Not for Schrodinger :)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
I'm beginning to see your point. So far no-one has posted a build to me where their summoner is burning gear money on wands, scrolls, and rods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm beginning to see your point. So far no-one has posted a build to me where their summoner is burning gear money on wands, scrolls, and rods.
Equipment +2 strength gloves, +2 dexterity boots, +4 constitution vest, +2 intelligence circlet, +4 charisma headband of persuasion (+3 to Charisma-based checks), amulet of natural armor +2 and protection +2 (12,000 gp), +3 celestial armor, lesser bracers of archery and resistance +4 (23,500 gp), lesser metamagic rods of extending (2), +2 mithral breastplate, +2 mithral buckler, 5,000 gp in additional gear
The only build that's been posted included both rods and a consumable allowance.
I'm beginning to see your point. So far no-one has posted a build to me where their summoner is burning gear money on wands, scrolls, and rods.Equipment +2 strength gloves, +2 dexterity boots, +4 constitution vest, +2 intelligence circlet, +4 charisma headband of persuasion (+3 to Charisma-based checks), amulet of natural armor +2 and protection +2 (12,000 gp), +3 celestial armor, lesser bracers of archery and resistance +4 (23,500 gp), lesser metamagic rods of extending (2), +2 mithral breastplate, +2 mithral buckler, 5,000 gp in additional gearThe only build that's been posted included both rods and a consumable allowance.
Oh man look at all those quicken meta-magic rods and wands and scrolls specifically written out!!!
|
Oh man look at all those quicken meta-magic rods and wands and scrolls specifically written out!!!I'm beginning to see your point. So far no-one has posted a build to me where their summoner is burning gear money on wands, scrolls, and rods.Equipment +2 strength gloves, +2 dexterity boots, +4 constitution vest, +2 intelligence circlet, +4 charisma headband of persuasion (+3 to Charisma-based checks), amulet of natural armor +2 and protection +2 (12,000 gp), +3 celestial armor, lesser bracers of archery and resistance +4 (23,500 gp), lesser metamagic rods of extending (2), +2 mithral breastplate, +2 mithral buckler, 5,000 gp in additional gearThe only build that's been posted included both rods and a consumable allowance.
And all the custom made items...
|
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.
I was in a group that had a druid and a witch, both out performed me, and no I'm not lying. My eidolon was build built around making one really big attack instead off many weaker attacks. I was purposely trying to keep my action economy down since I didn't want to drag out combat encounters. The GM is an expert at shutting people down, he realized my eidolon had no resistance to paralysis. Guess what my eidolon did in half of the encounters we had, absolutely nothing. Spamming summons was actually the druids main forte so I concentrated on buffs and the pit spells. As for the witch, they can be a bebuffing nightmare if built right, and can still heal and cast damage spells. I guess not every summoner build is a great one.
I only wanted to compare summoners and fighters because one the accusations against the summoner is the eidolon can outfight a fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know a Quicken rod is 75,500 right? Those are for higher level casters, not 11th level casters with 82,000 gp of gear.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm beginning to see your point. So far no-one has posted a build to me where their summoner is burning gear money on wands, scrolls, and rods.
Oh man look at all those quicken meta-magic rods and wands and scrolls specifically written out!!!
Do I get to comment on goalposts this time?
|
|
I'm beginning to see your point. So far no-one has posted a build to me where their summoner is burning gear money on wands, scrolls, and rods.Oh man look at all those quicken meta-magic rods and wands and scrolls specifically written out!!!Do I get to comment on goalposts this time?
I would like a link to that build, as I remember that discussion well.
It was in another thread and it was nowhere near the only build posted I've seen that includes consumables. It wasn't even the only one in that thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not get into a partially charge rod/wand argument again.
Metamagic rods don't have charges, they have uses per day.
First, it's better to exclude some casters, because it happens that a few spells are broken and this could make a caster OP, like "fire seeds".
So...
Paladin. Too much... too much. Tank, damage, heal, conditions remover, swift heal, mount, auras, best ST.
Inquisitor. Stealth, damage, resistance, spells, dominion (can have an animal companion), very good ST, judgment and bane op.
Rogue. UP and without sense. A ranger or bard with archetype can do everything a rogue can do but better.
Ninja can have insane dmg but actually are bad like the rogue.
