Does anyone play without summon spells? I am playing in game right now where the only things players are allowed to control are their characters - so mounts, companions, and familiars are not allowed - and neither are any summon spells or the leadership feat.
My question is - "how bad of a 'nerfing' effect is this going to have?"
It'll nerf the summoner pretty severely. And witches need a familiar for spell prep. Every other class can work around it just fine.
Short answer: It will utterly and completely hatchet the conjurers.
Long answer: It does change alot mechanically, so the DM has to be aware that unless he's passing out extra traits and special abilities like candy, he is upsetting the present balance of the game.
Cavaliers get prevented from having their mount, so cavaliers need an overhaul.
Wizards don't get a familiar, so wizards need an overhaul.
Druids don't get animal companions so druids need an overhaul.
Rangers don't get animal companion so rangers need an overhaul.
Paladins don't get a divine bonded mount, so paladins need an overhaul.
Shadowdancers can't summon a shade, so they need an overhaul.
Conjurers get boned right out of the gate.
Necromancers get boned right out of the gate.
Witch is just utterly useless, like unplayably useless.
And Summoner... well... heh... read the above.
...
Note that certain classes have optional abilites/traits/whatever that they may use in place of a companion/familiar/mount, but still, whoever is running this should be investing some thought into exactly how much he changes the setup of the game.
Hope it helps.
-Nearyn
EDIT: And no, I've never played in a game without summoning. Being a die-hard conjurer-fan, I'd probably not play at such a table, unless the companion-banning was part of some fantastical and super-interesting metaplot, that I'd really like to experience. I cannot imagine what such a plot would be though, but it would have to be really damn good.
yea not a big deal really, I played in some parties where players just hate the summoning spells and refuse to use them and they do fine.
He's also restricting the game to Core Rule Book only, so we don't have Summoners, Cavaliers, or Witches to begin with.
Bonded Witch (Half-Elf)
Synthesist Summoner
Musketeer Cavalier
Domain-based Druids
Companion-bond Ranger
Bonded Object Wizard
Divine-Weapon-Bond Paladin
etc. etc. etc.
virtually every class has a way around this issue
that being said, it'll have a negative effect on some classes while others that have no such option to lose will invariably be a bit stronger by comparison
personally I am not a fan of such a rule but hey to each their own
Will you be permitted regular mounts, or will you all have to travel by foot, while NPCs ride horses?
Will you be permitted regular mounts, or will you all have to travel by foot, while NPCs ride horses?
I'm guessing the answer is "for transportation only" or something like that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you buy a horse to ride?
If yes, can you buy a dog to guard your camp?
If yes, can you buy multiple dogs to attack your enemies?
If yes, then why bother limiting summoning at all? And if no, isn't that kind of unrealistic?
Player: I buy a horse.
DM: You can't.
Player: Why not? There are horses everywhere. I'm rich. I can easily afford one.
DM: Merchants won't sell them to you.
Player: Why not?
DM: They don't want to.
Player: Fine, I'm rich, I'll pay 10x what it's worth. Do they want to now?
DM: No.
Player. OK, I wait til nighttime and steal one.
(rolls are made)
DM: OK, I guess you have a horse.
Player: Great, I mount it.
DM: You can't.
Player: Why not?
DM: Um, some mystical force keeps your butt from sitting in the saddle. Like two magnets pushing each other apart.
Player: So, the saddle repels my butt?
DM: Yeah, that's it.
Player: I steal a cart and attach it to the horse. I'll ride in the cart.
DM: The cart repels your butt too.
it is magic
Core only game without summon spells or companions of any kind? Ouch.
I'll just echo what DM_Blake said.
Can't say I approve of this idea, but my approval was not what you asked for ;)
Yes, it will impact the game, majorly so.
-Nearyn
|
..
Player: I steal a cart and attach it to the horse. I'll ride in the cart.
DM: The cart repels your butt too.
I'm wiping a tear from eye. I only regret I cannot push +1 more.
Those silly GMs.
FWIW, I've played with a houserule that disallowed casters from having multiple summoned monsters out at one time. For example, if they cast Summon I for a riding dog, and then cast it again for a second one, the first one would disappear.
Why? Some of the players are horrible at managing the time they take with their turns and having them take their main character action, and then roll 2 claws and 1 bite attack for 3-4 summons was causing other players to take naps during their turns.
