Bards don't have pets nearly as powerful as fellow PCs
That's a rather nebulous power comparison.
Summoners also don't have a few dozen ranks worth of skill points built into their class features, along with having less skill ranks in general anyway. They also don't have the ability to use Inspire Courage, Mass Suggestion or other performances, short of mimicking them to a minor degree through spells.
You said you didn't understand why they made them a 3/4 BAB that could cast in armor. I'm simply pointing out that their Hit dice, BAB, casting progression, and armor proficiency is all identical to the Bard.
As far as balance goes on the rest of the class features, that's based much more on personal opinion.
I stand corrected with the cost. That being said I'm glad it is only 4000 gp. No way would I throw away and waste 6000 gp on that item. I rather save the money and buy a cloak of resistance +2 which is better value
As an archer, I'd rather buy a +6000 bracer of falcon, than upgrading my bow to +2. It's better in every aspect, and cost is the same.
It is a good item at all levels. I'm still not seeing how it can be considered a truly broken item. Poweful yes. Possibly a good buy for what it does. Yet to put it in the category of power creep is to me anyway laughable.
To be power creep, it doesn't need to be so blatantly broken that destroy the game balance by it's sole presence.
The addition of several small incremental raises in power, in different books, it's power creep too. If you get a new "magic focus" feat that gives +1 DC to spells, it's not something overpowered. If you get a "focus spectacles" magic item that gives +1 it's no overpowered. A spell that gives you +1 to DC for a school of magic isn't overpowered, or a feat that gives you +1 to a single spell DC, or a racial bonus that gives you +1 with a type of spells (Such as "mind affecting" or "fire")But after several incremental non-overpowered effects, and adding them to existing options such as Spell focus or Elemental focus, you find yourself with a power creep that allow a caster to add +10 or more to the DC of some spells. That's power creep, because it's not possible without the addition of those new small increments of power.
Summoners also don't have a few dozen ranks worth of skill points built into their class features, along with having less skill ranks in general anyway.
Remember that in addition to their own 4+Int skill points per level (and being able to put extra points into Int freely thanks to their eidolon not depending on their stats), Summoners also have the eidolon itself, which comes with its own 6+Int skill points per hit die (default 4). Even without ever increasing the eidolon's ability score, the summoner and eidolon have 8+Int skills between them - as much as a rogue. Toss in the Skilled evolution and summoners have as many ranks worth of skill points built into their class features as you want (and the ability to get bonuses well above the usual one-skill-per-hit-die limit), as well as more skill ranks by default than a bard anyhow (6+Int for the bard, 8+Int for summoner and eidolon).
Summoners are 2+Int on skill ranks actually, if I recall correctly.
Fair point, though.
Huh, so they are. My mistake.
That still effectively gives them 6+Int skills with their eidolon, though - enough to easily let them take the skill monkey role.
|
Bards don't have pets nearly as powerful as fellow PCsThat's a rather nebulous power comparison.
Summoners also don't have a few dozen ranks worth of skill points built into their class features, along with having less skill ranks in general anyway. They also don't have the ability to use Inspire Courage, Mass Suggestion or other performances, short of mimicking them to a minor degree through spells.
You said you didn't understand why they made them a 3/4 BAB that could cast in armor. I'm simply pointing out that their Hit dice, BAB, casting progression, and armor proficiency is all identical to the Bard.
As far as balance goes on the rest of the class features, that's based much more on personal opinion.
Would you say an eidelon is greater or lesser than the Bard's magic and special abilities.
If you made the summoner a 1/2 casting class without armor it would better fit the flavor and balance the power of the eidelon.
Instead, you gave it the same attack progression and armor as a rogue.
Would you say an eidelon is greater or lesser than the Bard's magic and special abilities.
I get the feeling this was meant to be sarcastic, but um, yeah, I would say an eidolon is not worth nearly as much as a bard's magic and special abilities. Just kind of curious, have you actually played a summoner?
