|
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.
** spoiler omitted **
But nobody has an issue when the barbarian insta-gibs an encounter.
Why apply a double standard to the summoner?The point was. Sometimes eidolons are not appropriate to the situation.
I am perfectly fine with social or legal constraints on summoned beings.
My summoner always builds his like scyther anyway! No pounce, no crazy multi attacks, except for combat reflexes. My summoner is completly gimped, and cannot even function without the eidolon. Min strength and constitution etc. I used my eidolon to carry me around and allow me to skip over standard physical barriers, like climbing down a ravine. If you think your characters are being to OP there are better things to do then damn near eradicate a class feature. That being said, if they refuse to regulate themselves, i guess the rule isn't terrible. I, however, would never play one in your game with that rule. but i would plazy my naked crane monk and show you a truly broken character....
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?
You misunderstand me. I agree with you. You have the right to create whatever laws you wnat in your setting. I personally like a more over the top fantasy world (think ebberron) that leaves options open to players without in world choices for their character choices. But there is plenty interesting in dealing with the in world concequences of such choices. Things like racism can be really interesting to explore in game. A campaign I am currently in has spent some time focusing on working past the biased against a changeling and tiefline in our party.
All I am saying is that there is no game rule in the game that says your world has to allow game choices. Its about how you and your players enjoy or dont enjoy it.
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.
I think there is a difference between rules that ban blatently evil things, and rules that cause conflict over basic character choices. For instance, things like weapon bans. It might make sense in world that someone cant walk around with a sword strapped to their back. I cant walk down times square with an m16 slung over my shoulder. But it does make certain character choices better then others. For instance in a land where you are not permitted to carry weapons, monks and casters rule, fighters and paladins sit there kind of sad if encounter occurs in town.
Basically what I am getting at is I dont think the setting should prevent players from being able to have their class features available to use. I think there is a big difference between a vampire cohort and a cat animal companion, but that is my personal preference. I can understand the desire to make the campaign world more 'real'.
And as long as the player knew about it when he made the character and chose the tiger, thats fine by me. I as a player just would have made a character that was better suited to the setting. For instance I've been dying to make a super genius games dragon rider, but I understand that for the vast majority of campaigns, that isnt going to work. I cant put a dragon in a stable (it wouldnt be happy about that anyway), and unless there is a base assumption about dragons being mounts in the setting its going to cause issues. I think the whole generic wild west lawlessness that most people play in is a factor of that conversation not happening. Where the players and gms talk about the world and the campaign they have planned and figure out characters that will work.
@OP
In that case I'd just make a master summoner. Eagles can be summoned right next to the enemy and get three attacks right at level 1 and you can keep summning them every round for more attacks.@ 3 you have lightning elementals for insane combat maneuver bonuses along side 1d3 eagles. All of these @ 1 minute per level.
I'd never make a regular summoner with those restrictions
My summoner always builds his like scyther anyway! No pounce, no crazy multi attacks, except for combat reflexes. My summoner is completly gimped, and cannot even function without the eidolon. Min strength and constitution etc. I used my eidolon to carry me around and allow me to skip over standard physical barriers, like climbing down a ravine.
I think that's a fairly neat idea. While certainly not the first example of this, it reminds me of a really weird Bran Stark & Hodor.
If you think your characters are being to OP there are better things to do then damn near eradicate a class feature. That being said, if they refuse to regulate themselves, i guess the rule isn't terrible. I, however, would never play one in your game with that rule. but i would plazy my naked crane monk and show you a truly broken character....
I'm not entirely sure who you're directing this at, though I would presume it is either mdt or myself, since we have certain in-character cultural and societal norms which are regional or nation-based.
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that I feel summoners are broken. This is not the case, as I both allow the summoner and the synthesist archetype, which many (excluding me) consider to be poorly balanced. I listed the problems I have with them above, and I consider them to be minor. I don't have a problem with my players regulating themselves. My group consists of eight players, ages 29-52, with high degrees of system mastery - all mature adults.
