The problem is that play experiences vary quite a bit, and may give results that diverge from the consensus. For instance, my allegedly highly optimized summoner hasn't seemed overpowered at all- the eidolon's pounces have been hard to pull off, damage is low, hit points are low, and I find myself envying the barbarian's damage ability. I outmatch the rogue, but you don't call a Toyota Corolla overpowered by comparing it to a Yugo.
opinions are shaped by campaigns and campaign circumstances.
Rogues look great in urban campaigns against humanoid foes. Ditto monks.
start operating outside those paradigms and things start showing themselves mechanically.
DM's also cover their bases with fudged rolls, poor tactics adn the like to cover for their players.
Mechanics are hard and unforgiving. While randomness can make stuff shine or suck on individual occasions, over time there is no way to fool the odds.
And that's why you get such broad consensus on what classes are great and which are not.
==Aelryinth
Because opinions are much more valuable that testable facts...
Aren't most people's opinions on the subject based on observations made in actual play?
I don't see why we need to crunch numbers on a dozen builds for every class and compare notes when we have literally thousands of play reports on the forums to draw from that are examples of how people actually play the game and aren't just mathematical exercises.
Because play is subjective.
I have had one poster assuring me that the AP that my monk struggled in was ruled by the monk in their party, therefore I am wrong to say the monk was weak. Problem is, they had a different DM (mine skipped on mook encounters) and they had played half the AP, while all the problems lay in the second half.
How do you compare one poster whose character was diced up and had awesome stats with another who was on 15-point buy?
Experiences count for a lot, but they are subjective and depend on the circumstances. Only when we compare on a level playing field with known variables do we get hard data we can all agree on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I outmatch the rogue, but you don't call a Toyota Corolla overpowered by comparing it to a Yugo.
this would be cool if it was coming from car & driver but instead it is just a thread person
It isn't baiting, it is discussing. Please actually read the post. There was no baiting involved.
EDIT: The topic of the thread is the relative strength of classes.
Wow you must have a type IV bag of holding to contain the requirements needed to tell one of the forum admins that they are wrong and should read your post better.
Do people ever get banned from these forums?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that on paper many people feel the summoner is overpowered, but I have yet to hear one in-game story where that was the case. I've heard about them slowing down the game and breaking the (complex) rules, but never have I seen a real game-play story where the summoner was OP.
It seems more like a hive-mind mentality more than one experienced in actual game play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow you must have a type IV bag of holding to contain the requirements needed to tell one of the forum admins that they are wrong and should read your post better.
As amusing as the image this post conjures is, why wouldn't he voice his disagreement if he felt something was done wrong? The admins of this forum aren't some kind of fascist regime that shut down any dissent, they're reasonable adults who can take a bit of disagreement as well.
|
If it would at least curb the ongoing debates of summoner vs fighter (or is it summoner vs everything) I would be perfectly willing to participate in a series of play by posts, specifically designed to test the summoners and fighter's relative strengths. I believe it was suggested to run two sets of AP once with a fighter and once with something else, or in this case a summoner, to see how well the fighter would fair in comparison.
Why not, I could post twice a day, and I always wanted to try a play by post. Of course that would take a long time, but if someone was willing to run it I don't see why not.
Admittedly, I'm not really into powergamming, but I could through together a powerful enough build to test if the fighter is indeed weak sauce or if he's fine as is.
That would be a waste, as the point is to compare Fighter and/or Summoner with a class that fills the same role.
So Fighter vs Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian is a go.
And Summoner vs ...uh, well, what WOULD go here? Magus/Inquisitor? Full casters?
That would be a waste, as the point is to compare Fighter and/or Summoner with a class that fills the same role.
So Fighter vs Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian is a go.
And Summoner vs ...uh, well, what WOULD go here? Magus/Inquisitor? Full casters?
Except that one of the more common complaints about the Summoner is that their Eidolon can outfight (or at least keep up with) martials, on top of the Summoner having six levels of spellcasting.
Summoners are better to compared to druids or other fullcasters. Why the heck would you compare a full-caster to a fighter. Which by-the-way. Summoners are full-casters with lower DCs, and less spell slots and spell known. They have early access to spells, because they are suppose to fill a fullcaster role.
|
Because opinions are much more valuable that testable facts...
