Welcome to the boards!
I have been reading up on the Summoner, and really like it. However, I can't help but notice that most of its abilities have very little to do with its spellcasting and much to do with its other abilities.
Yes, the class isn't that much about its spellcasting. The spells are an icing, if you will. The main feature is the eidolon, and then there's the summoning (okay, that's a sort of magic, but it is augmented by a class ability) and only then comes magic, which is mainly to boost allies (including all those summoned critters, especially the eidolon).
The main reason for this is probably that we already have a spellcasting-based summoner class - the conjurer (wizard specialist).
The summoner is built a lot like the bard. Both classes don't put all their eggs in one basket.
I was wondering if anyone knows of any prestige class that would allow it to be viable?
What do you mean?
If you mean "are there prestige classes that work with the summoner", then not really. As you said, the class features are the main power here. That means that you need a PrC that explicitly boosts those class abilities - and since the summoner isn't even officially released, there are no PrCs (except maybe some home-brewed ones, I haven't checked) that do that.
If you mean "is there a way to turn the summoner into a strong spellcaster with a prestige class" then again, I think that the answer is no. The spellcasting isn't that strong to begin with, and spellcasting PrCs usually just boost the class's spellcasting powers but not anything else (at least in general - there are classes like dragon disciple that specifically strengthen the draconic bloodline powers for sorcerers, but there is no class that says "+1 level in spellcasting, +1 level for class abilities for whatever class you had" without any limit on what class works with it).
Again, I bring up the bard - general spellcasting booster PrCs are a bad choice here, since the rest of the bard's abilities are left behind. You need PrCs that are built for the bard - either a PrC that boosts all or at least most bardic abilities, or one that is designed specifically to turn the bard into a stronger spellcaster at the cost of his other abilities (I think there are a couple of those in official D&D 3e books, and I have no idea how many there are from third parties).
The druid is along the same vein: Even though she has "full spellcasting" (his spell progression is the same as a cleric's or wizard's, minus the domain and school bonuses, of course), her spell list is considered "weak" - without the druid's other class features, the druid wouldn't be very powerful. But if you add that other stuff in, it becomes a potent combination, in part because the spellcasting augments the other stuff druids get.
Finally, if you mean "the summoner is weak by himself and needs a prestige class to make him usable. Is there one?" then I have to say "he doesn't need one". The class is quite potent, and definitely does its job.
I think the answer to your question is that there isn't a PrC that doesn't stunt the main benefits of the summoner class.
So if you are only looking for the Eidolon and summoning abilities as utility and a minor boost in magical power to a combat class, then you could make a viable Summoner/Fighter/Eldritch Knight or something like that.
But if you want to rely on your Eidolon and Summoning ability as your "main thing", you aren't going to find a PrC that keeps that viable.
Yet.
The book isn't out yet, so give it time and you might find some options later on that will give different flavours for the Summoner.
Being that he's quite versatile "built-in", you might not see the equivalent of the Dragon Disciple PrC for that Summoner in quite a while.
In general in Pathfinder, PrC's are terrible options mechanically. The new APG classes continue this tradition. Summoner more than most.
|
IMO, the Summoner is going to need it's own Prestige Classes.
One that allows multiple weaker Eidolons, or an Eidolon from another plane, with undead ability (negative plane), etc. for instance.
Even then, they might work better as Alternate Class features or whatever, and, since I never liked PrCs anyway, to me, a class that you never want to leave is just great design.
Wasn't there a feat that allows your animal companion to be treated as a few levels higher, up to a maximum of of your character level? A similar feat for the summoner would be a great way of making prestige classes a bit more viable. Without losing Eidolon progress, taking a few levels or arcane archer, dragon disciple or eldritch knight could be cool.
EDIT: There, I found it:
Just replace animal companion with Eidolon, and you're good to go.
In general in Pathfinder, PrC's are terrible options mechanically. The new APG classes continue this tradition. Summoner more than most.
