Str 18, dex 16, con 18, int 13, wis 7, cha 18, 75 hp, 28* ac [17 touched]
[*Active AC value; takes penalties to true ac value except on rare occurances]
Flaw: Pathetic Wis
Flaw Feat: Force of Personality
I don't have any problem with flaws myself, however I would point out that you actually don't *qualify* for that flaw - your stats are too high. Also, taking a (very broken) feat that replaces the stat you dropped is pretty cheesy.
For anyone wandering, assuming the lowest possible (before racial and stat bumps), that is a 48 point-buy (equivalent). While that is relevant, it'd be important to know what the equivalent point-buy of the fighter's in his group was.
Atanas - I don't see where you're getting +8 to Strength from - Bull's Strength is +4, Enlarge is +2. That would make 24 Str, or +7. Mithril Shirt is two lower AC (or 1 from the numbers you posted). I don't see where you get 70 speed (should be 60). None of vampire torc, boots of stomping, or gloves of devastation are in the DMG, fyi.
You are correct that you can qualify for the feats you list in a different order (Lunge at 9th, Power Attack after 1st, and Hold the Line after Combat Reflexes). Your AC bonus (not necessarily the total AC you list) from spells is actually under (+13 in bonuses, and -2 in penalties).
I have no care or comment on the Eidolon, but simply taking a Fighter with your stats, here's what I come up with:
Flaw: Shaky
Flaw Feat: Force of Personality
Racial: Iron Will
L1: Power Attack, W. Focus (Greataxe)
L2: Cleave
L3: Combat reflexes
L4: W. Specialization (Greataxe)
L5: Toughness
L6: Vital Strike
L7: Lunge
L8: Greater W. Focus (Greataxe)
L9: Hold the line
Weapon training (Axes +2, Bows +1).
Weapon: Adamantine Greataxe (1d12)
Armor: regular Full plate +3 (Heavy, +12 ac, +3m.dex, -3 check)
"Group Buffs": +10 atk/+6 dmg, +Haste from you (group spell) = +11/+6
"Self Buffs": Wand of Enlarge Person on self (needs to roll a 5 with max ranks after the first time).
When Buffed (all 1 round of it):
60 Speed
+2 Str
-2 Dex (including -1 AC)
-2 AC when using "Lunge"
Large Size
Full Attack [with party buffs, no activate items]:
+26/+26/+21 on attack [9 BAB, +5 Str, -1 size, +1 MW, +2 Feats, +2 class, +11 party]; 3d6+26 each
Full attack [Self buffed, no active magic items]
+15/+10 on attack; 3d6+20 each
Vital Strike [w/party]
+26, 6d6+26 after a 60' move
Cleave [w/party]
+26/+26, 3d6+26 after a 60' move
Summary: More damage, more options, about as good AC as well, with plenty of room to do more in the same amount of prep time.
@Atanas:
Maybe I missed it, but you did not address the false evolution costs for the stat-boosts on the eidolon (large eidolons pay more for bonus con and strength).
|
And, as to the 3.5 stuff, that can't be blamed on the class. 3.5 stuff was borked to begin with. You have to be careful with mixing the two, they can have unintended side effects.I was under the impression that pathfinder was supposed to be compatible w/ the majority of 3.5 materials. Is this not the case?
A flat tire is still compatible with the type of car that it fits on. That doesn't mean that if you slap it on the car, it's magically not flat anymore. Bad supplements for 3.5 aren't going to suddenly improve in quality just because you use Pathfinder can with them.
I haven't seen any problems with the summoner if the Edilon is built right. It's really easy to miss something and the edilon can get really out of hand for that currently level of the summoner. If you find you edilon is insanely over powered chance are you messed up somewhere, so go over you build. It's possible you just found a loop hole but 9 times out of 10 you gave you edilon something it didn't qualify for.
|
Because the original poster did not post his/her original stats, has a bunch of flaws in design and did not provide the math behind all the numbers in an easily comprehendable format, following entire thread is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
Successful Will save (DC 12) negates trap. In which case the following message will appear:
** spoiler omitted **
+googleplex
This is comparing apples to small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. If you want to have a reasonable debate about whether something is overpowered or not, you can't have a bunch of house rules and ignored core rules in your build. If the OP stuck to the rules in the Core Rulebook and Advanced Players Guide and then explained the build, there may be a real argument, but now you have an over-maxed non-core build which is, of course, going to be overpowered.