As far as crazy naked crane monks go, I've not run into any build I can't deal with as a GM (and without resorting to fudged rolls or fiat). However, just to make sure I'm completely clear, since I seem to be coming across as some sort of antagonistic, draconian GM:
Example of two of my House Rules:
1. Monks, Scrollmasters, White-Haired Witches (and other Asian-style classes or archetypes) are limited to campaigns which occur in the Nation of Qi Xing and surrounding areas; a player may request to play such a character elsewhere, however, with a submitted background and GM approval.
2. All firearms and firearm-related classes, archetypes, feats, or other character options are not used in the World of Soril.
The above examples are house rules which affects the options of a player's selection of class and archetypes. I'll point out, to date, I have never turned down a submission of this sort provided it came with a background.
Firearms are "banned" as they do not fit with setting I run and will never be a character option in the setting. I do, however, run other settings on occasion which do use firearms, but not the Paizo ruleset.
Examples of Cultural and Legal Aspects of Regions or Nations
1. Abraen, City of: This small city {text-note of settlement size} rests near the Witching-Wood on the southern border between the nations of Avonleigh and Eluatha; it is known as the site of mass witch-burnings and purges during the latter half of Eilis' Might [a cycle based on my homebrew calender]. While neither the nations of Avonleigh, nor Eluatha have any direct laws concerning witchcraft, this small city maintains legal codes which prohibit witchcraft on penalty of death by fire. The Order of the Inquisition maintains a holding here, enforcing these ancient edicts of the city's leadership. Additionally, while the Strega gypsies wander where they wish, by virtue of the fear inspired by the Evil Eye, the tribes give a wide berth to this city, as their reputation for cursing provides no safety from the resolve of the city council and Inquisition.
Excerpts from Cultural Quirks
1. Nerul, Nation of: [...] conversely, in Nerul is it considered a grave insult to a host to attend a banquet, celebration, and even wedding while unarmed - to do so indicates the view that the host is weak and poses no threat. [...]
[...]The status of eldest sibling is determined by a duel that can take place at any time and at any location [...]
[...]The groom and the best man fight a duel on the wedding day, and the winner marries the bride [...]
2. The Frozen Kingdoms [...]Pets are given as part of a military alliance; the alliance lasts only as long as the pet lives. [...]
[...] Non-military alliances and friendships are cemented by an exchange of hair clippings [...]
Conclusion: When I say that there are laws for area, these are in-game, and thus roleplaying related laws. Players may adhere to them or disregard them at their discretion, but there are often consequences to these actions.
I'll add, that all information regarding these sorts of things are provided to all players. In fact, I purchased binders, created tables of contents, and arranged it into chapters.
If the way I run and the amount of effort I've put into fleshing out a majority of the aspects of my campaign world (with input from my players, no less), while providing a fun and mature gaming environment and story is something you wouldn't enjoy, I'm not sure we're playing the same game.
You misunderstand me. I agree with you. You have the right to create whatever laws you wnat in your setting. I personally like a more over the top fantasy world (think ebberron) that leaves options open to players without in world choices for their character choices. But there is plenty interesting in dealing with the in world concequences of such choices. Things like racism can be really interesting to explore in game. A campaign I am currently in has spent some time focusing on working past the biased against a changeling and tiefline in our party.
Ok, sorry, there's some people on the boards that like to flame GMs, and only GMs, over anything they perceive as limiting a player in any way shape or form, no matter what. Everything should be allowed, and if you don't, you are a BAD GM(TM)!
Anyway, I prefer a world where things are not homogeneous. So, on the southern continent, there are multiple lands. Corymar is the oldest and most civilized of the lands. They are LG aligned as a country. They have a culture of chivalry, laws, knights, and basically runs like a heavily civilized version of Authurian rule. So lots of laws, everyone follows them. This is the country in question. There's no goblins under every bush in Corymar, any goblins still there are working in garbage dumps outside the city, gainfully employed, or else in jail awaiting execution. Spellcasters who cast spells without a license get arrested, basically it's full of red-tape.
