stays visibleWait, does this mean if you are carrying your familiar and you cast invis that your familiar doesn't disappear? It just sort of levitates in the air?I'm curious about this. If you cast invis on someone riding a mount, Does the rider and mount disappear? Does your mount act as gear while your riding him?Nope. It's still a creature, not an object, therefore can't be part of your gear. If you kill it, it becomes an object and if you can carry it, one invis will cover you both.
Invisibility specifically states that if you put an object that is not carried when the spell is cast inside your clothing it becomes invisible, otherwise it is visible and floating.
The summoner and eidolon have cludgy 'fixes' that sacrifice this framework to avoid perceived issues that could be fixed in other ways that would not require trashing the current rules to achieve.
If they're so easy to fix, why don't you tell us what those fixes are?
And EVERY class has exceptions to the rules.
And EVERY class has exceptions to the rules.Not being snarky here, but can you prove it?
Sure. Let's see...
Every human moves at 30' per round while unarmored ... except barbarians and monks.
Arcane spellcasters suffer a failure chance when wearing armor ... except bards in light armor or shields.
Humans with less than 5 hit dice don't register on detect alignment spells ... except clerics and paladins.
Characters must spend two squares of movement to enter difficult terrain ... except druids and rangers moving through nonmagical, natural terrain.
Characters cannot change the feats they've selected ... except for fighters.
Characters take a penalty while moving more than half their speed while using Stealth ... except rogues with the Fast Stealth talent.
Characters have a reach based on their size ... except Aberrant Bloodline sorcerers using melee touch attacks.
Characters can always cast any spell they have prepared or known as long as they can complete the components of the spell ... except wizards who have lost their bonded item.
---
Those are hardly the only rules exceptions, either. I just selected the first one that occurred to me for each class.
Ah yes, the old "It doesn't qualify if I say it doesn't, and I'll refuse to define it so you can't prove me wrong" trick.
And EVERY class has exceptions to the rules.Not being snarky here, but can you prove it?Sure. Let's see...
Every human moves at 30' per round while unarmored ... except barbarians and monks.
Arcane spellcasters suffer a failure chance when wearing armor ... except bards in light armor or shields.
Humans with less than 5 hit dice don't register on detect alignment spells ... except clerics and paladins.
Characters must spend two squares of movement to enter difficult terrain ... except druids and rangers moving through nonmagical, natural terrain.
Characters cannot change the feats they've selected ... except for fighters.
Characters take a penalty while moving more than half their speed while using Stealth ... except rogues with the Fast Stealth talent.
Characters have a reach based on their size ... except Aberrant Bloodline sorcerers using melee touch attacks.
Characters can always cast any spell they have prepared or known as long as they can complete the components of the spell ... except wizards who have lost their bonded item.
---
Those are hardly the only rules exceptions, either. I just selected the first one that occurred to me for each class.
That is all painfully obtuse.
That is all painfully obtuse.
Care to actually discuss things, or are you just going to throw drive-by insults today?
Care to actually discuss things, or are you just going to throw drive-by insults today?
That is all painfully obtuse.
Augment Summoning only works on spells, except for the Summoner's SLA. Without this being an explicit class ability, which is completely contrary to each of your "examples." None of your examples are valid because all of the "exceptions" to the rules are an explicit part of the character and are therefore themselves part of the rules.
And I thought characters could change feats out.
Augment Summoning only works on spells, except for the Summoner's SLA.
False. Actually, you can even apply zero-level-adjustment metamagics (like Energy Substitution) to spell-like abilities.
None of your examples are valid because all of the "exceptions" to the rules are an explicit part of the character and are therefore themselves part of the rules.
And the exceptions in the Summoner class aren't part of the character? And you call ME obtuse?
And I thought characters could change feats out.
Nope. There's discussion of an option for that in WotC's Player's Handbook 2, and Warblades are explicitly allowed to do it for certain feats, but there's no provision for it in Pathfinder except for Fighters being allowed to change their combat feats.