Looking at what the OP posted so far, more than likely the GM is allowing the wizard player to use the 3.5 Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, and PHB II, plus Dragon Magic and all those other splatbooks not to mention whatever the guy was allowed to use by 3rd party publishers along with Pathfinder books, which is a sure-fire way to stack bonus on top of bonus, especially if the rule that the same type of bonuses (except for dodge bonuses and un-typed bonuses) never stack is ignored by everyone at the table.
And hey, if that's the type of game you guys like playing more power to you, I'm not saying it's badwrongfun, I'm just saying it's not comparable to PFRPG core rules.
Backwards-compatibility, to me as a GM, is that if a player wants to use something from OGL or 3.5 to help flesh out their character concept then I will let them use it if it isn't counter-intuitive to the changes put in place by the Pathfinder RPG to fix what was "wrong" with 3.5, and more than likely it will go through some type of revision by me so that it is balanced before I allow it in my game. Backwards-compatibility means that, although I'm not allowing everything from every book you've ever read about 3.5 to optimize your PC, you have the option to bring it up so that all the money you've spent on those books over the years hasn't gone completely to waste.
|
Summoners may be too powerful. The strongest ability they have is that there summon is disposable, it comes back the next day. IF you have the right 2nd level spell it will come back the round after next. Its nearly as powerful as a Fighter and doesnt have that pesky mortality thing costing you thousands of gold to bring them back. ( sure it comes back at half hitpoints but if you have Augment summons....which you probably do....then he comes back from the dead EVEN STRONGER.
Any class that can cast a spell AND Full attack needs to be well balanced ( magus seems okay because he doesnt have two pools of HP^^)cleric and most spellcaster have to CHOOSE to either to buff or attack. Druids and Summoners are an aberration to this natural spellcaster balance.
and haste at 4th level and black tentacle at 6th is questionably powerful.
>>Racial traits:Reactionary +2 initiative, Elven Reflexes +2 initiative
These don't stack (trait bonuses)
Also you just get one trait generally in PFS... and summoners can't have power attack at first level.
Fighter Point Buy 15:
Dwarf Fighter Mobile fighter
S 18(14+1+1+2) D 10 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 16 C 5
Trait: Defender of the faith
1st: Iron Will
fighter: Power Attack
fighter 2: Deadly Aim
3rd: Point Blank
fighter 4: weapon focus
5th: Rapid shot
fighter 6: weapon specialization
7th: Improved Initiative
8th: greater weapon focus
9th: Quick draw
10th: nimble moves
HP: 100 AC: 25 Fort: +12(+14) Ref: +5(+7) Will: +10(+12) BAB: +10
Equipment:
+2 Full Plate
+2 Buckler
+2 waraxe
+1 Longbow (mighty +4)
+2 Cloak of Resistance
Belt of Strength +2
Full attack:
Waraxe: +15/+10 (1d10+15(4(str)+2(leaping attack)+2(magic)+6(power attack)+1(weapon training))
waraxe: +14/+9 (1d10+23) two handed
Longbow: +10/+10/+5 (1d8+15(str)+6(deadly aim)+2(weapon specialization)+2(leap attack)+1(magic))
|
Multi-attack is being used wrong. It seems you are granting him multiple attacks with each natural weapon based on iterative attacks. That is wrong (but I could be misreading you). Multiattack reduces the penalty for secondary attacks, it doesn't grant iterative attacks. When you have natural weapons, you can either full attack with all natural weapons, or you can make iterative weapon attacks, you can't combine the two.In this case, you are close to being right. Multi-Attack doesn't give extra attacks.. unless Eidolons(and Animal Companions) don't have the 3 natural attacks needed to actually have the feat.
Multiattack: An eidolon gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has 3 or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite
3 or more natural attacks (or it is reduced to less than 3
attacks), the eidolon instead gains a second attack with
one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty. If the
eidolon later gains 3 or more natural attacks, it loses this
additional attack and instead gains Multiattack.
Actually it isn't different from 3.5.
Natural attacks never got iterative attacks in any edition.
If you are using an half elf you could get an extra evo point per 4 levels.
Also I'm not saying the summoner is useless -- just not godlike.
Summoned monsters (from the spells) are absolutely useless in any offensive capacity. They are useful as meat shields in the early levels and utility casters at the later levels. At no level do they deal damage that is even vaguely competitive. Summoned creatures are 5-6 CR behind the creatures you're fighting, unless you're fighting a "kobolds swarm you" encounter. Is a CR 1/3 fire beetle (summon monster I) useful against a CR 3 ogre (opponent fought at levels 1-2)? Not usually, except to absorb a single attack. Is a CR 3 medium elemental (summon monster IV) useful against a CR 10 clay golem (opponent fought at levels 7-8)? Not usually. Etc.