Yeah, great, isn't it? Because what's the point to a new class if all it is is a different spell list?
I do indeed realize that the summoner is a strong and useful addition to any party.
Actually, their usefulness is inverse proportional to party size. Meaning: The bigger the party, the less advisable to play a summoner.
It's all the summons, and the eidolon, and all that, meaning that the summoner will control 2-20 (or so) creatures in any given round. Can be nice and fun in a small party (especially if the summoner can provide some muscle), but if you're already half a dozen adventurers, the time you take to resolve a whole round might increase beyond the limit of tolerance.
This is one of the main reasons I'm not playing one right now: The sunday groups are big enough.
|
In general in Pathfinder, PrC's are terrible options mechanically. The new APG classes continue this tradition. Summoner more than most.Yeah I think it's poor design in that regard.
As far as I can tell they are just moving the prestige class into core classes which have a nice 20 level progression. Summoner, Druid, Alchemist, Inquisitor... they are hybrid classes already. Multi-classing them or taking them into prestige classes is sort of diluting an already diluted idea.
I'd like to see exactly why a Loremaster PrC is such a "terrible" choice for a Wizard player.
Doesn't advance school powers.
Doesn't advance arcane bond or familiar (for example, a wizard 10/loremaster 10 can't enchant his ring bonded item without the feat).Must purchase, find, or research all spells for his spellbook (no free spells at level up).
No bonus metamagic/creation feats.
In return, he gets 5 secrets (+2 to all saves and two of bonus 1st level spell, bonus 2nd level spell, Toughness, +1 dodge to AC, bonus feat; the rest are crap), bardic knowledge (big deal, he's already got huge bonuses to all the Knowledge skills from his Intelligence), 2 bonus languages (yay?), a +10 bonus to identifying magical items (at level 11 minimum, by which point he shouldn't be failing this check anyway), and a 1/day legend lore or analyze dweomer.
Not worth it at all.
As far as I can tell they are just moving the prestige class into core classes which have a nice 20 level progression. Summoner, Druid, Alchemist, Inquisitor... they are hybrid classes already. Multi-classing them or taking them into prestige classes is sort of diluting an already diluted idea.In a system with multiclassing and PrCs its poor design to make new material that doesn't take that into account.
I disagree. The system might allow multiclassing, but it doesn't have to enforce it.
Limiting yourself to class concepts that lend themselves well to multiclassing would mean you hobble yourself. A lot of great ideas will just not be possible.
Yeah I think it's poor design in that regard.
I'm not sure I would go that far. Making PrC's a bad choice was definitely deliberate (it has been confirmed on these boards that making PrC's a poor mechanical choice was intentional)
I think the intent is to create more base class options instead.
I do question why PrC's were included in Pathfinder at all though.
Yeah, great, isn't it? Because what's the point to a new class if all it is is a different spell list?
*shrug* not sure whether it's better or worse. Probably about the same in the long run. Yes, there are more spell list options - but it's all just different mixes of the same spells. I like options, and both base classes and PrC's give me options. So as long as we get either that are viable (and the new base classes we've seen from APG through playtest downloads seem to be viable) I'm OK with that.
As far as I can tell they are just moving the prestige class into core classes which have a nice 20 level progression. Summoner, Druid, Alchemist, Inquisitor... they are hybrid classes already. Multi-classing them or taking them into prestige classes is sort of diluting an already diluted idea.
That's exactly what I think they are doing. PrC's still exist, but they aren't really doing what they are supposed to, instead we are getting base classes fill those needs.
I wouldn't call them terrible, they're simply not the slam dunk obvious choice they were in 3.5, especially if you played classes like the sorcerer who lost nothing by p-classing save for familliar advancement.
As obviously good a mechanical choice it was to PrC in 3.5, it is just as obviously a poor mechanical choice to do so in Pathfinder...in general.