Immediately to the south of Corymar is the desert. The desert is chaotic neutral, and was settled by people that Corymar 'expelled' as undesirable. The ruler of the country is always the illegitimate offspring of the current ruler (the current ruler is Her Magnificent Bastardess Ellana Broke-Tusk, a half-orc byblow of the previous ruler). The first 'king' was a bastard son of Corymar's king. This country is wide open, few rules (other than don't tick off the queen). You can walk down the street with a T-Rex if you want. Although there's no laws against someone shooting it with a ballista bolt if they feel threatened by it either.
East of Corymar is a country that is pastoral, produces lots of farm produce, and is NG and more relaxed. Beyond that a halfling country that is known for it's horse breeding and is CN. North of that is a LN forest country that is insular. Beyond that a forest realm ruled by LG elves who are stuffy and prideful. Beyond them another elf land that's CN with barbarian elves who despise their 'ivory tower' cousins. A swamp that's NN full of catfolk and lizardfolk. Three mountain realms, one LG, one LN, and one LE. There are others.
The point is, no two countries are exactly alike, and no two countries have the exact same laws, social customs, and such. Before the game starts, the PCs get a print out of all the countries, and their social mores.
All I am saying is that there is no game rule in the game that says your world has to allow game choices. Its about how you and your players enjoy or dont enjoy it.
There's no game rule that says the king of the realm has to allow fully armed murderous hobos and their pet dire tigers into his throne room fully armed and ready to kill him either. :) I don't think anyone would object to the king saying 'uhm, no...' to that either, do you?
I think there is a difference between rules that ban blatently evil things, and rules that cause conflict over basic character choices. For instance, things like weapon bans. It might make sense in world that someone cant walk around with a sword strapped to their back. I cant walk down times square with an m16 slung over my shoulder. But it does make certain character choices better then others. For instance in a land where you are not permitted to carry weapons, monks and casters rule, fighters and paladins sit there kind of sad if encounter occurs in town.
It's not about it being ok to ban blatantly evil things. Would you object to an EVIL country banning Angelic creatures? Paladins? If so, why would you object to a Lawful country banning Tyranasaurus Rex's? There's no ban on Rangers or Druids. There is a ban in certain places on certain class options. The Wizard Necromancy specialist is a class option, it's still banned in most Good leaning locales, yes? It's not blatently evil, but it's often associated with it and is very dangerous. Nobody objects too much to that. I find it more reasonable to say that it's illegal to bring a 1200 lb tiger the size of a pony into a city than to say it's ok to bring that in. If for no other reason than to avoid panic or accidents.
Basically what I am getting at is I dont think the setting should prevent players from being able to have their class features available to use. I think there is a big difference between a vampire cohort and a cat animal companion, but that is my personal preference. I can understand the desire to make the campaign world more 'real'.
I don't think there's much difference between a vampire cohort and a tiger companion. The vampire can hide his affliction to some extent, where the tiger can't pretend to be a dog. And I do object to your stance that this is 'removing player class features'. Want to walk around with no issues in the city as a druid or ranger? Pick a horse. Pick a dog. Pick an eagle. Pick a snake and keep it in your back pack. Pick any of the dozen things that normal 1st to 3rd level commoners aren't terrified of running into in a dark alley. If you want the big roar pounce rake kitty, prepare for people to be afraid of it.
And as long as the player knew about it when he made the character and chose the tiger, thats fine by me. I as a player just would have made a character that was better suited to the setting. For instance I've been dying to make a super genius games dragon rider, but I understand that for the vast majority of campaigns, that isnt going to work. I cant put a dragon in a stable (it wouldnt be happy about that anyway), and unless there is a base assumption about dragons being mounts in the setting its going to cause issues. I think the whole generic wild west lawlessness that most people play in is a factor of that conversation not happening. Where the players and gms talk about the world and the campaign they have planned and figure out characters that will work.