Is a CR 3 medium elemental (summon monster IV) useful against a CR 10 clay golem (opponent fought at levels 7-8)? Not usually.
Why would you summon a medium elemental when you can summon a celestial or fiendish dire wolf instead? The dire wolf will hit the clay golem 50% of the time, and he can trip him on a 13 after a successful hit (or something close to that, I don't have the Bestiary near me). While I agree with you about summoned monsters being meat shields, they can also be effective in offense (not as much as the party's fighter, but still...)
Is a CR 3 medium elemental (summon monster IV) useful against a CR 10 clay golem (opponent fought at levels 7-8)? Not usually.Why would you summon a medium elemental when you can summon a celestial or fiendish dire wolf instead? The dire wolf will hit the clay golem 50% of the time, and he can trip him on a 13 after a successful hit (or something close to that, I don't have the Bestiary near me). While I agree with you about summoned monsters being meat shields, they can also be effective in offense (not as much as the party's fighter, but still...)
No, the dire wolf will not hit the golem 50% of the time. Further, even if it does hit, the wolf will not trip the golem except on a natural 20.
Dire wolves have a single bite attack at +7 to hit. Clay Golems have 24 AC. You need a 17 or higher to hit; that's a 20% chance. The wolf's CMB is +8 and the golem's CMD is 30.
In addition, clay golems have DR 10 that the wolf cannot overcome; dire wolves deal 1d8+6 damage (average 10.5), so will do very little damage to the golem in the times that it does hit (0.5 per hit on average).
A medium fire elemental, on the other hand, will at least set the golem on fire if it lands a hit (at the same +7 to hit as the wolf). Of course, it won't do any other damage, since fire elementals don't actually do fire damage with their attacks (which I thought they did, and which would have bypassed the DR). The burn special attack only requires a hit, though, so a single hit is 1d4d6 fire damage (average 8.75 -- or 17 and a half hits from the wolf).
But regardless. Any barb/fighter builds that dish 3d6+18 at level 9?
A 1th level cleric with the growth domain and a greatsword and 16 str can do 3d6+6. Level 1 without any magic equipment and without X rounds to buff.
Don't all casters buff before combat? ;)
That's where you lost me. I just wonder what the other players in your group are doing with heroic stats and 2 flaws... with stats like yours i would happly play a Monk (Zen archer) beside you and your eidelon.
With 18 Str and 18 Wis i would have a nice full attack:
Furry Attack Base +7/+7/+2/+2 + 1 Weapon Focus + 4 Wis + 1 Bow Masterwork/Magic = +13/+13/+8/+8 = +14/+14/+14/+9/+9 (for the hast you cast) all at 1d8+6 damage. That's with a simple masterwork bow. With a few magic items (resonable at that level) like Bracers of Archery, Greater (25 000) and some party wizard that gives me Greater Magic Weapon (1h per level) i would look like +17/+17/+17/+10/+10 all @ 1d8+9
At least i would not feel like you and your big E. would steal the show ;-) and i am a creepy MONK!!
I am currently playing a summoner (level 2) in a 20 point buy game and the Eidolon is indead powerfull. But i belief it will be much harder in combat without gigantic stats like yours ;-)
Breiti
Stuff.
I'll assume you're right, since I borrowed the dire wolf's stats and the clay golem's stats from the 3.X SDR on D&D wiki for my example. I didn't know that the dire wolf was nerfed that much while the clay golem was greatly improved.
So I guess Summon Monster is nerfed in Pathfinder. (;
Stuff.I'll assume you're right, since I borrowed the dire wolf's stats and the clay golem's stats from the 3.X SDR on D&D wiki for my example. I didn't know that the dire wolf was nerfed that much while the clay golem was greatly improved.
So I guess Summon Monster is nerfed in Pathfinder. (;
You should have just used the Pathfinder Reference Document ;).
Monster stats are probably the single greatest overall changed area between 3.5 and Pathfinder. They did a massive overhaul of stats vs CR and as a result the vast majority of monsters either changed stats or changed CR.
You should have just used the Pathfinder Reference Document ;).
Monster stats are probably the single greatest overall changed area between 3.5 and Pathfinder. They did a massive overhaul of stats vs CR and as a result the vast majority of monsters either changed stats or changed CR.
It's sad because the fiendish dire wolf was my favorite pet back in 3.5. I guess he's not that bad with augment summoning, but maybe I'll need a new favorite pet...
Wait, what's that!?