Samurai is cavalier with steroids.
It's kinda funny that so many people seem to think anything better than a Fighter/Rogue is OP.
I wonder if a "What do you think makes a class OP?" would be a more enlightening thread...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to create a baseline thread, but it went nowhere..It's kinda funny that so many people seem to think anything better than a Fighter/Rogue is OP.
I wonder if a "What do you think makes a class OP?" would be a more enlightening thread...
I wonder why that was the case...
*reads thread*
Unnecessarily aggressive opening post, telling people to go away because they criticize said aggressiveness, huge focus on numbers rather than options...
Yeah... It's a real mystery why that thread wasn't more successful.
Numbers very rarely make anything OP. Or even powerful. It's actually not that difficult to have a Fighter who can out-DPR a smiting Paladin and has better AC. I've seen it happen a couple times, actually.
And yet... I still think Paladins are much more useful than Fighters.
Having high numbers is not nearly as crucial as being able to use them in different ways.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Options are the most valuable resources you can have.
Having different answers for any given situation is worth much more than having a really good answer for a single situation.
Calculating average DPR/AC/saves/whatever is nice, but it only shows a very small part of a much greater picture.
@lemmy
A little of topic, but you said you eliminate ACP in your games? therefore you are basically giving medium and heavy armor proficiency to everyone. How do you handle that in your games?
ACP/speed reduction are only removed if you're proficient with said armor.
ASF and Max Dex bonus to AC are still in place, and you can still be slowed down if you're overloaded. (Although I usually don't bother to keep track of encumbrance unless your Str is 12 or lower or if you try to carry something obviously heavy.)
Fighters are buffed enough that they don't feel cheated. I've always seen the boost to max Dex bonus to AC as the main benefit or Armor Training, anyway, and my players seem to agree.
Numbers very rarely make anything OP. Or even powerful. It's actually not that difficult to have a Fighter who can out-DPR a smiting Paladin and has better AC. I've seen it happen a couple times, actually.
And yet... I still think Paladins are much more useful than Fighters.
Having high numbers is not nearly as crucial as being able to use them in different ways.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Options are the most valuable resources you can have.
Having different answers for any given situation is worth much more than having a really good answer for a single situation.
Calculating average DPR/AC/saves/whatever is nice, but it only shows a very small part of a much greater picture.
I have to agree here, and I'll add to that: Viable options are the most valuable resources you can have.
|
|
I tried to create a baseline thread, but it went nowhere..It's kinda funny that so many people seem to think anything better than a Fighter/Rogue is OP.
I wonder if a "What do you think makes a class OP?" would be a more enlightening thread...
I wonder why that was the case...
*reads thread*
Unnecessarily aggressive opening post, telling people to go away because they criticize said aggressiveness, huge focus on numbers rather than options...
Yeah... It's a real mystery why that thread wasn't more successful.
Numbers very rarely make anything OP. Or even powerful. It's actually not that difficult to have a Fighter who can out-DPR a smiting Paladin and has better AC. I've seen it happen a couple times, actually.
And yet... I still think Paladins are much more useful than Fighters.
Having high numbers is not nearly as crucial as being able to use them in different ways.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Options are the most valuable resources you can have.
Having different answers for any given situation is worth much more than having a really good answer for a single situation.
Calculating average DPR/AC/saves/whatever is nice, but it only shows a very small part of a much greater picture.
I wonder why I am about to make an aggressive post back at you...
Oh yeah, it is because you are criticizing without offering solutions. And frankly you "think" lots of things but you "show" few of them.
Options are great, until you realize most of these discussion circle around Schrodinger options and not actual at the table in that moment options.
|
|
@lemmy
A little of topic, but you said you eliminate ACP in your games? therefore you are basically giving medium and heavy armor proficiency to everyone. How do you handle that in your games?
ACP/speed reduction are only removed if you're proficient with said armor.
ASF and Max Dex bonus to AC are still in place, and you can still be slowed down if you're overloaded. (Although I usually don't bother to keep track of encumbrance unless your Str is 12 or lower or if you try to carry something obviously heavy.)
Fighters are buffed enough that they don't feel cheated. I've always seen the boost to max Dex bonus to AC as the main benefit or Armor Training, anyway, and my players seem to agree.
Good for your players, doesn't make it true.
