| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
At first blush this archetype looks like a STRICTLY WORSE archetype of the Summoner. It trades Summon Monster for the weaker Summon Nature's Ally and trades the Summoner's rediculous eidolon for a weaker eidolon. It looks horrid, but on closer reading I noticed this:
Starting at 1st level, a first worlder can cast summon nature’s ally a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. At levels where a summoner would gain a more powerful summon monster spell as a spell-like ability, he instead gains the equivalent summon nature’s ally spell (at 19th level, he can use summon nature’s ally IX or gate). When a first worlder gains a summon nature’s ally spell as a spell-like ability, he adds it to his class spell list (he must still select it as a spell known if he wants to cast it as an actual spell).
This ability otherwise replaces the summon monster ability of a normal summoner.
where as the summoner's summon monster ability explicitly states:
Starting at 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. Drawing upon this ability uses up the same power as the summoner uses to call his eidolon. As a result, he can only use this ability when his eidolon is not summoned. He can cast this spell as a standard action and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level). At 3rd level, and every 2 levels thereafter, the power of this ability increases by one spell level, allowing him to summon more powerful creatures (to a maximum of summon monster IX at 17th level). At 19th level, this ability can be used as gate or summon monster IX. If used as gate, the summoner must pay any required material components. A summoner cannot have more than one summon monster or gate spell active in this way at one time. If this ability is used again, any existing summon monster or gate immediately ends. These summon spells are considered to be part of his spell list for the purposes of spell trigger and spell completion items. In addition, he can expend uses of this ability to fufill the construction requirements of any magic item he creates, so long as he can use this ability to cast the required spell
So, from what I am getting, is that a first worlder trades individually powerful abilities to be able to both abilities at the same time, effectively becoming like a Master Summoner with a better eidolon and the ability to have both at once. What do you guys think? A slightly under-rated archetype or is it truly just a strictly worse summoner?
At first blush this archetype looks like a STRICTLY WORSE archetype of the Summoner. It trades Summon Monster for the weaker Summon Nature's Ally and trades the Summoner's rediculous eidolon for a weaker eidolon. It looks horrid, but on closer reading I noticed this:
** spoiler omitted **
where as the summoner's summon monster ability explicitly states:
** spoiler omitted **...
What i don't get, is why you assume he can have both at the same time. SNA replace SM, so in every other text referring to SM, you replace it with SNA. So this goes like :" A summoner cannot have more than one summon nature's ally or gate spell active in this way at one time."
Or, maybe, you are trying to say something completely different, that i am not getting.... :)
At first blush this archetype looks like a STRICTLY WORSE archetype of the Summoner. It trades Summon Monster for the weaker Summon Nature's Ally and trades the Summoner's rediculous eidolon for a weaker eidolon. It looks horrid, but on closer reading I noticed this:
** spoiler omitted **
where as the summoner's summon monster ability explicitly states:
** spoiler omitted **...
What i don't get, is why you assume he can have both at the same time. SNA replace SM, so in every other text referring to SM, you replace it with SNA. So this goes like :" A summoner cannot have more than one summon nature's ally or gate spell active in this way at one time."
Or, maybe, you are trying to say something completely different, that i am not getting.... :)
That is just it. It says it REPLACES teh ability, not treated like or acts as. So that means the text block for SNA effectively REPLACES the text block for SM. Since the SNA ability does not specifically say that it cannot be used when Eidolon is out, and since the ability completely overrides the SM ability, that would mean that you can in fact use the SNA ability when the Eidolon is out.
That is just it. It says it REPLACES teh ability, not treated like or acts as. So that means the text block for SNA effectively REPLACES the text block for SM. Since the SNA ability does not specifically say that it cannot be used when Eidolon is out, and since the ability completely overrides the SM ability, that would mean that you can in fact use the SNA ability when the Eidolon is out.At first blush this archetype looks like a STRICTLY WORSE archetype of the Summoner. It trades Summon Monster for the weaker Summon Nature's Ally and trades the Summoner's rediculous eidolon for a weaker eidolon. It looks horrid, but on closer reading I noticed this:
** spoiler omitted **
where as the summoner's summon monster ability explicitly states:
** spoiler omitted **...
What i don't get, is why you assume he can have both at the same time. SNA replace SM, so in every other text referring to SM, you replace it with SNA. So this goes like :" A summoner cannot have more than one summon nature's ally or gate spell active in this way at one time."
Or, maybe, you are trying to say something completely different, that i am not getting.... :)
Hmmm...interesting...
You know what...I think you are right...After all, the eidolon is "weaker" (and SNA is considered "worse" than SM) i believe,so, why not?
So, from what I am getting, is that a first worlder trades individually powerful abilities to be able to both abilities at the same time, effectively becoming like a Master Summoner with a better eidolon and the ability to have both at once. What do you guys think? A slightly under-rated archetype or is it truly just a strictly worse summoner?
