|
Is it ok that I love it when people argue over a class to the point of grabbing at all the finer details, more or less doing my job for me in class research. Really I would start a flame war over all 18 classes if I could just to see what I could learn
Just ask a question about monks.
Does not really matter what the question is.
Is it ok that I love it when people argue over a class to the point of grabbing at all the finer details, more or less doing my job for me in class research. Really I would start a flame war over all 18 classes if I could just to see what I could learnJust ask a question about monks.
Does not really matter what the question is.
Don't even ask a question. Say "Fighters are awesome!" That works pretty well.
Or... you know, just ask the questions you want answered.
Just ask a question about monks.Does not really matter what the question is.
Heck, it doesn't even matter if the thread is about monks or not. Now that you mention it, do you think flurry of blows should be limited to rounds/day? I'm kidding of course.
Anyhow, I think the fix is quite applicable to a Synthesist summoner (which my group doesn't allow) but otherwise I think Eidolon's too core of a feature to limit it so severely.
Maybe increasing the duration to a minute per level (w/ minute per increment) might work but the main problem I have with summoners is the sheer amount of action that it costs to have one in your party.
I don't even like summoning stuff as a druid for crying out loud. An entire class dedicated to having extra action economy? Good grief, save me the bother.
What I did with summoner's in my own games :
1) Eidelon does not go poof when you go unconscious. it's a 24/7 pet, like other pets.
2) Maximum number of attacks is a hard limit. Don't care if they are natural or manufactured or a mix thereof. If your limit is 3, your limit is 3. You can have 3 natural attacks and four arms and multiattack. The most attacks you can make at 1st level is 3. All manufactured, all claw, or some mix of the two.
3) Eidelon get's a fixed number of 'equipment slots' based on level, equal to 1/2 level, minimum 1. So maximum of 10 slots at level 10.
4) Summoner chooses at 1st level to either go with an Eidelon, or with advanced summoning abilities. If he goes Eidelon, he doesn't get the SLA. If he goes summoning abilities, he get's the SLA and a bunch of buffs and special abilities that enhance his ability to summon (including boosting his summons up to minutes or hours, depending on how he uses them).
You guys are all focusing on the power of an eidolon. What about the power of the summoner? Using s 25 point build summoner at level 1, non synthesist, without the eidolon you are pretty much stuck acid splashing the ENTIRE combat, until something kills you. Take the rage away fro ma barbarian, and he will still mess stuff up with his greatweapon, take damage, and in general, be useful in combat. Summoner spells are borderline useless short of making his summon better. Yes he gets more summon monster spells, whoop de freakin do. A typical adventure from my experience comprises of, on an adventure day, 3-4 fights a day consisting of 3-5 rounds. Taking the eidolon down to cha + /rounds means the summoner is completly useless for half of these, where as the barbarian will be useful at all times. Apples and oranges.
p.s. totally agree with above post.
What are you talking about? taking away the eidolon and the summoner still has a solid spell list, he has grease a good crowd control spell, enlarge person, among the better buffs in the game, reduce person, a descent debuff, and his summons, which he can use once a fight and contribute to it without doing anything else.
Now I agree, that the rounds per day isnt a good idea, the druid doesnt get his animal companion for rounds per day. But to say that the summoner is useless without his eidolon is flat out not true. Even baring the spells, and his summons, he's still a 3/4 bab light armor character. He can hit or shoot things. Particularly with a 25 point buy.
The summoner is also a spell caster with an okay list and number of spells though, and the barbarian without rage is a lot weaker than one with rage going. I think your overestimating one and underestimating the other.
explain how you think a level one summoner casting acid splash is equivilant to a non raging barbarian? Their spell list is terrible, anyone that thinks so has something wrong with them. They have very little damage spells of any sort. Without their eidolon, they might as well not even exist as they are a liability.
The summoner is also a spell caster with an okay list and number of spells though, and the barbarian without rage is a lot weaker than one with rage going. I think your overestimating one and underestimating the other.explain how you think a level one summoner casting acid splash is equivilant to a non raging barbarian? Their spell list is terrible, anyone that thinks so has something wrong with them. They have very little damage spells of any sort. Without their eidolon, they might as well not even exist as they are a liability.