Yes, the action economy they get is pretty boss. The eidolon sure as hell doesn't match a bard though, who's buffing most of the party with an inspire courage and/or casting spells (though that should probably be taken out of the equation, since Summoners can do that too). Bards are also a fair bit more effective at actual combat than the summoner, as they have proficiency with more than simple weapons, and the ability to wear a shield without a chance for spell failure.
If built for combat, the eidolon may be about as effective as a fighter at early levels, perhaps more so. It's absolutely going to fall behind at later levels though. It won't have nearly as good damage output and it'll very likely have less HP (possibly more AC though, between it's scaling armor bonus and possibility for armor evolutions).
If you made the summoner a 1/2 casting class without armor it would better fit the flavor and balance the power of the eidelon.
Better fit the flavor? Possibly.
Balance out the eidolon? Um... honestly, that sounds like such a huge nerf, I can't imagine anyone playing a summoner in that case. You'd have the BAB of a wizard (who gets full casting), and the spells of a Paladin/Ranger (who gets... full BAB).
And in return you get a pet, admittedly a pretty cool one, but that's it. I guarantee an actual class could do anything the eidolon does better, and at that point the summoner would be nothing but a major weak point for the eidolon. You'd be much better served by just playing a Fighter or Barbarian.
My opinion, anyway.
Not to mention that the eideolon gets skills as well.
...That's actually exactly why that was mentioned...
Would you say an eidelon is greater or lesser than the Bard's magic and special abilities.I get the feeling this was meant to be sarcastic, but um, yeah, I would say an eidolon is not worth nearly as much as a bard's magic and special abilities. Just kind of curious, have you actually played a summoner?
Just to point out: you can't compare the eidolon to the bard's magic and special abilities. You have to compare it to the bard's special abilities alone. Because, you know... the summoner has magic too. The turn the bard is casting haste, the summoner is casting haste and the eidolon is shredding things.
And in return you get a pet, admittedly a pretty cool one, but that's it. I guarantee an actual class could do anything the eidolon does better, and at that point the summoner would be nothing but a major weak point for the eidolon. You'd be much better served by just playing a Fighter or Barbarian.
The barbarian or fighter can smash things, but the eidolon can smash things while casting Black Tentacles. That's a major selling point, IMHO.
The only summoner that really will miss 3/4 BAB is the syntethist. Which deserves his own thread.
I feel like this is devolving into just summoner discussion... but...
Just to point out: you can't compare the eidolon to the bard's magic and special abilities. You have to compare it to the bard's special abilities alone. Because, you know... the summoner has magic too.
I know, and I mentioned that the summoner has magic too. I still think a pet that can do some damage is more or less on par with bardic performance (plus the other things, but bardic performance is the big one).
The only summoner that really will miss 3/4 BAB is the syntethist. Which deserves his own thread.
Well, for starters, while fused the summoner uses the eidolon's BAB. Interestingly enough, that means that if the summoner had 1/2 BAB, the eidolon's would be an upgrade. With 3/4, they're pretty much on the same track (as the eidolon maxes at 15 HD).
Anyway though, I'd disagree regardless. I personally like that the summoner can be moderately effective with actual attacks. I know it's probably not the most effective way to play them, but having your summoner and eidolon work together on flanking (teamwork feats are cool too) can be a cool way to play (archery is another one. I've actually got an archer summoner atm). Most summoners may focus on battlefield control and/or other spellcasting, but that doesn't mean they have to. I like the 3/4 BAB progression for them.
Besides, considering the 2/3 spell progression, it kind of needs to balance out somewhere along that axis. If they had 1/2 BAB, it would also follow that they should have full casting. Does that seem like a better idea?
I feel like this is devolving into just summoner discussion... but...
Just to point out: you can't compare the eidolon to the bard's magic and special abilities. You have to compare it to the bard's special abilities alone. Because, you know... the summoner has magic too.I know, and I mentioned that the summoner has magic too. I still think a pet that can do some damage is more or less on par with bardic performance (plus the other things, but bardic performance is the big one).