Under this interpretation, first worlder has the same problem as the master summoner: one player controlling that many creatures can cause logistical problems with running them game. But if I didn't think that would be an issue, as a DM I would rule your interpretation is correct. After all, it's not significantly stronger than other summoner archetypes (I'd probably rate it weaker than both vanilla summoner and master summoner) and it's the only way the archetype is likely to see play.
|
It does appear to have the ability to summon hordes of monsters. Of course, you are summoning beatsticks mostly as opposed to angels, and you have an eidolon who isn't useful for very much, but still it seems like a correct interpretation. Hmm, this seems like the only PFS legal summoner archetype that allows such a thing. I wonder how long until they ban it ;P
One question:Why is in General Discussion instead of Rules Questions? It seems more like a question than a topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the word "otherwise" as opposed to just "replaces" means it does not do what you want it to.
I can only see this as the intended interpretation. Because otherwise, they literally made a COMPLETELY WORSE archetype. There are some bad archetypes for classes, but there are no real archetypes that do nothing but 100% power you down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can only see this as the intended interpretation. Because otherwise, they literally made a COMPLETELY WORSE archetype. There are some bad archetypes for classes, but there are no real archetypes that do nothing but 100% power you down.
Counterpoint: Vow of Poverty. SKR has even confirmed that yes, it makes your character suck to the point of unplayability, and that it was intentionally designed that way.
I can only see this as the intended interpretation. Because otherwise, they literally made a COMPLETELY WORSE archetype. There are some bad archetypes for classes, but there are no real archetypes that do nothing but 100% power you down.
Fighter (Crossbowman)
I can only see this as the intended interpretation. Because otherwise, they literally made a COMPLETELY WORSE archetype. There are some bad archetypes for classes, but there are no real archetypes that do nothing but 100% power you down.Fighter (Crossbowman)
The Crossbowman does do something though. It makes the Fighter a sniper. It actually provides SOME BONUS, as opposed to the First Worlder which literally does nothing but take things away from the summoner.
I can only see this as the intended interpretation. Because otherwise, they literally made a COMPLETELY WORSE archetype. There are some bad archetypes for classes, but there are no real archetypes that do nothing but 100% power you down.Counterpoint: Vow of Poverty. SKR has even confirmed that yes, it makes your character suck to the point of unplayability, and that it was intentionally designed that way.
That is true.
I can only see this as the intended interpretation. Because otherwise, they literally made a COMPLETELY WORSE archetype. There are some bad archetypes for classes, but there are no real archetypes that do nothing but 100% power you down.Counterpoint: Vow of Poverty. SKR has even confirmed that yes, it makes your character suck to the point of unplayability, and that it was intentionally designed that way.That is true.
Oh wow, that uber sucks. You should check out vow of poverty from book of exalted deeds in 3.5. Now that was fairly playable.
Oh wow, that uber sucks. You should check out vow of poverty from book of exalted deeds in 3.5. Now that was fairly playable.I can only see this as the intended interpretation. Because otherwise, they literally made a COMPLETELY WORSE archetype. There are some bad archetypes for classes, but there are no real archetypes that do nothing but 100% power you down.Counterpoint: Vow of Poverty. SKR has even confirmed that yes, it makes your character suck to the point of unplayability, and that it was intentionally designed that way.That is true.
I loved VoP from 3.5 it actually allowed you to play the Ascetic Monk or the forest guy very well without gimping the crap out of you.
Out of curiosity, does anybody have the link in which SKR said that they designed VoP to be teh suck that it is?
and more specifically
Where he expresses how the company feels about taking such a lashing about intentionally including an option thats purposefully weaker and how it seems like the company will vehemently avoid ever doing another such thing in the future without adamantly stating that such a thing has that purpose intentionally, because there appears to be a remarkable gap between the number of people saying 'thanks paizo' and 'what the bleep were you thinking paizo...' and they don't want you to think they made VOP as a result of foolishly not understanding what it does to your character.
I can only see this as the intended interpretation. Because otherwise, they literally made a COMPLETELY WORSE archetype. There are some bad archetypes for classes, but there are no real archetypes that do nothing but 100% power you down.Counterpoint: Vow of Poverty. SKR has even confirmed that yes, it makes your character suck to the point of unplayability, and that it was intentionally designed that way.