What are you talking about? They dont have damage, but damage is not the only way to contribute to the party. Damage spells are the least effective way to use spells as a resource. They have crowd control, buffs, debuffs, and utility spells. And they also have the ability to summon things as an sla. One summon will do more damage then any damage spell over the course of the encounter. So would casting enlarge person on the party fighter, so would casting haste at 4th level. And in a pinch, they still have 3/4 bab and light armor, they can fight on their own if they have to and have the buffs to back it up.
|
|
What are you talking about? They dont have damage, but damage is not the only way to contribute to the party. Damage spells are the least effective way to use spells as a resource. They have crowd control, buffs, debuffs, and utility spells. And they also have the ability to summon things as an sla. One summon will do more damage then any damage spell over the course of the encounter. So would casting enlarge person on the party fighter, so would casting haste at 4th level. And in a pinch, they still have 3/4 bab and light armor, they can fight on their own if they have to and have the buffs to back it up.The summoner is also a spell caster with an okay list and number of spells though, and the barbarian without rage is a lot weaker than one with rage going. I think your overestimating one and underestimating the other.explain how you think a level one summoner casting acid splash is equivilant to a non raging barbarian? Their spell list is terrible, anyone that thinks so has something wrong with them. They have very little damage spells of any sort. Without their eidolon, they might as well not even exist as they are a liability.
Summoner's have the same buffs and fewer crowd control spells than Wizards. All of those spells are gained at a higher level and/or in lower volume than an equivalent wizard.
*I'm sorry if all the other wizards are but hurt on a 1 level difference in availability of Haste. Personally, I look for solutions instead of standing around complaining. My wizard had no problems managing a Haste spell at 4th level last weekend.
The summoner is also a spell caster with an okay list and number of spells though, and the barbarian without rage is a lot weaker than one with rage going. I think your overestimating one and underestimating the other.explain how you think a level one summoner casting acid splash is equivilant to a non raging barbarian? Their spell list is terrible, anyone that thinks so has something wrong with them. They have very little damage spells of any sort. Without their eidolon, they might as well not even exist as they are a liability.
Well that's rude. There is not "Something wrong" with me. I didn't say that they were the equivalent in damage to a barbarian. I was talking about casting spells like haste, or create pit, or maze. I didn't even name a level, at later levels spell casting gets pretty wicked awesome and the barbarian at level one doesn't even have rage powers yet.
Summoner's have the same buffs and fewer crowd control spells than Wizards. All of those spells are gained at a higher level and/or in lower volume than an equivalent wizard.
Several spells they learn at a lower level, and before the wizard. Such as haste as a second level spell at summoner level four. They definitely have less spells total though.
*I'm sorry if all the other wizards are but hurt on a 1 level difference in availability of Haste. Personally, I look for solutions instead of standing around complaining. My wizard had no problems managing a Haste spell at 4th level last weekend.
Don't call people butt hurt! Get that ego in check.
What are you talking about? They dont have damage, but damage is not the only way to contribute to the party. Damage spells are the least effective way to use spells as a resource. They have crowd control, buffs, debuffs, and utility spells. And they also have the ability to summon things as an sla. One summon will do more damage then any damage spell over the course of the encounter. So would casting enlarge person on the party fighter, so would casting haste at 4th level. And in a pinch, they still have 3/4 bab and light armor, they can fight on their own if they have to and have the buffs to back it up.The summoner is also a spell caster with an okay list and number of spells though, and the barbarian without rage is a lot weaker than one with rage going. I think your overestimating one and underestimating the other.explain how you think a level one summoner casting acid splash is equivilant to a non raging barbarian? Their spell list is terrible, anyone that thinks so has something wrong with them. They have very little damage spells of any sort. Without their eidolon, they might as well not even exist as they are a liability.Summoner's have the same buffs and fewer crowd control spells than Wizards. All of those spells are gained at a higher level and/or in lower volume than an equivalent wizard.
*I'm sorry if all the other wizards are but hurt on a 1 level difference in availability of Haste. Personally, I look for solutions instead of standing around complaining. My wizard had no problems managing a Haste spell at 4th level last weekend.
I am not saying the summoner is better then a wizard. That is silly. What I am saying is a summoner is far from useless without his eidolon, and need not resort to using acid splash if his eidolon is somehow not present. He still has lots of tools to contribute to an encounter.
Funny I was of the opinion that summon monster was their strongest ability.
|
Summoners without summons/Eidolons are alternate Bards. They wear medium armor like bards, they have buff/utility spells like bards, and they are capable of melee like bards. You can make a Summoner that goes up in front and fights next to his eidolon just like you can make a Str drained summoner that hides behind the meat shield when he runs out of cool stuff to do. It just depends on your play style. A Barbarian without Rage is a Fighter with less feats and no armor/weapon training. The Barbarian can still manage big damage. A Summoner without summons can still manage buff/support. If nothing else, he can stand behind the frontliner and aid another with a longspear.