The Eidolon does not do "some damage". It does full character damage. At level 7, in my party, the antipaladin has +14/+9 attacks of 1d8+8, or 1d8+15 with smite evil. The Summoner's eidolon can pounce for +14/+14/+14/+14/+14 and does 1d6+1d6+6, if I recall correctly. Plus it has more AC.
TBesides, considering the 2/3 spell progression, it kind of needs to balance out somewhere along that axis. If they had 1/2 BAB, it would also follow that they should have full casting. Does that seem like a better idea?
It's false that they have 2/3 spell progression. Yes, they go to 6th level max. But they cast haste as 2nd lvl spell, at level 4. They cast dimensional door, or black tentacles, as 3rd level spells, at lvl 7. And so on. They can also cast Summon Monster IX, as a standard action, and duration in minutes.
They might not be sorcerors, but they swipe the floor with bard's spell progression. They are *Very* close to a full spellcaster.
There's a rash of 3/4 BAB in later-than-CRB books, actually. Oracles -- which are just divine Sorcerers, so how do THEY rate 3/4? Alchemists (which I do like) which don't REALLY seem like they deserve 3/4; they're lab techs with grenades, why do they qualify?
Eh.
Oracles get 3/4 because Clerics get 3/4. As it is they are generally inferior to Clerics(IMO) because of the lack of domain powers, and inferior saves (drastically inferior really since the only strong save is will, and unlike a cleric they have no reason to pump wisdom, so they have a strong save with no stat help).
Now to be quite honest I would say there ought to be a 1/2 BAB divine caster class (or a set covering spontaneous and prepared), but that's a pretty major revision. As it is clerics and oracles are probably too good since, though one can argue the arcane spell selection makes up for the differences (don't know that I agree really).
Alchemists get 3/4 because they need it. They do have some MAD issues, and without a decent BAB they would miss all the time with their key class feature.
Clerics being 3/4 has... wait for it... <0 to do with Oracles.
Umm, yes it does. It has to do with the spell list. Divine casters are assumed to have less powerful spells, so they get better combat ability and durability.
Now granted I don't know if that is fully the case, but it is how it has been for a while. By and large, though, arcane spells are more powerful.
Personally I'd have done things differently in designing classes, but there were legacy issues in both making 3.0 and PF. One of those was armored, fighting clerics.
Ok, sure you could have made Oracles a 1/2BAB and no armor class. Then nobody in their right mind would ever play them because they would be even more inferior to clerics.
In my old campaign, there was a vanilla Druid just straight out of CRB, using CRB feats, and a few APG and UC spells, and she kept up with, or even exceeded, the Gunslinger, who was optimized to fill the most enemies with the most lead, in terms of damage. And had utility, which is something the Gunslinger didn't have.
So, while options like the Gunslinger might appear over-powered and severely power-creeped, in practice all options are fairly equal.
|
|
It was meant as an honest question, no sarcasm intended.
I think the eidelon is worth far more than the bard abilities, if only considering the sheer action economy.
Add to that the summoner still gets the same number of spells as the Bard.
This is why I don't understand why they felt the need to provide armor and 3/4 BaB.
This is why I don't understand why they felt the need to provide armor and 3/4 BaB.
Not that I'm fully sure, but I think Summoners got the light armor because of the inability to share magic item slots. As the Eidolon is going to be wading into combat, most of the GP is going to be spent there to maximize effectiveness (at least I do on mine). Thus the Summoner ends up rather magic item poor in actual play. Making it so that the Eidolon can't wear armor and the summoner can gives at least some protection for the weak link in the Duo. Summoners really are pretty squishy.
Now the 3/4 BAB, well I can't really make much of a case for that. At low level my Summoner could at least face being decent with a crossbow (have a lot of the needed feats), which was pretty necessary since the spellcasting is rather paltry at low level. However at 11th, I doubt I could hit anything of reasonable threat that we're facing, and the damage is irrelevant. I wouldn't really miss the 3/4 BAB much if it were 1/2.
The vast majority of the mechanics of the Oracle are based on the Sorcerer; this is much more than "window dressing:" it's the core of the functioning of the class, improved upon in the ways I cited earlier.