Aren't most people's opinions on the subject based on observations made in actual play?
I don't see why we need to crunch numbers on a dozen builds for every class and compare notes when we have literally thousands of play reports on the forums to draw from that are examples of how people actually play the game and aren't just mathematical exercises.
And if those observations are made in the context of GM's that allow things other GMs would not allow, how useful are they?
I can observe the world is flat, it doesn't make it so.
If people were actually citing play reports on the forums for the argument, THAT would actually be useful.
But I don't believe I have ever seen that happen. Seriously, in all of these discussions, I can't even recall a link to a play thread. Not saying it has never happened, but I am saying I've never seen it.
And the reason I don't think I've ever seen it is that when people who complain about the power and balance are actually forced to show what game they play in, most (if not all) of the problems are created by the group's reading of the rules, and not the rules themselves.
Having evidence is not particularly useful if you don't use it.
|
|
It isn't baiting, it is discussing. Please actually read the post. There was no baiting involved.
EDIT: The topic of the thread is the relative strength of classes.
Wow you must have a type IV bag of holding to contain the requirements needed to tell one of the forum admins that they are wrong and should read your post better.
Do people ever get banned from these forums?
Yes.
|
|
Wow you must have a type IV bag of holding to contain the requirements needed to tell one of the forum admins that they are wrong and should read your post better.As amusing as the image this post conjures is, why wouldn't he voice his disagreement if he felt something was done wrong? The admins of this forum aren't some kind of fascist regime that shut down any dissent, they're reasonable adults who can take a bit of disagreement as well.
They really are. And I'm honestly not saying that to kiss up. A PM was had, I overstepped in commenting before I PMed, but we are all grown ups.
|
|
If it would at least curb the ongoing debates of summoner vs fighter (or is it summoner vs everything) I would be perfectly willing to participate in a series of play by posts, specifically designed to test the summoners and fighter's relative strengths. I believe it was suggested to run two sets of AP once with a fighter and once with something else, or in this case a summoner, to see how well the fighter would fair in comparison.
Why not, I could post twice a day, and I always wanted to try a play by post. Of course that would take a long time, but if someone was willing to run it I don't see why not.
Admittedly, I'm not really into powergamming, but I could through together a powerful enough build to test if the fighter is indeed weak sauce or if he's fine as is.
I am very curious about this as well, as obviously the theorycraft summoner seems overpowered, but I've also noticed most of the broken summoner threads involve a lot of user error.
It was fairly heavily playtested in the design process, so I would be interested in seeing it actually laid out.
Might as well compare fighter vs druid while we're at it. I'm sure the druid is broken when compared to the fighter too. I mean animal companion AND wild shaping AND summoning! How does that not step all over the fighters toes?
Might as well compare fighter vs druid while we're at it. I'm sure the druid is broken when compared to the fighter too. I mean animal companion AND wild shaping AND summoning! How does that not step all over the fighters toes?
Stepping on the fighter's toes is not important. If it were then we wouldn't have the other martial options who can do the "hit things and meat shield" plus tons of other stuff.
If you're balancing a class, use Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard as your benchmarks. Those are the classes in core that aren't plagued with problems.
|
|
Might as well compare fighter vs druid while we're at it. I'm sure the druid is broken when compared to the fighter too. I mean animal companion AND wild shaping AND summoning! How does that not step all over the fighters toes?
Which also includes division of resources between the animal companion and if the playstyle you prefer allows for a ton of pre-buffing.
Because "you" are sure something is broken in "your" game doesn't mean it is broken.
Perhaps you can link to some playtest examples where this problem occurred and we can see if there were other causes?
The sarcasm is not strong in this one. Comparing the summoner to the fighter is like comparing apples to oranges. If you want to compare the Eidolon to the fighter that makes sense. If the eidolon is close or hands down better than a fighter then you can say "oh that's probably not OK". But comparing the summoners SLA, eidolon, and partial full-casting to the fighter in terms of combat effectiveness is dumb. Might as well compare the fighter to the druid, wizard, sorcerer, and cleric and then say those classes are OP and broken.
|
|
The sarcasm is not strong in this one. Comparing the summoner to the fighter is like comparing apples to oranges. If you want to compare the Eidolon to the fighter that makes sense. If the eidolon is close or hands down better than a fighter then you can say "oh that's probably not OK". But comparing the summoners SLA, eidolon, and partial full-casting to the fighter in terms of combat effectiveness is dumb. Might as well compare the fighter to the druid, wizard, sorcerer, and cleric and then say those classes are OP and broken.