Funny I was of the opinion that summon monster was their strongest ability.
It is one of their strongest abilities, but most summoners focus on the Eidolon. The ability to have 3-4 full attacks every round by level 3 is rather strong.
|
|
Summoner's have the same buffs and fewer crowd control spells than Wizards. All of those spells are gained at a higher level and/or in lower volume than an equivalent wizard.Several spells they learn at a lower level, and before the wizard. Such as haste as a second level spell at summoner level four. They definitely have less spells total though.
The second part of the statement holds true, even with Haste.
A 5th level wizard can cast the spell more times per day than a 5th level summoner.
*and I'll also refer you back up a few posts where I stated my opinion on the summoner spell list. An opinion that was dismissed out of hand, even though it addresses your complaint.
|
IMHO, the summoner would be a perfectly viable caster if he had no eidolon at all. The summon SLA, combined with early access to some of the best spells, mean that his list of spells known will probably resemble those of a similar level sorcerer of a similar level. Sure he is lacking some utility and blast spells but an optimized summoner who makes exactly zero use of his eidolon could still be a very effective support/control mage.
|
|
Summoners without summons/Eidolons are alternate Bards. They wear medium armor like bards, they have buff/utility spells like bards, and they are capable of melee like bards. You can make a Summoner that goes up in front and fights next to his eidolon just like you can make a Str drained summoner that hides behind the meat shield when he runs out of cool stuff to do. It just depends on your play style. A Barbarian without Rage is a Fighter with less feats and no armor/weapon training. The Barbarian can still manage big damage. A Summoner without summons can still manage buff/support. If nothing else, he can stand behind the frontliner and aid another with a longspear.Funny I was of the opinion that summon monster was their strongest ability.It is one of their strongest abilities, but most summoners focus on the Eidolon. The ability to have 3-4 full attacks every round by level 3 is rather strong.
If you compare the DPR of the 3rd level eidolon with 3 attacks/round to the DPR of a fighter or barbarian with 1 big attack/round, the eidolon deals less damage.
You are throwing a lot of small attacks with a much lower hit chance. Pounce grants no advantage at this level, a fighter or barbarian also makes all of his available interative attacks on a charge. In fact, there is only a 4 level gap where the barbarian is not able to make all of his iterative attacks on a charge
IMHO, the summoner would be a perfectly viable caster if he had no eidolon at all. The summon SLA, combined with early access to some of the best spells, mean that his list of spells known will probably resemble those of a similar level sorcerer of a similar level. Sure he is lacking some utility and blast spells but an optimized summoner who makes exactly zero use of his eidolon could still be a very effective support/control mage.
I think without the eidolon he'd be a little lite on abilities for a 6 level caster, as most of them besides the summon sla relate directly to the sla. I think if he was going to focus on just their spells and the summoenr, he probably needs more class abilities around the summons themselves. 3/4 bab 6 level casters arent supposed to have 8 or 9 dead levels.
Okay, so I should probably preface this by saying that I love summoners. Conceptually fantastic, fun to build, and fun to play. But it's really no secret that they are exhibit 1A in the case for power creep in PF. In the last home game that I participated in, three players showed up with summoners.
Three. In a party of six.
And honestly, who could blame a player for being drawn to summoners? Double the HP. Double the actions. Quadruple the attacks. Flanking bonuses at will. Amazing spellcasting potential. They even get every knowledge skill for some damn reason.
Bearing that in mind, I think I've stumbled on to the simplest and most profoundly fair fix for summoners: make the eidolon only available a certain number of rounds per day. Shall we say, CHA + 3 rounds per day, with an extra 2 rounds each level? And just make it a full round to summon it. Bam.
I don't know if anyone has ever proposed this on the here, but mechanically, it only seems fair. Barbarians can't rage for 16 hours straight, bards can't perform for 16 hours straight, but the signature ability of the summoner is essentially limitless. (Even in a rounds/day format, your basic eidolon beats the pants off of those other two abilities.)
It would be an enormous improvement thematically too. I mean, they're called summoners, but how often do they actually SUMMON?? Master summoner notwithstanding, every summoner I see just has the damn thing hanging out all the time. Far cooler I think, would be the mage that's forced to conjure his personal combat avatar in the midst of an intense battle, rather than the guy who struts around all day with a bizarre extra party member.