How do you feel about Clerics getting 3/4 BAB, d8 hit die, medium armor, simple weapons (plus one martial or exotic weapon), good Fort save, spontaneous casting of cures, and access to their entire spell list while Wizards only have 1/2 BAB, d6 hit die, no armor, no weapons, bad Fort save, and no spontaneous casting, and are restricted by a spellbook and their opposition schools? They're both 9-level prepared casters, so they're clearly supposed to be pretty much the same; why does the Cleric get all those extra bonuses?
The vast majority of the mechanics of the Cleric are based on the Wizard; this is much more than "window dressing:" it's the core of the functioning of the class, improved upon in the ways I cited earlier.
|
|
This is why I don't understand why they felt the need to provide armor and 3/4 BaB.
Not that I'm fully sure, but I think Summoners got the light armor because of the inability to share magic item slots. As the Eidolon is going to be wading into combat, most of the GP is going to be spent there to maximize effectiveness (at least I do on mine). Thus the Summoner ends up rather magic item poor in actual play. Making it so that the Eidolon can't wear armor and the summoner can gives at least some protection for the weak link in the Duo. Summoners really are pretty squishy.
Now the 3/4 BAB, well I can't really make much of a case for that. At low level my Summoner could at least face being decent with a crossbow (have a lot of the needed feats), which was pretty necessary since the spellcasting is rather paltry at low level. However at 11th, I doubt I could hit anything of reasonable threat that we're facing, and the damage is irrelevant. I wouldn't really miss the 3/4 BAB much if it were 1/2.
I don't disagree that the summoner is magic item poor, but I think if you are going to say Wizards and Sorcerers are going to be out of armor, I don''t see the logic of making an exception for a class that is basically a specialist arcane caster class. Particularly when you are giving them a build in tank to soak all the damage for them.
The summoners squishiness I feel like is the only balancing factor considering how powerful an eideolon can be.
I don't disagree that the summoner is magic item poor, but I think if you are going to say Wizards and Sorcerers are going to be out of armor, I don''t see the logic of making an exception for a class that is basically a specialist arcane caster class. Particularly when you are giving them a build in tank to soak all the damage for them.
The summoners squishiness I feel like is the only balancing factor considering how powerful an eideolon can be.
I think you are over estimating how good the armor manages to be. Right now on my 11th summoner, she has a 19 AC due to +2 mithral chain shirt. I could pump my AC as high as 23 with a shield spell. That would still leave me with not enough AC to matter against threats of that level. Without the ability to stack in amulets, rings, and other items, it's pretty moot. AC (IMO) is an all or nothing proposition. Either you go to far enough to get to a relevant number for your level, or it's a very poor investment.
Heck, I don't think it would make much difference if that went away as well to be honest. You'd just be even more cautious with the summoner.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it also an issue of why do they have it if Wizards and Sorcerers don't?
Why should a summoner be less squishy than a sorcerer or wizard? They are doing the same conceptual thing with a different mechanics. There is no reason they should get something the other two don't, either in the form of 3/4 BaB or armor.
And if you adjusted that, I think a lot of the Summoner is broken talk goes away.
But it also an issue of why do they have it if Wizards and Sorcerers don't?
Why should a summoner be less squishy than a sorcerer or wizard? They are doing the same conceptual thing with a different mechanics. There is no reason they should get something the other two don't, either in the form of 3/4 BaB or armor.
And if you adjusted that, I think a lot of the Summoner is broken talk goes away.
I really don't think it would solve it at all. Honestly those two things, the light armor and the 3/4 BAB are irrelevant in terms of what makes people call summoners overpowered. The first thing that makes people think summoners are too powerful is people making broken Eidolons. The second is their action economy. They can buff while their Eidolon attacks. However the former isn't something that can be fixed by the rules, and the latter only becomes consequential in higher levels. By the time those higher levels arrive the armor and BAB abilities have vanished into insignificance.