I'm not complaining - just stating the reality.
I'd like to see exactly why a Loremaster PrC is such a "terrible" choice for a Wizard player.
It's not. That's why I use qualifiers like "in general". It is however a poor choice (the reasons of which have already been pointed out - though I would add in "loses favored class bonus" to the list).
I have yet to see a PrC option that is a good choice mechanically.
I don't have a problem with that - but if someone on the boards asks what PrC is a good mechanical option...letting them know that in general PrC's aren't good mechanical options period saves time.
|
|
Yeah I think it's poor design in that regard.I'm not sure I would go that far. Making PrC's a bad choice was definitely deliberate (it has been confirmed on these boards that making PrC's a poor mechanical choice was intentional)
I think the intent is to create more base class options instead.
I do question why PrC's were included in Pathfinder at all though.
Reverse compatibility was one of the stated goals of the rules system. If they left out all the prestige classes it would make converting existing characters or NPCs with these classes more difficult.
Also, some of the PrCs are good choices for NPCs.
The Summoner is practically a concept that could be a PrC in and of itself (slower Casting Progression with enhanced Familiar like Diabolist and other powers including Standard Action Summons, etc) so the fact it doesn't work that great with existing PrC's doesn't both me overly much.
It certainly seems like a viable possibility for Summoner Specific PrC's to be developed, with an affinity to a certain type of planar amorpheous entitiy to channel, etc...
Not every PrC may have the exact same power/reward relationship to every PRPG base Class as they did to their 3.5 counter-parts, but there are still plenty of decent PrC's, Dragon Disciple, Diabolist, Arcane Trickster, and I expect more to come. Some aren't so great in terms of what you give up in exchange for the powers you gain, but are great tools for building NPCs with since they get very directly to a more specific thematic goal, and 'class power' isn't the end-all be-all, especially when encounter design and other factors (like allies, optimal gear, etc) is at least as big a factor, and to-the-death battles aren't always called for anyways.
What do you mean by 'enforce' it?
I disagree. The system might allow multiclassing, but it doesn't have to enforce it.
Look at 3e. Boring-to-death classes like sorcerer, who gave you virtually no reason to stick to them once PrCs were available, all but forced you into PrCs (there was no rule that required you - you just didn't live up to your potential and had nothing special going for you).
I say PrCs should be an interesting choice, but not necessarily the best choice, and definitely not the only choice.
Imagine if the multiclassing 'system' simply took better of your BAB, saves, skills, hps and the like rather than adding them?
So a fighter6/wizard11 would have a BAB6, the hps of either a 6th level fighter OR an 11th level wizard, etc.This would be 'allowing' multiclassing, but I think we can agree that a 17th level character like that would be INSANELY underpowered for his/her level.
Where did that come from? I say the game should not force you to multiclass (which would be an extreme) and you counter with another extreme (a system that combines the worst aspects of dualclassing and multiclassing).
What they've done with the Summoner is make a class that suffers so greatly from multiclassing that you should get 'non-associated' levels by taking other levels in things!!
Or just realise that this class isn't meant to be easily multiclassable with everything else.
Not all classes are meant to work great with multiclassing and generic PrCs that were not designed for the kind of character you usually play when you take that class.
The fact that the summoner class will totally not work with the thrallkeeper PrC (imagine someone who uses mind control a lot) or the elementalist class (someone who uses spells of one or maybe more elements) is not a design flaw, it makes perfect sense.
The 3.5 druid was very bad in this regard, they made one that's even worse with the summoner. This is bad design.
No. Bad design would be to throw away the class just because you cannot combine it with everything else there is.
There are some generic classes that lend themselves well to some "dipping", both from the mechanics and from the flavour, since they're pretty vanilla, and then there's classes that only work with some other classes (they're like chocolate. Nice and good with walnuts or something like that, but not really good with lemon), and there's some special stuff (like the summoner, which is a banana split. You don't mix it with death by chocolate, but that doesn't mean banana splits suck.)