Anyone have an opinion? Gimme yo thoughts.
You're gimping a class that doesn't have problems. There is now no reason to play a summoner over a master summoner or a summon focused sorcerer.
Making this change would also eliminate the ability to play a brood master more or less.
|
|
Reasons to play a Master Summoner over a Summoner
1.)Multiple Summoned Monsters at 1 time.
2.)More uses of Summon Monster SLA.
Reasons to play a Summoner over a Sorcerer
1.)Eidolon to give a shield bonus, and you can wear armor
2.)Better BAB
3.)More HP
4.)Standard Action Summoning.
Reasons to play a Summoner over a Master Summoner
1.)Stronger Eidolon
Reasons to play a Sorcerer over a Summoner/Master Summoner
1.)More Spells
2.)Different Spells.
As you can see, there are reasons to play the different classes.
With OP's change the master summoner's SLA last LONGER than the eidolon.
IMHO, the summoner would be a perfectly viable caster if he had no eidolon at all. The summon SLA, combined with early access to some of the best spells, mean that his list of spells known will probably resemble those of a similar level sorcerer of a similar level. Sure he is lacking some utility and blast spells but an optimized summoner who makes exactly zero use of his eidolon could still be a very effective support/control mage.
I would disagree with that. The summoner's spell list isn't nearly as flexible as the wizard's. Sure, they get some good buffs and haste early. But their spells are generally close range with relatively few at medium or long and they don't have much, if anything, to inflict damage over an area at low levels (so watch those swarms). If you think a summoner fills all the needs you have for an arcane caster, you are mistaken. You are a melee supporter, which is a fine niche to play, but it isn't a wizard. It isn't even a witch.
The only real problems I've ever had with the summoner are as follows:
1. They keep it out 24/7 - thankfully, each nation in my setting has laws (based on a template with minor changes depending on culture): some nations allow weapons to be carried and summoned creatures (as long as they behave) to be carried openly/walk around openly; others require weapons to be turned over at the city gates and spellcasters are prohibited from summons/familiars/and so on on penalty of fines, imprisonment, or death.
2. The eidolon replaces the scores of the summoner in the synthesist archetype, encouraging dumping to a ridiculous degree. This one, I'm not 100% sure how to correct for, but have no plans on barring the synthesist, as I think it's a pretty neat idea. At the moment, minimum ability scores in character generation have somewhat corrected for this, but I'd rather a more elegant solution similar to the polymorph changes from 3.5 -> Pathfinder.
I don't really think limiting it to rounds/day is the best solution, though it is an effective one, albeit a bit crippling to a summoner (which is why I wouldn't recommend it).
Nothing wrong with the synthesist. You gain the ability to stat dump at the cost of half your actions.
I'm sure having slightly higher int and wis is worth losing all of the eidolons skill points and half your actions.
The only real problems I've ever had with the summoner are as follows:
1. They keep it out 24/7 - thankfully, each nation in my setting has laws (based on a template with minor changes depending on culture): some nations allow weapons to be carried and summoned creatures (as long as they behave) to be carried openly/walk around openly; others require weapons to be turned over at the city gates and spellcasters are prohibited from summons/familiars/and so on on penalty of fines, imprisonment, or death.
2. The eidolon replaces the scores of the summoner in the synthesist archetype, encouraging dumping to a ridiculous degree. This one, I'm not 100% sure how to correct for, but have no plans on barring the synthesist, as I think it's a pretty neat idea. At the moment, minimum ability scores in character generation have somewhat corrected for this, but I'd rather a more elegant solution similar to the polymorph changes from 3.5 -> Pathfinder.
I don't really think limiting it to rounds/day is the best solution, though it is an effective one, albeit a bit crippling to a summoner (which is why I wouldn't recommend it).
1. A) It cant be kept out 24/7 when the summoner goes unconcious (i.e. sleep) it would go away. Unless the race does not sleep. This leaves sleeping races vulnerable to a middle of the night attack.
B) Do wizards hand over their familiars? Druids and rangers their companions? If so, carry on, though any ranger or druid i play would sooner wait outside then enter such a ridiculous city. If not, then that's not fair, and is biased. And if so, isn't there a rule that leaving a familiar by X distance cause a problem? You would need to deal with that repercussion. ((not that your rule is ridiculous, but my attatchment to my animal would consider it so))2. I more or less agree with this. A synthesist stat block can definatly be designed to overshadow others.