I'm completely serious.
You stated something as fact, and I'm asking what your evidence is.
If that strikes you as sarcastic, I think that demonstrates the fundamental problems with how these discussions go.
Too many people wanting to be right, not enough willing to test it.
The question is, and always should be, can I make a viable and useful member of a party with this class.
*I was being sarcastic*
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have played in and Dm a few PFS games with a Summoner and yes they are that good. A Game I DM's, I even had the Summoner's player talk to me offline about how he was not going to even summon his eidelon at all for a level just to see basically how the class played without that feature, and he did just fine. This was back pretty early when the class was fist out, so no Archtypes, just the base Summoner.
You can say that its a subjective experience I guess, but PFS is probably the closest you can get to objective as everyone uses a set standard of rules and scenarios do sometimes dictate what can and can not be done in some circumstances. The Summoner is on par with the other main casters, but also get a lot more bang for their buck having a lower spell level spell list, and able to use items like Metamagic Rods on spells that other casters can't (or for a lot cheaper) opening up things like wands for their spells that other can't. It at worst, keeps up with the Druid, both as a battle caster and having their buddy. Far exceeds them in SM/SNA. Their pet can is good enough to keep up with/outdo the front liners, and really doesn't have to worry about death, status effects, or things like that, or draining party resources for a Res or Restoration.
There is a reason that it's a troupe that its the Eidelon and it's pet, the Summoner. If you really want to have an honest comparison, lets looks at a Barbarian or Fighter that gets Leadership and a pet healing/buffing Cleric/Oracle, as that's pretty close to a level field, in my opinion.
|
|
PFS is usually pretty good citation. And they actually do ban problem archetypes on occasion.
Again, I'm not saying things aren't broken, I'm more saying that the people who shout the loudest about it in one thread are the same ones who allow a lot of questionable rulings in other threads.
And I don't think this is coincidence.
I have played in and Dm a few PFS games with a Summoner and yes they are that good. A Game I DM's, I even had the Summoner's player talk to me offline about how he was not going to even summon his eidelon at all for a level just to see basically how the class played without that feature, and he did just fine. This was back pretty early when the class was fist out, so no Archtypes, just the base Summoner.
You can say that its a subjective experience I guess, but PFS is probably the closest you can get to objective as everyone uses a set standard of rules and scenarios do sometimes dictate what can and can not be done in some circumstances. The Summoner is on par with the other main casters, but also get a lot more bang for their buck having a lower spell level spell list, and able to use items like Metamagic Rods on spells that other casters can't (or for a lot cheaper) opening up things like wands for their spells that other can't. It at worst, keeps up with the Druid, both as a battle caster and having their buddy. Far exceeds them in SM/SNA. Their pet can is good enough to keep up with/outdo the front liners, and really doesn't have to worry about death, status effects, or things like that, or draining party resources for a Res or Restoration.
There is a reason that it's a troupe that its the Eidelon and it's pet, the Summoner. If you really want to have an honest comparison, lets looks at a Barbarian or Fighter that gets Leadership and a pet healing/buffing Cleric/Oracle, as that's pretty close to a level field, in my opinion.
You said the summoner was on par with full-casters. Does that include the eidolon or are you just talking about spell casting. Was the staying power (less slots) and low DCs not a factor at all? Was their lack of spells known not a factor either?
Might as well compare fighter vs druid while we're at it. I'm sure the druid is broken when compared to the fighter too. I mean animal companion AND wild shaping AND summoning! How does that not step all over the fighters toes?
Because the druid's animal companion isn't as good at fighting as the fighter. It is if you buff it, but that's using the druid's resources in actions and spells to achieve the result of one class matching another.
If the summoner's eidelon can match the fighter sans buffs, then this is an issue as the summoner is free to do other stuff while his eidelon takes the fighter's place.
Why you hating on fighters????
It isn't hate to give valid and substantiated criticism.