Really. One starting snoring - he wasn't pretending.
One can, in fact, play a cleric or wizard without any summon monster spells, animated minions, planar calling, or other ways of having loyal and lethal ablative meat shields between you and danger, and still have a perfectly enjoyable and effective character. I've done it several times. It's not like full spellcasters with a hefty list aren't already powerful and flexible enough.
Some other classes might have more trouble, admittedly.
I totally get it about taking more time. I assumed that was the reason the OP's DM made these rules, to limit each player to having only one set of actions to worry about.
4th Edition went way out of the way to restrict action economy. They wrote articles about it, explained their reasoning in minute detail, and made some very gamist rules about how PCs have to give up their actions to use their companions' actions instead (rules that usually destroy verisimilitude and make no practical sense as anything other than a mechanic to limit actions).
Mechanically, it makes sense. Practically, it doesn't.
Here's a solution I like, maybe the OP can try this one out on his DM:
Each player who has a mount, companion, cohort, summoned creature, etc., just give control of that extra stuff to other players. That keeps the classes and spells as being viable, keeps the player limited to one set of actions, and keeps the other players engaged while they handle the "extra actions" of the animal/cohort/whatever.
Out of the core, it will nerf a few classes by a bit.
- Summoning focused Wizards, Sorcerers, and Clerics are out
- Wizards will have to pick a bonded object
- Druids will have to pick a domain
- Druids will no longer have their spontaneous Summon Nature's Ally ability
- Ranger will have to pick the bond with the party
- Paladins will need to pick the weapon bond
The big nerf in here is for druids as they lose their spontaneous casting ability outright. Hopefully, your GM will give them something to compensate for that.
I have to say that, while I wouldn't choose to restrict the game in such a way, I can understand why a GM might want to do so. There are benefits to simplifying the game and removing summons (for example, combat will move faster). There are definitely players in my group that I don't think could handle dealing with summoned creatures, as they have a difficult enough time managing their own character.
Monsters in the book also summon. It will affect them. I don't see the point in banning it. Just make the players be ready. If they don't have the monster's stats ready they cant use that monster.
|
|
I'm repeating a common theme this week.
It will depend on the campaign, too.
I've been in campaigns where no PCs with arcane magic are allowed. Or ones where there's no healing from divine casters. They were extremely fun and interesting twists. Obviously you don't create a wizard in a "no-arcane" campaign unless you want to be the world's worst crossbowman.
On the GM side, it could be a PITA. It would affect the GM more than the party by giving him extra work to modify adventures/encounters while most of the party can operate in blissful ignorance of summoning creatures.
One of the early fights is with Erylium, who if I recall, can throw a knife for 1d2-1 damage. Part of the whole fight is she summons monsters to do the actual damage while she focuses on crowd control.
The GM would effectively deny their group from the "Why Everyone Hates Erylium" shared experience if he modifies this fight too heavily to support a campaign rule where Summon Monster is disallowed.
Later on, in that same book, the PCs will face Gogmurt the druid. If he is denied his firepelt animal companion (and made a domain druid), and also denied the ability Summon Nature's Ally, he's really something of a pushover.
I've certainly played entire campaigns where nobody used summons/companions, I can't say I've ever played in a campaign where they straight up werent allowed.
Since you know this from the beginning though, obviously you'll just choose classes/class features that don't rely on summoning. I can't think of a class -even the summoner- that won't be just fine (summoner will just go synth, lolz).
So how bad of a nerfing effect will it have...? Not a whole lot.
I am playing in game right now where the only things players are allowed to control are their characters
That's how the game is designed : the only things a player has control over by the rules is his character. Other things he could have in control are DM fiat, even if they come from class features.
- so mounts, companions, and familiars are not allowed - and neither are any summon spells or the leadership feat.
My question is - "how bad of a 'nerfing' effect is this going to have?"
Your DM wants to prevent bookkeeping and multiple creatures management.
It will nerf pretty much nothing except for the druid summon natural ally spontaneous ability, and for the main part of the summoner class.I don't see a real nerf here (forbidding the summoner being really common, and the summon natural ally can be replaced by something elegant (like the domain spells instead of summon natural ally I - IX).