Augment Summoning only works on spells, except for the Summoner's SLA.False. Actually, you can even apply zero-level-adjustment metamagics (like Energy Substitution) to spell-like abilities.
The problem is, where does it say that?
Also, Augment Summoning is not metamagic.And the exceptions in the Summoner class aren't part of the character? And you call ME obtuse?
I specifically noted an exception that is not spelled out anywhere I can find.
The problem is, where does it say that?
Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
This bit of rules text is mechanically identical to 3.5's, for the record, and 3.5 explicitly stated in later books that any feat which applied to a spell also applied to a spell-like ability, with the exception that since SLAs don't have spell slots, you can't apply metamagic feats to them that require changing slots. ANY other feat that applies to a spell will apply to the spell-like ability that mimics that spell. This wasn't a rules change, just a clarification. I believe it's even in the FAQ, though I'm not gonna go search for it right now.
Also, Augment Summoning is not metamagic.
Which is why I said "even metamagics".
I specifically noted an exception that is not spelled out anywhere I can find.
But it's not an exception. It's by the rules.
---
The reason Augment Summoning doesn't work on the Eidolon, by the way, is twofold: one, the Eidolon is technically a Supernatural Ability (and yes, this does need to be noted in the rules, I have no idea why it wasn't updated for the second release of the APG beta classes...), and thus does NOT count as a spell. Second, it's not "a summon spell", which is the only thing Augment Summoning works on. Note that AS will not apply to gated creatures, planar allies, or anything other than a summon monster, summon nature's ally, or summon <foo> spell.
To be fair, Cartigan, I thought that was an exception to the rules, too, when Jason first answered that question. I looked it up, though, and it's actually not, it's just an extension of the fact that SLAs are treated as spells in nearly every respect.
|
|
Augment Summoning only works on spells, except for the Summoner's SLA.False. Actually, you can even apply zero-level-adjustment metamagics (like Energy Substitution) to spell-like abilities.The problem is, where does it say that?
Also, Augment Summoning is not metamagic.And the exceptions in the Summoner class aren't part of the character? And you call ME obtuse?I specifically noted an exception that is not spelled out anywhere I can find.
It's not an exception. When the Jason or James said it worked with them they said it would work likewise with any SLA. They comment wasn't "This is an exception for...", their comment was that anything which affects spells but doesn't require increasing spell levels affected spell like abilities. If you want an example look at Spell Penetration or Spell Focus. Both apply to SLAs in the same way augment summoning affects SLAs.
This bit of rules text is mechanically identical to 3.5's, for the record, and 3.5 explicitly stated in later books that any feat which applied to a spell also applied to a spell-like ability, with the exception that since SLAs don't have spell slots, you can't apply metamagic feats to them that require changing slots. ANY other feat that applies to a spell will apply to the spell-like ability that mimics that spell. This wasn't a rules change, just a clarification. I believe it's even in the FAQ, though I'm not gonna go search for it right now.Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
And indeed it does. It is negated in an anti-magic field, can be dispelled, applies spell-resistance where applicable, has a save, and causes an AoO. It has all the side-effects of a spell. Nothing in there shows or implies a spell-like ability can be modified by metamagic if it meet certain criteria. In fact, the very fact there is metamagic specifically for spell-like abilities implies the opposite.
But it's not an exception. It's by the rules.
Where it isn't written. Which was my point.
It's not an exception. When the Jason or James said it worked with them they said it would work likewise with any SLA. They comment wasn't "This is an exception for...", their comment was that anything which affects spells but doesn't require increasing spell levels affected spell like abilities. If you want an example look at Spell Penetration or Spell Focus. Both apply to SLAs in the same way augment summoning affects SLAs.
Then what is "ability focus" for?
Then what is "ability focus" for?