WotC ran into this issue recently with their now-infamous "rat swarm" in D&DN. They didn't use swarm rules (which existed in the two previous editions), instead just using 18 rats hiding in a trash pile. That's 18 d20 rolls, possibly twice as many due to advantage/disadvantage mechanic. I don't recall seeing any criticisms that the rats were overpowered or underpowered. I did see lots of criticisms that no one wanted to roll that many dice. I think effects that aren't strictly based on the rules are still valid for criticism and change.
The original module had 18 rats too. It wasn't a mistake: they wanted you to actually run NEXT in the old module.
People (players) being lazy now and not back in the day was the issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You said the summoner was on par with full-casters. Does that include the eidolon or are you just talking about spell casting. Was the staying power (less slots) and low DCs not a factor at all? Was their lack of spells known not a factor either?
No, not really. In most cases, the concept that spells known is a lot more inferior than other forms of spellcasting is sort of wrong, with the exception of the Wizard, who actually needs to buy spells. But even that isn't that bad. If you take a Cleric and an Oracle, the Cleric knows all their spells, all of them, while the Oracle needs to choose. But the thing is, in both cases, (assuming a similar focus in build, for instance a healing cleric and a healing oracle, or a party buffing cleric and a party buffing oracle), they are probably going to have an extremely similar, if not identical list of spells they can actually use in that adventure. (and once they can start buying potions, scrolls, and wands for those "just in case" spells, the importane of picking which spells are prepped/known really drops a lot)
A lot of the time, DC's for the Summoner are not a factor, anyway. They don't really suffer as much as you want to imply they do for having fewer spell slots, (which might not even be true at all), because like I said, they get the added bonus of having a smaller number of spell levels, which means that they can get more benefit from items like Pearls of Power. When Wands and Scrolls start to become a factor, that likewise is actually a benefit to them, especially if they can create their own (not in PFS). Because they are less MAD than the Cleric or Druid, closer to the Sorcerer in my opinion, that makes it easier for them to bump their spellcasting stat, meaning a more spells per level and higher DC's.
Their base spell list includes a lot of great spell choices, too, many that a similarly leveled Cleric/Druid/Oracle/Sorcerer/Wizard would hand pick from their list. Add in the basically free Summon Monster (sp) and permanent Shield Other-like ability, are they really even behind? Not really. Oh yah, they also have a pet, too. . .
SPell DC is only important if you are casting debuff spells on enemies.
If you are mostly focused on buffs and summons, which the summoner is, DC is extremely unimportant.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters just need to go back to the drawing board.Why you hating on fighters????
Here is a quick summary. To avoid derailing the thread into a fighter-thread (it's become a noun :P) you can PM me if you want more details.
1) Fighters lack methods of dealing with many common elements of combat that don't involve only attack rolls and non-touch AC. Thus rendering fighters poor at fighting.
2) Fighters rely heavily on GM fiat to get the weapons they need to remain competitive with their peers in damage.
3) Fighters have little to offer the party other than being some more HP and attack rolls and increase party drain.
4) Fighters have little to offer in situations where hitting stuff is not appropriate (worst skill pool in the game).
5) Fighters are hoisted by their own petard because his greatest strength (the ability to qualify for feat chains) is also that which breaks him (most feat chains are underwhelming per feat and eat his class features, and due to the restrictions on his retraining feature often make it impossible to actually use).
6) The idea that fighters are energizer bunnies is a myth, but they only go at one speed (they cannot adapt well to deal with adventures that sometimes throw singular large encounters into the mix of many little encounters, etc).
7) Their peers all preform the same roles as they quite adequately (all martials deal plenty of damage, all martials can tank, etc) while also having more options or bringing more to the table (in the form of skills, resources, or options).
If you want to discuss it further I'm sure there will be a thread about it. Or you can PM me and I'll be happy to talk about it one on one.
SPell DC is only important if you are casting debuff spells on enemies.
If you are mostly focused on buffs and summons, which the summoner is, DC is extremely unimportant.
==Aelryinth
And higher levels in lower slots is a buff. Besides making it cheaper to spam summoning spells via wands and giving access to entirely new kinds of wands (like the wand of summon monster V), it also allows for nasty stuff like the abuse of metamagic rods. Many powerful spells appear lower on their list allowing for cheaper metamagic usage. In fact they will never need a greater metamagic rod for any of their spells.