In fact, discarding ideas just because they don't lend themselves well to be combined with everything else would be phenomenally bad design.
Face it: Pathfinder is not a class-less building block system. It is pretty flexible as far as class-based systems go, but it's still a class-based system based on strong archetypes like bards, druids and paladins.
Don't get me wrong. It's a fine stand alone class, but it does not enrich the game system beyond it. In fact with the number of special exceptions it brings I'd even argue it detracts from it.
Why should it have to enrich the game system as a whole? How does it detract from it?
It's a find stand-alone class. That's all that matters. None of the design goals of Pathfinder were "abolish classes". You'll want most other RPGs out there for that.
I do question why PrC's were included in Pathfinder at all though.
Flavour. Not everything is supposed to help you built the ultimate munchkin's wet dream. Roleplaying games have some stuff that is just there because it fits and is interesting.
Sure, feat chains would make more sense, but Pathfinder was meant to be a revision, so PrCs were going to stay. Which brings us to another reason for their inclusion: Pathfinder is D&D 3rd edition, 2nd revision. It's not a whole new game.
*shrug* not sure whether it's better or worse. Probably about the same in the long run. Yes, there are more spell list options - but it's all just different mixes of the same spells.
Exactly. That's what I was saying, you'll find on another perusal of my post: Classes that are just like an existing class, but with a changed spell list are pointless. Worthy of a class variant at best.
That's exactly what I think they are doing. PrC's still exist, but they aren't really doing what they are supposed to
PrCs are supposed to provide exotic options in prestigious positions. They do that.
I'm not complaining - just stating my opinion.
Fixed it for you.
The Summoner is practically a concept that could be a PrC in and of itself
I'm not so sure of that. The base class approach means you can start out as a summoner. One of the goals was to make a class suited for solo campaigns (or campaigns with small parties in general). If it were a PrC and you had to start as a wizard, you might not make it to the levels you can start with this.
The Summoner is practically a concept that could be a PrC in and of itselfI'm not so sure of that. The base class approach means you can start out as a summoner. One of the goals was to make a class suited for solo campaigns (or campaigns with small parties in general).
Sure, and I definitely think the Summoner as as Base Class as seen in APG is a BETTER outcome than a less-than-full-Casting-progression PrC on top of a Caster Class could achieve, for the reasons you mention and more. But it DOES seem very similar to the Diabolist in many ways, 'evolutions' to supernatural "Pet", etc. My point is just that it ALREADY is in the "prestige"/exotic/specialist territory, so I don't feel sad that the Summoner isn't very impressive when you add PrCs meant to enhance more general Casting base classes, any more than I regret when 2 disparate PrCs don't work well in combination with each other (say, Lore Keeper and Hell Knight or a Wild Shape-focused Druid PrC and Mystic Theurge which focuses only spells which the other PrC ALREADY denigrated).
|
|
In a system with multiclassing and PrCs its poor design to make new material that doesn't take that into account.
As far as I can tell they are just moving the prestige class into core classes which have a nice 20 level progression. Summoner, Druid, Alchemist, Inquisitor... they are hybrid classes already. Multi-classing them or taking them into prestige classes is sort of diluting an already diluted idea.
So all new classes need to fit into the same slots that the previous ones fit comfortably? That doesn't make any sense. Then you are stuck with essentially the same base roles.
The druid and bard classes have never played well with multi classing or prestige classes for the exact same reasons the summoner doesn't.
Edit: Add Paladin and Monk to the list of classes that have never really multi or PrCed well.
I find it amusing how much these Summoner multiclass complaints focus on other caster classes. Yes, a summoner-bard/summoner-wizard/summoner-cleric is probably not going to function well in an optimized party.