Their spell list is terrible, anyone that thinks so has something wrong with them. They have very little damage spells of any sort. Without their eidolon, they might as well not even exist as they are a liability.
I dunno, early access to haste on a list with a ton of summoning spells is pretty dang good.
B) Do wizards hand over their familiars? Druids and rangers their companions? If so, carry on, though any ranger or druid i play would sooner wait outside then enter such a ridiculous city. If not, then that's not fair, and is biased. And if so, isn't there a rule that leaving a familiar by X distance cause a problem? You would need to deal with that repercussion. ((not that your rule is ridiculous, but my attatchment to my animal would consider it so))
Depends on the Wizard's Familiar doesn't it?
Lizard, owl, mouse, cat, hawk? Probably not. These are not seen as dangerous all on their own. Imp? Elemental? Golem? Uh, yeah, probably. Most Good or Lawful cities would most likely ban Imps on general principles (and the imp's lack of them!).
Druid and Ranger companions? What companion? Horse? Dog? Nah, probably not. Bring them on in. Owl? Sure, why not. Bat? Huh, weird but sure, it's a bat (not a dire bat). Small snake? Maybe maybe not, is it poisonous?
Lion? Bear? Wolf? Venomous Snake? No, not so much. Those are wild animals and very dangerous. Most lawful cities are not going to want to let you bring in wild animals. Even most neutral one's wont. A chaotic one might, but there's nothing saying the populace isn't going to cook it for dinner either.
One of the lands in my homebrew is LG with a rod up their nether regions (home of most of the Paladins). If you want to bring a dangerous wild animal into the country, especially one that's not native (dinosaur, crocodile, lion, panther, whatever) they make you hobble and muzzle it while it's in the country. One of my players balked, and refused to go in, so he sat out half a night's game while the rest went into the country.
Most lawful cities are not going to want to let you bring in wild animals. Even most neutral one's wont. A chaotic one might, but there's nothing saying the populace isn't going to cook it for dinner either.
Well, by RAW there aren't laws like that. Personally I don't have a problem with players walking around with your class features and I usually prefer not to deprive them of the reasons they chose to play that class.
In the case of taking away peoples pets the summoner wins in the end because he's the one who can summon forth his pet and a variety of other options with a standard or full round action mind you.
so he sat out half a night's game while the rest went into the country.
Was that supposed to be fun for him?
Most lawful cities are not going to want to let you bring in wild animals. Even most neutral one's wont. A chaotic one might, but there's nothing saying the populace isn't going to cook it for dinner either.Well, by RAW there aren't laws like that. Personally I don't have a problem with players walking around with your class features and I usually prefer not to deprive them of the reasons they chose to play that class.
By RAW I don't have to stop doing anything once I'm dead, only when I'm unconscious. By RAW I don't have to eat every day, there's no rules for what happens if I don't eat. By RAW, if I have lesser restorations, I don't have to ever sleep, there's no penalty for not sleeping beyond fatigue (and if I'm immune to fatigue, I can just stay up forever without penalty). There's a reason there is no rules for social things, it's up to the GM to handle.
But if you want to go look, I'm sure Golarion has some cities with rules about weapons and such being not allowed, I'm sure someone would count a bear or a tiger as a weapon. :)
so he sat out half a night's game while the rest went into the country.Was that supposed to be fun for him?
Not my problem. He could have continued on with his tiger muzzled. He chose to sit out rather than have it muzzled. That's not me taking him out, that's him choosing to roleplay a hissy fit on his character's part. If he wants to roleplay that, then by god, he has that right, and who the @*$#&* are you to tell him he shouldn't be able to RP out a protest of their rules?
By RAW
I know what RAW is, just stating that what you say didn't go for every game. My point was actually that those things are class features and the reason the player chose to play that class, so that's something to consider when choosing to do that.
Was that supposed to be fun for him?Not my problem.
As a GM your first job is making sure everyone is having fun, so yeah, it is your problem. Calling him hissy is entirely disrespectful. His actions are a result of yours, Hone up and don't blame others! And remember the players are supposed to be your friends, treat them with respect and consider them as such.
By RAWI know what RAW is, just stating that what you say didn't go for every game.
No, that isn't what you said. You said 'Well, by RAW there aren't laws like that.'. RAW covers game crunch. Campaign settings cover social structures and limitations. So saying there's no RAW rule saying a campaign has X limitation or Y limit, yeah, that's pure strawman on your part.