At low level I suspect the armor is needed just to make the summoner able to stand up for a while since Eidolons really are lacking in HP early on. They also have a very limited number of spells at those levels. When the Eidolon goes 'pop' you're left with someone who can cast some pretty mild stuff very few times a day from a limited selection. Yes, the summoning spells are much better, but again, those are pretty whimpy early on unless you build for it (or have a master summoner).
Again, I'd say you could take those things away, but they would just make low levels rougher, and those are already kinda tough on a summoner. At high levels, they aren't worthy of notice.
I think broken eidelons are quickly corrected by dead summoners :)
Certainly. That's why I always thought the synthesist needed some nerfing since it took away the weak point of the class which was the summoner them self.
Never quite decided what nerfs to use though. For the meantime I would probably just not allow one in my home games.
I think broken eidelons are quickly corrected by dead summoners :)Certainly. That's why I always thought the synthesist needed some nerfing since it took away the weak point of the class which was the summoner them self.
Never quite decided what nerfs to use though. For the meantime I would probably just not allow one in my home games.
The best answer to that is none. The summoner isn't bad, and the synthesist is less powerful than the base summoner.
The best answer to that is none. The summoner isn't bad, and the synthesist is less powerful than the base summoner.
Everyone loves to say that, but I'm not even close to convinced. Just the ability to make a caster who has access to some decent spells (at higher levels) who can pump their AC above a comparable fighter, and with very high physical stats, interesting physical abilities, and an really large pool of HP is pretty over the top. Yes, you give up the action economy advantage, but you get a level of invulnerability not enjoyed by almost any other class if you build it right.
|
|
I like the concept of the synthesist. I wish they had made it a separate class rather than an archetype.
I'm not sure if it is broken, as you do lose the extra action, but I am sure it failed at being the cool Iron Man concept which seemed to be what they were going for and what they failed to reach.
Which is a shame, because it would be totally reachable.
I like the concept of the synthesist. I wish they had made it a separate class rather than an archetype.
I'm not sure if it is broken, as you do lose the extra action, but I am sure it failed at being the cool Iron Man concept which seemed to be what they were going for and what they failed to reach.
Which is a shame, because it would be totally reachable.
I don't know if flat out broken is the term, though maybe. It's just that it removes the solution to dispatching a summoner. You gank the summoner and the big tough Eidolon goes poof. I've seen summoners in adventures and because of the required sigils on their heads, it's easy enough to recognize it. That's a pretty clear reason for the sigils. I can remember when I read the class understanding that the sigil was a target on the summoner's head saying "kill me, I have a nasty pet". Putting the summoner inside of the pet dispenses with that vulnerability.
The rune can be hidden by mundane means. Any balancing feature that can be overcome by "my hair is long" or "I wear a hat" isn't balancing anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still all this summoner hate? Well, we arent going anywhere until there's a PF 2nd edition =P
|
The rune can be hidden by mundane means. Any balancing feature that can be overcome by "my hair is long" or "I wear a hat" isn't balancing anything.
hats and hair can just as easily be removed or cause player issues. if a player takes advantage of GM time saving to increase fun such as not tracking every bathroom run that's not a rules problem it's a player problem.
hats and hair can just as easily be removed or cause player issues. if a player takes advantage of GM time saving to increase fun such as not tracking every bathroom run that's not a rules problem it's a player problem.
What exactly are you even trying to say here?
|
|
hats and hair can just as easily be removed or cause player issues. if a player takes advantage of GM time saving to increase fun such as not tracking every bathroom run that's not a rules problem it's a player problem.What exactly are you even trying to say here?
A hat or long hair won't work at hiding a large glowing rune.
Npcs have a society that have values and social norms. Just because the gm doesn't bring it up doesn't mean you can stomp around town covered in dirt and hiding your face with out consequences. Trying to do so to take advantage of the game is not nice player behavior.
A weak mundane disguise like that might pass a casual uninterested observer but that's about it. Diplomacy, shopping, walking around town unmolested by guards/thugs/children is difficult or impossible when hiding your face.