You said the summoner was on par with full-casters. Does that include the eidolon or are you just talking about spell casting. Was the staying power (less slots) and low DCs not a factor at all? Was their lack of spells known not a factor either?No, not really. In most cases, the concept that spells known is a lot more inferior than other forms of spellcasting is sort of wrong, with the exception of the Wizard, who actually needs to buy spells. But even that isn't that bad. If you take a Cleric and an Oracle, the Cleric knows all their spells, all of them, while the Oracle needs to choose. But the thing is, in both cases, (assuming a similar focus in build, for instance a healing cleric and a healing oracle, or a party buffing cleric and a party buffing oracle), they are probably going to have an extremely similar, if not identical list of spells they can actually use in that adventure. (and once they can start buying potions, scrolls, and wands for those "just in case" spells, the importane of picking which spells are prepped/known really drops a lot)
A lot of the time, DC's for the Summoner are not a factor, anyway. They don't really suffer as much as you want to imply they do for having fewer spell slots, (which might not even be true at all), because like I said, they get the added bonus of having a smaller number of spell levels, which means that they can get more benefit from items like Pearls of Power. When Wands and Scrolls start to become a factor, that likewise is actually a benefit to them, especially if they can create their own (not in PFS). Because they are less MAD than the Cleric or Druid, closer to the Sorcerer in my opinion, that makes it easier for them to bump their spellcasting stat, meaning a more spells per level and higher DC's.
Their base spell list includes a lot of great spell choices, too, many that a similarly leveled Cleric/Druid/Oracle/Sorcerer/Wizard would hand pick from their list. Add in the basically free Summon Monster (sp) and...
I know you play PFS, but have you ever seen a master summoner in play. No eidolon, but more summon "spells"
And higher levels in lower slots is a buff. Besides making it cheaper to spam summoning spells via wands and giving access to entirely new kinds of wands (like the wand of summon monster V), it also allows for nasty stuff like the abuse of metamagic rods. Many powerful spells appear lower on their list allowing for cheaper metamagic usage. In fact they will never need a greater metamagic rod for any of their spells.SPell DC is only important if you are casting debuff spells on enemies.
If you are mostly focused on buffs and summons, which the summoner is, DC is extremely unimportant.
==Aelryinth
They also have trouble using meta-magic feats if that means anything. They have to spend 35,000 gold to quicken spells most casters will use higher slots for. 75500 gold to quicken any of their spell. It gets pricey after awhile.
|
|
I know you play PFS, but have you ever seen a master summoner in play. No eidolon, but more summon "spells"
No I have not. I have however seen a Summon player simply refuse to use their eidolon, as if they didn't have one for the entire scenario. They did this without any benefit at all, no different archtypes, simply relying on their other class features and spellcasting, and where still a top tier character. Being able to Summon Monster as a Standard action for a Min/Level as absolutely amazing. People may not recall this, but Paizo went out of their way to nerf Summoning from 3E. They reduced the lists, (this is both SM and SNA), and reduced the ability for casters to control their summoned baddies.
Being a Celestial and Fiendish creature does not confer Int/language, meaning that learning Abyssal, Celestial, Infernal, Aquan, Auran, Ignan, & Terran does not allow the Caster to communicate with most of their summons. It also means that some of the simple spells to help that does not work anymore, which puts Summoning further down on the ladder for abuse, along with being a Full Round Action to cast and such a short duration. For pretty much any other caster, that means it's pretty pointless until 3rd or higher level. For the Summoner, though from level 1 on, they do not need to worry about prepping the right SM spell, they automatically get them all without dipping into their actual spell selection, which is far better than the Druid's ability to spontaneously cast them, and are not restricted as an Arcane Caster, to which creatures are on their list by alignment.
Toss in that the absolute closest thing I know of that only a few other classes have the option to do along these lines is Sacred Summons (which is often misunderstood a lot), and a Cleric basically gets an extremely limited list of baddies to summon as a Standard Action, but depending on their level, doesn't apply until between 7th and 17th for the first time.
They also have trouble using meta-magic feats if that means anything.