Removing ACP makes a substantial difference to all of your Dex based and Strength based skills (9 total skills), and can be a substantial burden.
So you take a benefit of one class and give it to everyone...you don't think this might explain some of the perceived disparity?
|
|
I have to agree here, and I'll add to that: Viable options are the most valuable resources you can have.Numbers very rarely make anything OP. Or even powerful. It's actually not that difficult to have a Fighter who can out-DPR a smiting Paladin and has better AC. I've seen it happen a couple times, actually.
And yet... I still think Paladins are much more useful than Fighters.
Having high numbers is not nearly as crucial as being able to use them in different ways.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Options are the most valuable resources you can have.
Having different answers for any given situation is worth much more than having a really good answer for a single situation.
Calculating average DPR/AC/saves/whatever is nice, but it only shows a very small part of a much greater picture.
Which if you read the thread is included in the calculation...
|
|
Not everybody has to be a solutions man. Sometimes you just need somebody who can recognize the problems.
Here is the problem with that. He is adding "solutions".
We now know that he waives ACP if you are proficient with the armor in his game. That is a "solution". So what does that mean.
That means that all of the classes that wear armor are substantially better in 9 skills.
That means the cost benefit analysis changes dramatically.
Which is fine, nothing wrong with making that a house rule.
But if you do that, you don't have an comparable frame of reference, because you have functionally removed a benefit of a class relative to another class.
If my car breaks down, and I bring it to the mechanic saying "It won't run" is that a benefit? I guess. He wouldn't know where to start if I didn't say "It broke down."
But perhaps the fact that I added aftermarket stuff poorly was part of the problem...
@lemmy
A little of topic, but you said you eliminate ACP in your games? therefore you are basically giving medium and heavy armor proficiency to everyone. How do you handle that in your games?
ACP/speed reduction are only removed if you're proficient with said armor.
ASF and Max Dex bonus to AC are still in place, and you can still be slowed down if you're overloaded. (Although I usually don't bother to keep track of encumbrance unless your Str is 12 or lower or if you try to carry something obviously heavy.)
Fighters are buffed enough that they don't feel cheated. I've always seen the boost to max Dex bonus to AC as the main benefit or Armor Training, anyway, and my players seem to agree.
I wonder what do you add to the fighter in exchange of Armor mastery, as you gave Armor mastery IV to everyone...
It is armor training not armor mastery.I wonder what do you add to the fighter in exchange of Armor mastery, as you gave Armor mastery IV to everyone...@lemmy
A little of topic, but you said you eliminate ACP in your games? therefore you are basically giving medium and heavy armor proficiency to everyone. How do you handle that in your games?
ACP/speed reduction are only removed if you're proficient with said armor.
ASF and Max Dex bonus to AC are still in place, and you can still be slowed down if you're overloaded. (Although I usually don't bother to keep track of encumbrance unless your Str is 12 or lower or if you try to carry something obviously heavy.)
Fighters are buffed enough that they don't feel cheated. I've always seen the boost to max Dex bonus to AC as the main benefit or Armor Training, anyway, and my players seem to agree.
My mistake. Still waiting for the answer though.
Free Martial Versatility at the levels it would apply, upgrading to Mastery for each at 16 might be a good tradeoff.
Kills another small bird with that particular stone (the Fighter's reliance on a single weapon).
|
|
Free Martial Versatility at the levels it would apply, upgrading to Mastery for each at 16 might be a good tradeoff.
Kills another small bird with that particular stone (the Fighters reliance on a single weapon).
This is a suggestion I could get behind. I think having fighters be able to apply feats known to other weapons makes a lot of sense. Hell, they could just add a fighter feat that says exactly that.
I'm not sure anyone cares, but since I was discussing the summoner in the thread earlier, I'd probably prefer to use the following progression for summoners in my games henceforth. Summoner Spell Progression Change. Then give 'em the appropriate HD and BAB to go with it and you eliminate pretty much all my complaints with them in one fell swoop.
I wonder why I am about to make an aggressive post back at you...
Oh yeah, it is because you are criticizing without offering solutions. And frankly you "think" lots of things but you "show" few of them.
Do I need to a build to show that a class has better saves, more skill points, access to spells, better saves and/or better list of class skills? Reading the class description should suffice in this case.