But what about non-caster classes. Summoner with fighter or ranger I can see working. Summoner with rogue is absolutely horrific. Granted, I am looking at these as 60/40 splits, mostly summoner. But adding 3d6 sneak attack, evasion, and a few rogue tricks to a buff caster with the ability to summon flankers practically at will? That seems very effective to me.
But maybe I run different games.
And regarding PRCs being crappy: they should be, most of the time. Look at it from a "realistic" standpoint. If a PRC was so good everyone always went into it, then it would be just part of the "base" class, because its the common denominator. Base classes should be the best overall, because they are what the most people do, again, overall. Certain situations may warrant a change, like dragon disciple (transformative), or loremaster (specialization in a narrower focus). But most bards should be bards, most fighters should be fighters, otherwise the class shouldnt have those words as names.
|
|
I find it amusing how much these Summoner multiclass complaints focus on other caster classes. Yes, a summoner-bard/summoner-wizard/summoner-cleric is probably not going to function well in an optimized party.
But what about non-caster classes. Summoner with fighter or ranger I can see working. Summoner with rogue is absolutely horrific. Granted, I am looking at these as 60/40 splits, mostly summoner. But adding 3d6 sneak attack, evasion, and a few rogue tricks to a buff caster with the ability to summon flankers practically at will? That seems very effective to me.
This would work quite well if you house ruled the eidolon to scale with the character class. I think otherwise the eidolon would quickly fall too far behind the curve.
I do think a few levels of rogue or barbarian would go well with either the alchemist or the inquisitor depending on what your goal is for a character.
The summoner was designed to poorly mesh with any PrC or other class.It didn't need to be the case.
Oh yes it did. It totally did!
You could have the summoner class with a few tweaks and feats that would be just as balanced when PrCing or multiclassing as would a sorcerer, wizard or bard (though the bard as well needs a bit in that fashion).
No, you couldn't. Not without turning it into a boring variant class.
The eidolon alone means that multiclassing doesn't work well, and it doesn't even closely resemble a spell. A lot of the class's abilities is tied to this, too, meaning that they don't lend themselves well to multiclassing.
Sure, you could turn it into feats. But you could do the same to a druid. And a paladin. And a monk. And... basically everything. But that's not how Pathfinder Works. The classes are modelled after archetypes, some of which are very strong archetypes. It's not the generic classes model from Unearthed Arcana where you have warrior, spellcaster, expert. It never intended to be, and its fans don't want it to be.
Its great to swing the pendulum back and forth, but it gets tiresome after awhile. Either extreme is not good. Just because we've had a lot of one extreme doesn't mean that the other extreme is thus the place to be.
The extreme you so dislike is the very game. If you don't like that extreme, play something else, because the game is just that way, and will stay that way.
The other classes multiclass/prc well because they have had years of analysis, and additional material to work with. Druids for instance were terrible for prestige classes untill you included prestige classes specifically designed for the druid to enter. The summoner is similar in structure and style to the druid, so it wont be a good multiclass/prc class untill material is released to accomodate it. Its really that simple.
|
|
It took WotC, what, *seven years* (between the release of 3.0 and the Complete Champion, with it's Paragnostic Apostle PrC) to introduce a *Cleric* prestige class that actually advanced Domain abilities? (As someone who played Clerics almost exclusively during that time, and never even looked at Divine Metamagic, Nightsticks, Persistant Spell or Righteous Might, I sometimes wondered if anyone at WotC ever played a Cleric, since they were *pushing* people to use CoDzilla exploits by making it almost impossible to advance non-broken Cleric builds.)
The only Druid PrCs that made a lick of sense for a Druid to consider were the Moonspeaker (2005) and Planar Shephard (2006, and the PS only because it was broken), both introduced quite late in the game, and for a specific setting (mechanically, the PS was built for the differing plane structure of Eberron, and the Moonspeaker was Shifter-only).
The Summoner not having a PrC designed to work for it *before it's even released* isn't even a blip on my radar.