As a GM your first job is making sure everyone is having fun, so yeah, it is your problem. Calling him hissy is entirely disrespectful. His actions are a result of yours, Hone up and don't blame others! And remember the players are supposed to be your friends, treat them with respect and consider them as such.Was that supposed to be fun for him?Not my problem.
You need to learn to read better. I said the player chose to roleplay a hissy fit on his character's part. That was his description for it by the way. His words were, roughly, 'My guy is Chaotic, and he hates all these rules and BS, and he's going to sit in the road and refuse to enter that country, basically throwing a hissy fit'. So yeah, trying to tell me I shouldn't respect his desire to have his character throw a hissy fit is basically you telling me I should railroad the guy into doing what I want, rather than what he wants to do.
My job, as a GM, is not to railroad my players, whatever you may think. It is to present a world that is logically consistant, with versemillitude and populated with interesting people and places. It is then my job to describe ti to them, and adjudicate the rules. It is not my job to railroad them, or readjust the world on the fly to change the rules or the NPCs at a whim.
No, that isn't what you said. You said 'Well, by RAW there aren't laws like that.'. RAW covers game crunch. Campaign settings cover social structures and limitations. So saying there's no RAW rule saying a campaign has X limitation or Y limit, yeah, that's pure strawman on your part.
Yeah, I said that by RAW not every game is going to be like that. Your allowed to, but I also stated my personal preference and why. No strawman was involved, nor did I say you had to do anything.
My job, as a GM
I didn't say to change anything on a whim, just responding to you saying that a player not having fun wasn't your problem. The whole point is to have fun.
Inferring I don't know how to read or claiming I'm making strawman's doesn't help the conversation. You wouldn't like it if I did that to you, so don't do it to me.
I know what RAW is, just stating that what you say didn't go for every game. My point was actually that those things are class features and the reason the player chose to play that class, so that's something to consider when choosing to do that.
And the player shouldn't consider that? A T-Rex may be a rules-legal animal companion, but how much sense does it make to take it to market day? Or a squid on a quest through the desert?
Players make choices and sometimes those choices aren't all positive in their consequences.
Yeah, I said that by RAW not every game is going to be like that. Your allowed to, but I also stated my personal preference and why. No strawman was involved, nor did I say you had to do anything.
Well, by RAW there aren't laws like that.
/discussion
My job, as a GMI didn't say to change anything on a whim, just responding to you saying that a player not having fun wasn't your problem. The whole point is to have fun.
Inferring I don't know how to read or claiming I'm making strawman's doesn't help the conversation. You wouldn't like it if I did that to you, so don't do it to me.
Actually, what you did was come in, post that my ruling wasn't supported by RAW, that I was a bad GM, and then tell me to change how I run my game. I don't really consider that overly polite, so now you would like to take it as a personal insult when I tell you to read my words, rather than chewing me out for saying something bad about my player, when I clearly said the character did something, not the player? Really? You really really want to claim to be innocent as pure driven snow? Really?
And the player shouldn't consider that? A T-Rex may be a rules-legal animal companion, but how much sense does it make to take it to market day? Or a squid on a quest through the desert?
Well... its likely the squid will die because its the aquatic subtype(How does a squid get into the desert anyway? Is this some terrifying new form of landsquid we're talking about?) If its a T-Rex I'd say there's probably been worse. More so I'd be happy someone isn't picking a creature out because its optimized(big cat pouncechargers, I see them all the time), but instead picking something because its cool.
Rather than bar them completely, I'd rather make commentary or have them talk about it when entering. Keep the roleplay, but not punish them. I might decide that a direct consequence of a T-Rex eating a few of the town goats is probably time to sick the town guards on them, but until them no reason to force them to pack away the beloved pets. I don't see picking an animal companion as an action that deserves that response, but I will respond to a more direct interaction with the game world. I don't punish people for who they want to be, but their actions deserve their own merits. Make sense? And more importantly, as a summoner fix that particular rule might not work because he's essentially got a poke-pet he can summon in and out at anytime.
Wasn't this thread about summoners?
Actually, what you did was come in, post that my ruling wasn't supported by RAW, that I was a bad GM, and then tell me to change how I run my game. I don't really consider that overly polite, so now you would like to take it as a personal insult when I tell you to read my words, rather than chewing me out for saying something bad about my player, when I clearly said the character did something, not the player? Really? You really really want to claim to be innocent as pure driven snow? Really?