If it makes you feel better, this post of yours didn't seem aggressive. Disagreeing with each other is okay, even desirable, telling people to go away because they have a different way of thinking/gaming is rude and counter-productive.
Your thread there was a nice idea, but it missed a crucial point, IMHO. I'm criticizing that, not the the thread itself.
Options are great, until you realize most of these discussion circle around Schrodinger options and not actual at the table in that moment options.
I know, I know... Everyone who sees any problem with Fighter is a dirty powergaming Schrodinger Theorycrafter with no real-game experience. Sorry, I forgot. How silly of me...
Good for your players, doesn't make it true.
No... But it doesn't make it untrue either.
Removing ACP makes a substantial difference to all of your Dex based and Strength based skills (9 total skills), and can be a substantial burden.
True. But I find it to be an unfair burden. Those class pretty much have to use armor, so punishing them for doing so is unnecessary and unfair, IMO. Which is why I only keep ACP/Speed reduction for character who use armor they're not proficient with.
So you take a benefit of one class and give it to everyone...you don't think this might explain some of the perceived disparity?
It's not like I removed ACP/speed reduction and then said "Wow, Fighters have nothing unique! They suck!"
I didn't only perceive the difference after removing ACP/speed reduction. I was a player before I was a GM.
I could see the gap in usefulness way before I implemented this houserule.
In any case, Fighters got more than they "lost". I find them to be much more useful and much closer to Rangers/Paladins in versatility/usefulness, even after I gave those classes small buffs (+2 skill points per level to Paladins, plus Knowledge(Planes) and Intimidate as class skills) and use Ranger level = Druid level for Animal Companion (Although this one didn't come into play so far because none of my players is playing a Ranger).
I have to agree here, and I'll add to that: Viable options are the most valuable resources you can have.
Yeah, that's what I meant...
After all, if your options are so terrible they have little to no chance of working, they are not really options. And if two options are incredibly similar, they're basically one option.
Fireball is not really different from any other AoE blasting spell.
Hitting stuff with your sword is not all that different from shooting stuff with you bow.
Combat Maneuvers are a sad case. They should be a real option, a real boost to in-combat versatility... But their stupid prerequisites and poor scaling makes them evolve from a restricted but decent option at low levels into a generally poor option at mid levels and finally into a non-option at high levels.
|
|
I wonder why I am about to make an aggressive post back at you...
Oh yeah, it is because you are criticizing without offering solutions. And frankly you "think" lots of things but you "show" few of them.
Do I need to a build to show that a class has better saves, more skill points, access to spells, better saves and/or better list of class skills? Reading the class description should suffice in this case.
Yes.
Monks have all high saves, but that doesn't mean a given monk build is going to have higher saves than another build that invests in things that boost saves.
The fact is if you remove ACP, you functionally give armored characters a bonus to 9 skills.
That is a significant change.
What happens, frankly quite often, is people talk about access without actually discussing the trade off.
Which is why you need the build.
I like you Lemmy, I actually do. But when you are handwaving away a penalty to 9 skills and don't seem to think that is a significant change, I wonder what else you don't find significant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what do you add to the fighter in exchange of Armor mastery, as you gave Armor mastery IV to everyone...
- +2 skill points per level
- Heal, Perception and any 2 other skills of the player's choice as class skills- Good Reflex saves (Fighter are physical paragons, after all)
- Bravery scales a bit faster and applies to all Charm and Compulsion effects as well.
- Weapon Training is the same for all weapon groups (all of them end at +5, instead of one at +5, +4, +3, +2, +1)
- At 1st level they can take IUS or EWP instead of getting proficiency with Tower Shields.
- Weapon Mastery and Armor Mastery come 1 level earlier.
- Full attack as a standard action at 20th level.
- Martial Versatility/Mastery at 10th level. (Yup, I actually had that already added.. Someone suggested it in one of the dozen past Fighter threads, I just liked it and added to my games)
They also benefit more from a few other rules, such as scaling feats(like TWF and Improved Trip) and removed/reduced prerequisites for a bunch of them (like maneuver feats not requiring Combat Expertise or Int13)
Ranger level = Druid level for Animal Companion (Although this one didn't come into play so far because none of my players is playing a Ranger).