If Paizo gets a Summoner-friendly PrC out in less than five to seven years, they'll still beat WotCs handling of Cleric and Druid-friendly PrCs.
I wonder if that prestige class book coming out in August will provide a prestige class that a summoner might actually want to take? Somebody at Paizo mentioned having at least one suitable prestige class for every core/base class at that point, if I read it correctly.
In general in Pathfinder, PrC's are terrible options mechanically. The new APG classes continue this tradition. Summoner more than most.I wouldn't call them terrible, they're simply not the slam dunk obvious choice they were in 3.5,In 3.5 I used to advise druid players that 'druid was its own PrC' and to stay pure druid.
There was not a Druid PrC out there that essentially traded it's class abilities for the druid's while maintaining the rest.
-James
Planar Shephard. I repeat. It advances everything. Grants everything. Best 3.5 Druid Prc.
I'd like to see exactly why a Loremaster PrC is such a "terrible" choice for a Wizard player.Doesn't advance school powers.
Doesn't advance arcane bond or familiar (for example, a wizard 10/loremaster 10 can't enchant his ring bonded item without the feat).
Must purchase, find, or research all spells for his spellbook (no free spells at level up).
No bonus metamagic/creation feats.In return, he gets 5 secrets (+2 to all saves and two of bonus 1st level spell, bonus 2nd level spell, Toughness, +1 dodge to AC, bonus feat; the rest are crap), bardic knowledge (big deal, he's already got huge bonuses to all the Knowledge skills from his Intelligence), 2 bonus languages (yay?), a +10 bonus to identifying magical items (at level 11 minimum, by which point he shouldn't be failing this check anyway), and a 1/day legend lore or analyze dweomer.
Not worth it at all.
You get the same two free spells that any Wizard gets for level up just as you would spells known if by some way you managed to qualify as a sorcerer.
There's nothing in the rules that has any advancement of the arcane bond feature that is precluded by taking the Loremaster class.
The Loremaster bonus to knowledge checks is not trivial. Familliars continue to advance in hit points, while the familliar powers don't advance, I don't consider that a major sacrifice. And if you are a generalist wizard the advanced school powers aren't that much of a pass anyway.
However for roleplaying concerns. (roleplaying? what's the combat function in that?), if you want to play a Sage type character who's intellectually based as opposed to someone who coughs up tales in rhyme, it's the way to go.
I also don't get the bit about lore master. At wizard 7 he would already be able to enhance his ring, so why shouldn't he later? Even the staff would work at wizard 10/ loremaster 1 since he has reached caster level 11 then... Don't understand it.
The loremaster class is not bad. It's really nice for those focusing on the knowledge kind of wizard. Bardic knowledge is great, particularly being able to make knowledge checks untrained.And getting a huge +10 circumstance bonus on his spellcraft to identify items is also really helpful: "Oh, that item really *is* cursed, I better put that away..." :-P
In general Paizo has done a good job with the PrC. I think it is *good* that you have to give things up if you want to have the PrC benefits. Some classes benefit more, some less, and that is fine with me. 3.5 PrC were really crappy in the end since there was no point to use the base classes anymore.
In Pathfinder PrC typically gives you either some special ability you do not get otherwise (duelist riposte/deflection) or a specific mix of abilities you cannot get effectively with multiclassing (shadowdancer or pathfinder chronicler). They do not step on the toes of the base classes, but I have yet to see PrC which I cannot see any usefulness in.
So I personally think it's good the way it is :-)
@Malag: LOL, thanks :-) I read through the posts but did not look at the posting dates.
|
|
There was not a Druid PrC out there that essentially traded it's class abilities for the druid's while maintaining the rest.Planar Shephard. I repeat. It advances everything. Grants everything. Best 3.5 Druid Prc.
Moonspeaker was also good. But for every one of them, there was also something like Blight Druid, which was almost as terrible as taking class levels in 'ex-Paladin.'