I dunno what kind of society you live in where covering your forehead with a hat will get you beaten by guards.
It's not just my interpretation that the rune can be hidden; it's explicitly stated in the class description.
A hat or long hair won't work at hiding a large glowing rune.
Serious question here: I don't see anything suggesting that the rune is especially large, and the only indication that it glows is that the Eidolon's rune glows.
But really, this is flavor, not a balancing factor. The vast majority of people wouldn't have any idea what the rune was even if they did see it.
|
|
Hiding anything will draw attention and problems. Even using a better means than a hat won't be perfect, and then it is more suspicious since it was hidden.
Pimples are easily noticed yet super tiny, if the glowing rune can be tiny it would still be super noticeable. The rune is identical to the one on the eidolon, so it glows too.
Walking around town with big wads of cash looking like a criminal is going to attact attention, especially if the PC is not complying to normal requests.
Anyway it's the fact that the pc is hiding something that's suspicious and most likely to cause problems. It would be easier to just let people see it and not be shady. If the pc has to hide it, assuming he isnt shady, then he is in one of the intolerant areas of the game world where it would just be one of the many things against you and probably not worth hiding - unless its super intolerant.
Especially since the pc already has to defend the half orc, tiefling, elf, dwarf, and human companions who have already caused a ruckus by being dressed up like Christmas trees of wealth and magic.
Hiding anything will draw attention and problems. Even using a better means than a hat won't be perfect, and then it is more suspicious since it was hidden.
** spoiler omitted **
I don't think you're running a "D&D World." And that's fine, because I don't, either. But in a D&D world, there are catfolk, half demons, dragon people, dudes covered in flaming runes, and stranger stuff walking around. Having an odd rune on your forehead isn't going to scare people unless you think every non-core race would, too.
I didn't have a chance to read the whole thread so this might have been mentioned.
I love new material but one of the issues with adding spells/feats/abilities are classes that can continually increase thier selection of said abilities.
For instance... A wizard can almost instantly gain more power when new spells are released because he simply has to do a little research or visit a magic shop or a scroll. A fighter on the other hand cannot change the feats he has gained and has a small pool of feats to pick up. So every book released that has spells makes the wizard/witch/cleric/druid just a little bit more powerful. Oracles and Sorcerors also benefit somewhat because their options are increased as they level.
So while a Core Wizard and a Core Fighter might be balanced... the more material that is released the more a Wizard will pull ahead.
So while a Core Wizard and a Core Fighter might be balanced... the more material that is released the more a Wizard will pull ahead.
On top of that I would say they have been pretty careful to avoid much power creep for fighters. There are a couple of examples (gloves of dueling, clustered shots, etc), but I would say the plethora of new spells available amounts to a greater upgrade to classes which were more powerful already.
A fighter on the other hand cannot change the feats he has gained and has a small pool of feats to pick up.
Fighters actually can change out their bonus feats, just like spontaneous casters can change spells.
Clerics being 3/4 has... wait for it... <0 to do with Oracles.
Structurally, the Oracle is pretty much equal to a Sorcerer, in terms of spells/day and Revelations being (roughly) equal to Bloodline Powers.
Oracles are so close to Sorcerors, as Clerics are to Wizards. Oracles get spontaneous casting from a limited pool of spells,as sorcerers, and clerics prepare spells in Vancian style, as Wizards. So I don't see what's your point there
They're a full-caster class, operating in up to medium armor, with powers that (imo) FAR outstrip the paltry Domain abilities of Clerics.AND they get 3/4 BAB over Sorcerers' 1/2?
There's no justice in that.
Druids and Clerics are full casters too. But they can't cast fireball, haste, fly or mirror image. They cast instead divine power, righteous might, flame blade, or magic fang. That's why they have 3/4 BAB and armor, because they go to melee.
Any argument made to "show" that oracles are too powerful compared to Sorcerers, can be equally made to say clerics are too powerful compared to wizards. And honestly I don't feel wizards are wimped compared to clerics. Or sorcerers compared to oracles.