And this we agree on completely. The player agreed ahead of time that he was ok with the fact that if he ventured into certain areas his companion would be an issue. Most people are ok with it. When I'm playing, I don't pick a grizzly bear as my AC and expect people to let him into a restaurant in town. I usually leave him outside town, in the forest, and tell him I'll meet him in X days and to stay out of sight (then again, I always boost my AC's int to 3 at 4th level so I can tell him things and he understands).
Kolo, I'm not sure if it got lost in the legal debate, but did you see my point about the defensive cost of the eidolon being higher than the offensive? Did I persuade you or do you have a counterpoint that I am missing somehow?
I'm playing a summoner so if I'm wrong I'd love to know!
Kolo, I'm not sure if it got lost in the legal debate, but did you see my point about the defensive cost of the eidolon being higher than the offensive? Did I persuade you or do you have a counterpoint that I am missing somehow?
I'm playing a summoner so if I'm wrong I'd love to know!
I see your point, but I dont agree that an eidolon is 'squishy' or that it is somehow problematic for the summoner. I think the eidolon I presented was perfectly survivable for its level. 32 AC, 70 something HP and a summoner who has a whole other set of actions to buff it and heal it and otherwise keep it up.
Is the eidolon alone as tough as a high ac fighter? No. But can it survive getting into combat long enough to tear things to shreads. Yes, especially with the summoner backing it up.
Kolo, I'm not sure if it got lost in the legal debate, but did you see my point about the defensive cost of the eidolon being higher than the offensive? Did I persuade you or do you have a counterpoint that I am missing somehow?
I'm playing a summoner so if I'm wrong I'd love to know!
I see your point, but I dont agree that an eidolon is 'squishy' or that it is somehow problematic for the summoner. I think the eidolon I presented was perfectly survivable for its level. 32 AC, 70 something HP and a summoner who has a whole other set of actions to buff it and heal it and otherwise keep it up.
Is the eidolon alone as tough as a high ac fighter? No. But can it survive getting into combat long enough to tear things to shreads. Yes, especially with the summoner backing it up.
Right, but what about the summoner? What do those stats look like? (That's not a "post the build" ultimatum, just a quick rundown would do).
You give up a lot because you're limited to light armor, and you split your item slots with the eidolon. That, and the game basically includes a rule that lets even stupid NPCs attack the summoner first (the glowing symbol on the forehead).
Recently, I've been using the eidolon as a kind of ablative pet — I force him out front and try to keep him alive, but I know the fight is only really "on" when he goes down. At that point, it's rarely worth spending the spell slot/action to prop him up every round, better to let him stay down and use the SLA (unless it's early in the mission).
I think this is the intent of the rules. With your build, I'm not quite sure what will happen if the summoner himself is weak on defense, and if we're split between the two defensively hmm..
Anyway, what's that eidolon's summoner look like? (Also, I'm 5th, so my gameplay experience doesn't necessarily jive with your build.)
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...
I think a certain amount of common sense needs to be exercised by the player. Bringing wild animals (and that's exactly what an animal companion is), or really nasty looking eidolons (to keep the summoner content going here), into a civilized area should be carefully considered. A hawk on a shoulder, a horse, or even a witch's pig familiar are very different from dinosaurs, tigers, giant crabs, and bears. Players should be expecting concerns from the start and should think of methods to deal with the problem.
I think a certain amount of common sense needs to be exercised by the player. Bringing wild animals (and that's exactly what an animal companion is), or really nasty looking eidolons (to keep the summoner content going here), into a civilized area should be carefully considered. A hawk on a shoulder, a horse, or even a witch's pig familiar are very different from dinosaurs, tigers, giant crabs, and bears. Players should be expecting concerns from the start and should think of methods to deal with the problem.
:::beers you::: You get it.
I think a certain amount of common sense needs to be exercised by the player. Bringing wild animals (and that's exactly what an animal companion is), or really nasty looking eidolons (to keep the summoner content going here), into a civilized area should be carefully considered. A hawk on a shoulder, a horse, or even a witch's pig familiar are very different from dinosaurs, tigers, giant crabs, and bears. Players should be expecting concerns from the start and should think of methods to deal with the problem.