Oh! Hello there Mr. Fiendish Bison. :D
Oh! Hello there Mr. Fiendish Bison. :D
Your buffalo wings look suspiciously like bat wings.. but WOW are they spicy!
...Because the original poster did not post his/her original stats, has a bunch of flaws in design and did not provide the math behind all the numbers in an easily comprehendable format, following entire thread is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
Successful Will save (DC 12) negates trap. In which case the following message will appear:
** spoiler omitted **
+googleplex
This is comparing apples to small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. If you want to have a reasonable debate about whether something is overpowered or not, you can't have a bunch of house rules and ignored core rules in your build. If the OP stuck to the rules in the Core Rulebook and Advanced Players Guide and then explained the build, there may be a real argument, but now you have an over-maxed non-core build which is, of course, going to be overpowered.
Looking at what the OP posted so far, more than likely the GM is allowing the wizard player to use the 3.5 Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, and PHB II, plus Dragon Magic and all those other splatbooks not to mention whatever the guy was allowed to use by 3rd party publishers along with Pathfinder books, which is a sure-fire way to stack bonus on top of bonus, especially if the rule that the same type of bonuses (except for dodge bonuses and un-typed bonuses) never stack is ignored by everyone at the table.
And hey, if that's the type of game you guys like playing more power to you, I'm not saying it's badwrongfun, I'm just saying it's not comparable to PFRPG core rules.
Backwards-compatibility, to me as a GM, is that if a player wants to use something from OGL or 3.5 to help flesh out their character concept then I will let them use it if it isn't counter-intuitive to the changes put in place by the Pathfinder RPG to fix what was "wrong" with 3.5, and more than likely it will go through some type of revision by me so that it is balanced before I allow it
Any non-core book is a splat book. In any event the summoner is not OP'd if you stick to pathfinder, but any class can be broken when you add in 3.5 books. Happy Gaming.
Any non-core book is a splat book. In any event the summoner is not OP'd if you stick to pathfinder, but any class can be broken when you add in 3.5 books. Happy Gaming.
This might be the accepted meaning, I don't know, but I always thought that splatbook referred to sourcebook material that covered one type of player character. So, the big book of elves, or the big book of guys who fight with swords, etc. I think it is a White Wolf term originally, I recall reading that they referred to them as "*book" with "*" pronounced "splat."
A lot of non-core material comes from adventure paths, modules, and the like. Those books don't match the definition of "splatbook" that I was familiar with. Does this make sense? Do I need to update my understanding of the word?
Any non-core book is a splat book. In any event the summoner is not OP'd if you stick to pathfinder, but any class can be broken when you add in 3.5 books. Happy Gaming.This might be the accepted meaning, I don't know, but I always thought that splatbook referred to sourcebook material that covered one type of player character. So, the big book of elves, or the big book of guys who fight with swords, etc. I think it is a White Wolf term originally, I recall reading that they referred to them as "*book" with "*" pronounced "splat."
A lot of non-core material comes from adventure paths, modules, and the like. Those books don't match the definition of "splatbook" that I was familiar with. Does this make sense? Do I need to update my understanding of the word?
It generally refers to books that have additional rules, feats and so on.
The complete series for WoTC as an example are splat books even though any one book covers many prestige classes and feats. For the most part if it is not a core rule book I consider it splat, but your definition does match the complete series fairly well.PS:The APG is considered to be core so I don't consider it to be splat, and the information in it is ok to be posted online.
I never considered adventure paths and such as splat.
PS:The APG is considered to be core so I don't consider it to be splat, and the information in it is ok to be posted online.
Is that so? I had thought that only the Bestiary and the CRB were core.
PS:The APG is considered to be core so I don't consider it to be splat, and the information in it is ok to be posted online.Is that so? I had thought that only the Bestiary and the CRB were core.
d20pfsrd has the new classes and many of the feats there. There are also rebuilds of monsters directly from the AP. The pathfinder(not 3.5) AP monsters, and feats are also allowed.
I guess being open to allowing information may not automatically make it core though. I can't find anything to support that belief.
As a side note I should have used "non-core" as opposed to "splat-book", when I was discussing the summoner.
The class is powerful, it's not overpowered.
The problem with the class is not where it sits in terms of relative power to the other classes, but the number of special rules that it has attached to it.
-James
+1
I think paizo just kinda tried to do the best they could.
The playtest brought up so many problems they had to patch several times.
So for the final the once beautiful cloak of summoner is patched all across the back with "new rules and limitations"
To be fair I think its a great class and has a lot of flavor, but the real problem with it being "over powered" is there are too many rules to remember in governing its powers sometimes.
it happens, better then no rules to govern it at all :)