This is pretty cool, if minor. It's really only a difference of 1 HD in most cases. :P
I was more concerned with the pitiful selection. I just let my Rangers pick any of the valid Druid companions. Boon Companion already fixes the level issue IMO if they choose to remedy it.
|
|
I wonder what do you add to the fighter in exchange of Armor mastery, as you gave Armor mastery IV to everyone...- +2 skill points per level
- Heal, Perception and any 2 other skills of the player's choice as class skills
- Good Reflex saves (Fighter are physical paragons, after all)
- Bravery scales a bit faster and applies to all Charm and Compulsion effects as well.
- Weapon Training is the same for all weapon groups (all of them end at +5, instead of one at +5, +4, +3, +2, +1)
- At 1st level they can take IUS or EWP instead of getting proficiency with Tower Shields.
- Weapon Mastery and Armor Mastery come 1 level earlier.
- Full attack as a standard action at 20th level.
- Martial Versatility/Mastery at 10th level. (Yup, I actually had that already added.. Someone suggested it in one of the dozen past Fighter threads, I just liked it and added to my games)They also benefit more from a few other rules, such as scaling feats(like TWF and Improved Trip) and removed/reduced prerequisites for a bunch of them (like maneuver feats not requiring Combat Expertise or Int13)
Which is fine. But you need to do this in part because you upped the power level of every other class that wears armor in 9 skills.
I actually have no issue with these changes conceptually (Except maybe the players choice on skills) but you need to look at it in the context of the other classes.
Pathfinder was in many ways an attempt to bump the core classes up to the level of power creep classes that had come out at the end of 3.5. When you remove ACP for everyone, that is a big change, and one I don't really agree with.
You are also functionally giving fighters all good saves, which steps on other classes toes a bit...
The question is what is the power level we are seeking, how do we measure it, and what needs to change to get there.
If we don't set that power level, we are just going to be playing a leap frog game of power creep until CR levels are meaningless.
Which has already been reported to be the case in some people's games...
I was more concerned with the pitiful selection. I just let my Rangers pick any of the valid Druid companions. Boon Companion already fixes the level issue IMO if they choose to remedy it.
Yeah the selection is pretty terrible.
Do I need to a build to show that a class has better saves, more skill points, access to spells, better saves and/or better list of class skills? Reading the class description should suffice in this case.Yes.
Monks have all high saves, but that doesn't mean a given monk build is going to have higher saves than another build that invests in things that boost saves.
That's mostly a problem with Monks, because in their specific case, they have to spend a lot of money in something other classes pay relatively little: weapon enhancements. And it also costs them a item slot. That's not the case for Barbarians, Paladins or Rangers. They spend their gold in pretty much the same stuff a Fighter does.
Even then, Monks more often than not have better saves than most other classes, except Paladins (but being 2nd best in not all that bad in this case)
The fact is if you remove ACP, you functionally give armored characters a bonus to 9 skills.
That is a significant change.
What happens, frankly quite often, is people talk about access without actually discussing the trade off.
Which is why you need the build.
I like you Lemmy, I actually do. But when you are handwaving away a penalty to 9 skills and don't seem to think that is a significant change, I wonder what else you don't find significant.
I know it's a significant change. I never said ACP are insignificant (maybe for light armor, where it's usually -1 or -2), only that they are unfair.
ACP punishes classes for doing something they need to do.
It's like punishing a Fighter for using swords or punishing a Wizard for having spells.
And ACP hurts skills of all things. Skills are where a lot of non-caster utility/versatility comes from. Most non-casters need skills to be useful out of combat, and they need armor to stay alive in combat. So I feel like ACP is punishing you for having a class feature!
May I suggest that armor mastery stack with adamantine armor and something in exchange for Heavy armor proficiency (in case the player want a light armored duelist type)?
We were discussing a Swashbuckler base class or Fighter/Gunslinger archetype for that.
I'm still not sure how to do it and keep it balanced. I have a few ideas, but nothing final so far...For now I let them take the Lore Warden archetype and add Int to damage rolls starting at 3rd level.
It's like punishing a Fighter for using swords or punishing a Wizard for having spells.
And ACP hurts skills of all things. Skills are where a lot of non-caster utility/versatility comes from. Most non-casters need skills to be useful out of combat, and they need armor to stay alive in combat. So I feel like ACP is punishing you for having a class feature!