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...
I think this depends entirely on the setting. If someone walked into a bar in new york today with a rifle on his back and a pair of sidearms at his belt people would be calling the cops. If somene did it in a 1895 out in the west, they would call for another round of shots.
It is possible to have a setting where such things are common place, where poeple know what druids and summoners and what have you are, and react appropriately. Again, this might not be the setting for you, and you dont have to do it, but there isn't an absolute truth to the idea that such things need in world discouragement or that it's common sense that people would react poorly to it.
I think medieval europe (which isn't the only relevant age) would have a less hostile reaction to a guy bringing a bear into town than you might imagine.
They would probably ask when it would be chained up for the baiting.
Just saying, there are cultural exceptions to all of the above assertions about reactions to eidolons.
(Not that Pathfinder is medieval europe in any way, but still)
I think medieval europe (which isn't the only relevant age) would have a less hostile reaction to a guy bringing a bear into town than you might imagine.
They would probably ask when it would be chained up for the baiting.
Just saying, there are cultural exceptions to all of the above assertions about reactions to eidolons.
(Not that Pathfinder is medieval europe in any way, but still)
Just a note on bears. Most bears are apex predators. In a society without firearms being available to the general populace, would you imagine that people would be alright with a Kodiak Bear walking through town on a chain? In the case of a Kodiak, that's up to 1500lbs, 8 feet tall when standing, and able to run up to 30mph for hours. I'd wager common sense would sway people to put the bear in a cage, on a wagon. Though, everyones campaign is different.
I think medieval europe (which isn't the only relevant age) would have a less hostile reaction to a guy bringing a bear into town than you might imagine.
They would probably ask when it would be chained up for the baiting.
Just saying, there are cultural exceptions to all of the above assertions about reactions to eidolons.
(Not that Pathfinder is medieval europe in any way, but still)
Just a note on bears. Most bears are apex predators. In a society without firearms being available to the general populace, would you imagine that people would be alright with a Kodiak Bear walking through town on a chain? In the case of a Kodiak, that's up to 1500lbs, 8 feet tall when standing, and able to run up to 30mph for hours. I'd wager common sense would sway people to put the bear in a cage, on a wagon. Though, everyones campaign is different.
In Pathfinder nothing is an apex predator, especially not a cr 4 (or less)
My summoner always builds his like scyther anyway! No pounce, no crazy multi attacks, except for combat reflexes. My summoner is completly gimped, and cannot even function without the eidolon. Min strength and constitution etc. I used my eidolon to carry me around and allow me to skip over standard physical barriers, like climbing down a ravine.I think that's a fairly neat idea. While certainly not the first example of this, it reminds me of a really weird Bran Stark & Hodor.
If you think your characters are being to OP there are better things to do then damn near eradicate a class feature. That being said, if they refuse to regulate themselves, i guess the rule isn't terrible. I, however, would never play one in your game with that rule. but i would plazy my naked crane monk and show you a truly broken character....I'm not entirely sure who you're directing this at, though I would presume it is either mdt or myself, since we have certain in-character cultural and societal norms which are regional or nation-based.
"snip"
It was vague on purpose, I was targeting any and all the people that agreed with the rule stated by the OP, but i can see the confusion, as ia mini convo broke out that this could seem to stem from. My Crane Monk was/is always from the same GM's world, where their is a monastery called the "Temple of Winds" I actually developed him entirely on accident, as in our first "combat" i chased a halfling sorcerer out a 5th floor window of a temple. While he featherfell? i leaped off using my grappling hook on the window and climbed down. Soi started calling myself the flying monk. Saw styles, crane flies, matched it, and by level 6 i had a 30+ac and was practically invincible to anything but magic, hah! (by end of campaign i had massive resist through gear too, i was the tank, our paladin quit and rerolled a wizard)