It actually doesn't mean much if anything in my opinion. They get higher level spell effects in lower level slots which allows for the cheaper spamming of them through spells and scrolls, and allows them to double their spell slots per day with a ring of wizardry for much cheaper than should normally be possible. Metamagic was king in 3.x where due to many feats and/or prestige classes you could pretty much ensure that it was free in most cases (due to various metamagic level reducers).
There are a few specific builds I would even bother to take metamagic feats on in earnest. In general just casting a higher level spell is better (because they tend to already be better than the spell you're going to use metamagic on) with certain exceptions like Dazing and Persistent. Other metamagic effects are more useful as Rods (most of the core metamagic such as extend, empower, quicken, and maximize are strong candidates here).
To actually take and use metamagic feats means you need a plan to make them worthwhile, because A) you're spending feats to B) take a lower level spell that usually caps out in some way early and stuff it into a higher level slot, which means C) it better be a really badass effect you're adding to it for it to mean anything next to higher level alternatives.
If I homebrewed an option that was Heighten Spell in reverse (IE - have a spell, drop the spell level down a notch or two) it would be shot down for being the most unholy of broken things in the history of everything. And yet this is basically what Summoners get by default. There was no need to make a 6th level progression stuffed with high level spells. It wasn't to nerf them as you suggest. It doesn't give them far fewer spells (most full-caster low level slots become action-wasters at higher levels anyway due to built in caps on their power).
Hell, I'd have preferred it if they WERE a 9th level casting class because it would be less abusive and create less internal problems. I'd be more than happy to give them 9th level casting with few castings of each spell per day and their spells known list. Heck they cast 5/day of each of the levels they have now. You could add up all their levels and divide by 9 and get 3.3 castings per day of each level and still have the same amount of casting (but with less abusive mechanics).
They have to spend 35,000 gold to quicken spells most casters will use higher slots for.
At the cost of higher level spells. Quickening summon monster III for a 7th level spell slot isn't very attractive (it's probably pretty stupid in most cases), but quickening dimension door or greater invisibility or stoneskin or mass enlarge person or spiked pit on the other hand is pretty damn amazing for 35,000 gp. Especially when you consider that you don't have to prep them ahead of time, doesn't increase casting time, and can be used 3 times per day.
75500 gold to quicken any of their spell. It gets pricey after awhile.
Which is significantly cheaper than the 170,000 gp a greater quickening rod costs. 95,000 gp less in fact. And it works 3 times per day on any of their spells. Which means that you get stuff like quickened summon monster VIII on the cheap with no feats invested (or you're smart and you take Craft Rod and have a good Spellcraft and make your own rods).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They also have trouble using meta-magic feats if that means anything. They have to spend 35,000 gold to quicken spells most casters will use higher slots for. 75500 gold to quicken any of their spell. It gets pricey after awhile.And higher levels in lower slots is a buff. Besides making it cheaper to spam summoning spells via wands and giving access to entirely new kinds of wands (like the wand of summon monster V), it also allows for nasty stuff like the abuse of metamagic rods. Many powerful spells appear lower on their list allowing for cheaper metamagic usage. In fact they will never need a greater metamagic rod for any of their spells.SPell DC is only important if you are casting debuff spells on enemies.
If you are mostly focused on buffs and summons, which the summoner is, DC is extremely unimportant.
==Aelryinth
Not for Schrodinger :)
Being a Celestial and Fiendish creature does not confer Int/language, meaning that learning Abyssal, Celestial, Infernal, Aquan, Auran, Ignan, & Terran does not allow the Caster to communicate with most of their summons. It also means that some of the simple spells to help that does not work anymore, which puts Summoning further down on the ladder for abuse, along with being a Full Round Action to cast and such a short duration. For pretty much any other caster, that means it's pretty pointless until 3rd or higher level. For the Summoner, though from level 1 on, they do not need to worry about prepping the right SM spell, they automatically get them all without dipping into their actual spell selection, which is far better than the Druid's ability to spontaneously cast them, and are not restricted as an Arcane Caster, to which creatures are on their list by alignment.
Yeah, I dislike those nerfs.
I preferred 3.5's Celestial/Fiendish improves Int to 3 so they speak common or their own language (celestial/infernal).