So question, was the player aware of these kinds of laws before he decided to play a character with a 'dangerous' pet? And how did the player feel about sitting out half a session? I ask because the 'raw' of laws that ban class features is nonsense. But 'did the player have fun that night?' is not. I know I would be upset if something like that was sprung on me as a summoner, druid, or what have you. But if I was told ahead of time and decided to play one anyway, thats a different story. And now I am wondering if I could disguise a tiger as something less threatening with a talented enough rogue...
As a GM your first job is making sure everyone is having fun [...]
The responsibility for fun is not exclusively the GM's - it is shared by both GMs and their players.
B) Do wizards hand over their familiars? Druids and rangers their companions? If so, carry on, though any ranger or druid i play would sooner wait outside then enter such a ridiculous city. If not, then that's not fair, and is biased. And if so, isn't there a rule that leaving a familiar by X distance cause a problem? You would need to deal with that repercussion. ((not that your rule is ridiculous, but my attatchment to my animal would consider it so))
Depends on the Wizard's Familiar doesn't it?
Lizard, owl, mouse, cat, hawk? Probably not. These are not seen as dangerous all on their own. Imp? Elemental? Golem? Uh, yeah, probably. Most Good or Lawful cities would most likely ban Imps on general principles (and the imp's lack of them!).
Druid and Ranger companions? What companion? Horse? Dog? Nah, probably not. Bring them on in. Owl? Sure, why not. Bat? Huh, weird but sure, it's a bat (not a dire bat). Small snake? Maybe maybe not, is it poisonous?
Lion? Bear? Wolf? Venomous Snake? No, not so much. Those are wild animals and very dangerous.
MDT actually covered this for the most part. The perceived threat by the local populace is a major factor. I've had players actually shoot for a benign appearing Eidolon just to circumvent these bans in specific cities and I applaud them for their creative thinking.
One of my players balked, and refused to go in, so he sat out half a night's game while the rest went into the country.
I've had a similar incident occur with a flesh golem. The player's character (not the player, this was a well-established trait of the character) was obsessed with the golem and refused to leave it. I asked the player out of character if he understood the consequences of the decision, and he was fine with it. I granted him full xp as if his character were present and he played another character's more benign looking familiar for the evening and probably had a bit too much fun doing so.
1. A) It cant be kept out 24/7 when the summoner goes unconcious (i.e. sleep) it would go away. Unless the race does not sleep. This leaves sleeping races vulnerable to a middle of the night attack.
My statement of 24/7 was an exagerration. I should have stated, instead, ".. at all waking hours."
Well, by RAW there aren't laws like that.
Many settings have laws in the flavor text. Not all, mind you. The expectation is, I would assume, that each individual determine for their group what breaks the law and what doesn't based on area. It really is a judgement call.
While dueling might be outlawed with stiff fines or jail-time in one nation or region, it might be the norm in another. Just because it's not in a Paizo-printed book doesn't mean it is somehow wrong.
Personally I don't have a problem with players walking around with your class features and I usually prefer not to deprive them of the reasons they chose to play that class.
Now I'm curious. Are there no laws in your setting which prevent spellcasters from Gating in demons in the street? Are they allow to throw fireballs in the market (regardless of the reson) without concern for innocent bystanders, property damage, and the like?
My players tell me these sorts of things I incorporate make the campaign feel very full and thought out.
Personally I don't have a problem with players walking around with your class features and I usually prefer not to deprive them of the reasons they chose to play that class.Now I'm curious. Are there no laws in your setting which prevent spellcasters from Gating in demons in the street? Are they allow to throw fireballs in the market (regardless of the reson) without concern for innocent bystanders, property damage, and the like?
Since you asked, usually no, but there's bound to be a reaction. There's no law specifically against fireballs or T-rexes, that's a little over specific. There probably is one against property damage and murder and those sorts of things though. Summoning a demon to wreck havoc in the streets in a city of a large enough populace might call down a particularly powerful law enforcement group, or cause the local populace to flee. I usually try not to avoid being too convenient(A cleric with breath of life always seemed to be on standby in one campaign I was in), or too cliché(never evil twins or npcs you met before), but I want something entertaining yet reasonable to happen without being punishing where its not really deserved.
There's a huge difference between having an imp follow your around and ordering a balor to blow up someplace. There's also a difference in self defense and just being a psychopath. Usually I try to avoid the latter player, but if need be bad things do happen. I really would hate to punish someone for defending themselves though, sounds mean if I do it as an impromptu act and without a chance to talk themselves out of it.