It's not an exception. When the Jason or James said it worked with them they said it would work likewise with any SLA. They comment wasn't "This is an exception for...", their comment was that anything which affects spells but doesn't require increasing spell levels affected spell like abilities. If you want an example look at Spell Penetration or Spell Focus. Both apply to SLAs in the same way augment summoning affects SLAs.
I'm inclined to agree. Spell-like abilities are similar to spells, but are NOT spells. Doesn't spell focus et al specifically refer only to SPELLS?
In fact, the very fact there is metamagic specifically for spell-like abilities implies the opposite.
Check your statements before you make them. The "metamagics" that have been made for SLAs are exclusively ones that change the spell level. Quicken SLA, Empower SLA, Maximize SLA. Nowhere is there an Energy Substitution SLA, or a Lord of the Uttercold SLA, or a Black Lore of Moil SLA. Not even in the books after those metamagics were released.
This fully agrees with my statements, not yours. I have already said that level-adjusting metamagics cannot be applied to SLAs because SLAs don't have different slots that they take up. Thus, Quicken and the like cannot be applied to them, necessitating the Quicken SLA feat which uses another method to determine which SLAs can be Quickened.
Nothing in there shows or implies a spell-like ability can be modified by metamagic if it meet certain criteria.
In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
"All" is a very inclusive word. The only ways in which an SLA does not function exactly like a spell are:
That's it. As the rule very explicitly states, in all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Then what is "ability focus" for?
Supernatural abilities and SLAs that do not mimic spells.
EDIT: Actually, Ability Focus can't even be taken for most SLAs, because they aren't usually listed as Special Attacks, which is all that Ability Focus applies to. Indeed, not a single Pathfinder monster which I have access to (bestiary, bonus bestiary, council of thieves bestiaries) has Ability Focus for anything not listed on the Attack or Special Attack lines of their stat block.
Nope. There's discussion of an option for that in WotC's Player's Handbook 2, and Warblades are explicitly allowed to do it for certain feats, but there's no provision for it in Pathfinder except for Fighters being allowed to change their combat feats.
Inquisitors can also change their Teamwork Feats, to an extent
Inquisitors can also change their Teamwork Feats, to an extent
Yeah, that's true. I was only thinking of the Core book, but you're right.
Check your statements before you make them. The "metamagics" that have been made for SLAs are exclusively ones that change the spell level. Quicken SLA, Empower SLA, Maximize SLA. Nowhere is there an Energy Substitution SLA, or a Lord of the Uttercold SLA, or a Black Lore of Moil SLA. Not even in the books after those metamagics were released.In fact, the very fact there is metamagic specifically for spell-like abilities implies the opposite.
This isn't 3.5. Or the Summoner. And Wizards repeatedly didn't add later complementary feats or spells to previous ones in certain books. Heroes of Horror completely fell off the map after it was released.
This fully agrees with my statements, not yours.
Absence of evidence is not evidence. You have provided no factual evidence in support of your position.
"All" is a very inclusive word. The only ways in which an SLA does not function exactly like a spell are:
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus.
The user activates it mentally.
Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. That's it. As the rule very explicitly states, in all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.[/quote
Which doesn't make them a spell.
Supernatural abilities and SLAs that do not mimic spells.EDIT: Actually, Ability Focus can't even be taken for most SLAs, because they aren't usually listed as Special Attacks, which is all that Ability Focus applies to. Indeed, not a single Pathfinder monster which I have access to (bestiary, bonus...
And what if it mimics a spell and is a special attack, then it can stack bonuses. Hurray.
You have provided no factual evidence in support of your position.
Yes, actually, I have. You just have your fingers stuck in your ears and are refusing to hear it.
If something functions exactly like a spell in all respects, then it functions as a spell in respect to interaction with feats.
You have provided no factual evidence in support of your position.Yes, actually, I have. You just have your fingers stuck in your ears and are refusing to hear it.
If something functions exactly like a spell in all respects, then it functions as a spell in respect to interaction with feats.
In 3.5, spell-like abilities are not subject to metamagic: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040420a
Maybe it changed in since then