And now I am wondering if I could disguise a tiger as something less threatening with a talented enough rogue...
You just need a high bluff maybe?
Rogue: Well! He's just an overgrown housecat, sir! You don't wanna know what the druids been feedin' em'.
So question, was the player aware of these kinds of laws before he decided to play a character with a 'dangerous' pet?
The campaign wasn't set in this land, they had to escort someone into that land (about a weeks travel) and then they had to come back.
And how did the player feel about sitting out half a session?
He said it wasn't fun, but it was what his character would do. The other players did their best to speed things up to accomodate him. Remember, he was allowed to bring it in, but only if he muzzled it. Much like you can bring a mastiff into certain places in the US if it's muzzled, but not into others (such as restaurants or hospitals) unless they are disability trained animals.
I ask because the 'raw' of laws that ban class features is nonsense.
Nonsense to you! So, rules that bar Paladins from Cheliax are 'nonsense'? Or that bar devils/imps/undead from good aligned churches/cities are 'nonsense' because it keeps the necromancer PC from bringing his evil imp familiar and undead minions into town?
But 'did the player have fun that night?' is not. I know I would be upset if something like that was sprung on me as a summoner, druid, or what have you. But if I was told ahead of time and decided to play one anyway, thats a different story. And now I am wondering if I could disguise a tiger as something less threatening with a talented enough rogue...
He was told ahead of time that certain coutnries didn't permit [edit : dangerous] animals. In fact, he had been in the country before and muzzled the tiger. He just decided that night that his character was no longer going to stand for his friend being muzzled. And that's his right as a player to decide that. But nobody on this board has a right to complain that this is somehow me being a bad GM. Nor that restrictions on dangerous things in certain places is wrong either.
Unless you're willing to allow vampire cohorts to be allowed unmollested into the anti-undead goddesses temples. And if you do, I don't want to play in that game, because it beggars reality for me to have things like that happen.
Re: Mr. Sin
I used the Laws of Cormyr as a basic template by which to base the laws of many of the nations of my home setting on. You can find an example of the Cormyr laws here.
It took very little effort for me to adapt them to each culture, as well as add new ones.
Don't allow pokemon in my game and never will.
Don't allow pokemon in my game and never will.
Terribly vague. Reminds me of vaguebooking.
Define pokemon in context with Pathfinder, please. Does it include any summon spell, eidolon, familiar, animal companion, divine bond mounts, fiendish servant of the antipaladin, shadow companion of the shadowdancer, leadership, Nodwick, and any number of additional, similar class features and supernatural/spell-like abilites?
All of these fit the bill.
I don't think anyone said to remove the challenge, the thread was about a quick fix to summoners because they sometimes insta-gib things. If I understand correctly anyway.
|
|
I am reminded of a certain Season 4 scenario I played recently where the mission took place at a formal banquet.
Not only did I not bring my eidolon, I wore formal court attire. My armor, shield and all weapons save my mithral dagger were left behind.
Somehow I managed just fine, and the mithral dagger saved the evening.
I don't think anyone said to remove the challenge, the thread was about a quick fix to summoners because they sometimes insta-gib things. If I understand correctly anyway.
In which case, I find that 90% of the issues with Summoner has more to do with glass cannon syndrome (GCS) and advanced class syndrome (ACS).
ACS is typically expressed as an inability to add or an inability to apply multiple complex interacting rules successfully. In other words, it's an advanced class, and it is hard to get all the fiddly bits working if your only experience with RPGs is D&D and it's relatives. If you've ever played a point based game (like Hero system, or GURPS) it's a lot easier to build a legal Summoner.
GCS, on the other hand, is expressed as a bad design (sorry Paizo) that actively encourages maximizing attack over everything else. This is usually expressed as a multi-armed freak of nature with a maximum number of natural attacks combined with the maximum number of limbs evolutions that can be purchased all armed with cheap falcions or long swords or axes. Usually combined with a pounce evolution. The fix for this was not done in design phase, which was to limit the maximum number of attacks (instead of the maximum number of natural attacks) and to make Pounce either more expensive, or require a higher level for it.
I don't think anyone said to remove the challenge, the thread was about a quick fix to summoners because they sometimes insta-gib things. If I understand correctly anyway.Summoners can kill things quickly.
So can optimized barbarians and wizards.
Okay...? I didn't say they didn't.
Blackros, I know what it is. I don't see your point.
You can go through that scenario with your gear to. The summoner can even summon his eidolon or other pets in on the first round of combat, so... What's your point?