So was the Paizo version of Vow of Poverty just their way of saying that the 3.5e version of that feat is overpowered for Pathfinder? I have noticed that most of the weaker feats that Paizo puts out seem to be meant to replace non-OGC feats with the same names that are on the powerful side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially its seen as being disingenuous to the 'concept' of a vow of poverty if its made with the express purpose of giving you all the benefits of gear without having to buy the gear. [i]Of course[/u] you promise never to buy a cow if we promise to deliver free milk to you every day for free. That's not exactly a vow of hardship... Its almost more of a 'vow of convenience'
It looks horrid, but on closer reading I noticed this:
** spoiler omitted **
where as the summoner's summon monster ability explicitly states:
** spoiler omitted **...
Others have essentially said it, but it looks like there was a language jumble, and should have extra words to make sense:
"This ability otherwise operates as and replaces the summon monster ability of a normal summoner."
Essentially its seen as being disingenuous to the 'concept' of a vow of poverty if its made with the express purpose of giving you all the benefits of gear without having to buy the gear. [i]Of course[/u] you promise never to buy a cow if we promise to deliver free milk to you every day for free. That's not exactly a vow of hardship... Its almost more of a 'vow of convenience'
Except, contrary to what some people think, gear means A LOT. The difference between an ungeared level 10 and a fully geared level 10 is incomparable. The Ungeared level ten (assuming it has no rediculous templatates or races) would be ROTFLOLstomped.
The gaining of Ki points is negligible to this loss. I mean, how can one justify crippling yoru character down to the point of near useless-ness? I mean, a wizard with INT 12, which sub-optimal, is still able to DO something and can shore up his weakness later. A monk with VoP (PF version) literally becomes useless. Monks are one of the weakest classes in the game AND is one of the MOST gear dependent classes in the game. Making VoP the way they did does absolutely nothing [/endrant]
Now actually on topic, VoP was ment for that idea, the idea of an ascetic who shuns the "easy way" of tools and material possessions. The thing is, First Worlder has no "flavor" justification for being a straight, across the board, debuff in every single way. Especially when you have a class called the DRUID in THE CORE RULE BOOK that can (if you take the First Worlder to act like a normal summoner) do the same thing (Spontanious SNA+pet) but even better (wildshape ftw).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the first worlder is a bad choice. It has a few advantages that are not quite so obvious, some are listed in my post and the rest of that thread.
I do like being able to summon a nymph. Hmm...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I miss having Unicorns on the SNA list.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re: The OP
Per James Jacobs in the Inner Sea Magic errata thread, allowing you to summon with the eidolon out was "Intentional." You have a weaker eidolon but CAN use SNA with the eidolon out.
Halfway down this thread.
Re: The OP
Per James Jacobs in the Inner Sea Magic errata thread, allowing you to summon with the eidolon out was "Intentional." You have a weaker eidolon but CAN use SNA with the eidolon out.
Halfway down this thread.
WOW...very interesting.
I would have assumed that it was just a glich in the wording....and that the OP was reading it wrong...nice to know.
Re: The OP
Per James Jacobs in the Inner Sea Magic errata thread, allowing you to summon with the eidolon out was "Intentional." You have a weaker eidolon but CAN use SNA with the eidolon out.
Halfway down this thread.
But also don't get standard action summons.....
yeah not getting standard actions summons isn't pleasant, but I suppose it makes it different than the other ones that's for sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So all in all, with my interpretation, the First Worlder is actually a fairly underrated Archetype.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like this answered: does the First Worlder get their summon nature's ally spells at the favorable levels the base summoner gets their summon monster spells?
I would like this answered: does the First Worlder get their summon nature's ally spells at the favorable levels the base summoner gets their summon monster spells?Yes.. you get the same level spells that a standard summoner would get for summon monster.
I mean, authoritively. If you can find some text that supports your answer, I will be pleased! :)
See the OP.
See the OP.
I honestly am not sure if or how exactly you are responding to me. But if you are replying to me, I meant this:
Strictly speaking they dont seem to get the summon natures ally spells added to their spell list at a reduced spell level like base summoners do with some of the summon monster spells. Either another reason they are plain worse or another reason to allow OPs interpretation.
from what I read, the SLA for SNA is still a standard action.
so the summon last for 1 round per lvl instead of 1 minute, take 1 round to cast instead of a standard action ad you will not learn to use gate as a sla either.
Now I am not sure that is strictly an improvement..
so the summon last for 1 round per lvl instead of 1 minute, take 1 round to cast instead of a standard action ad you will not learn to use gate as a sla either.
Now I am not sure that is strictly an improvement..
The First Worlder does learn Gate and SNA IX. The SNA only really replaces the SM part.
Pretty sure the SNA also only last 1 round per level if you are allowed to also have your eidolon out.
It's only a standard action because SLA are a standard action unless noted otherwise.
The First Worlder does learn Gate and SNA IX. The SNA only really replaces the SM part.so the summon last for 1 round per lvl instead of 1 minute, take 1 round to cast instead of a standard action ad you will not learn to use gate as a sla either.
Now I am not sure that is strictly an improvement..
true, missed that part.
So the question is:
A succubus at lvl 11 for 1 minute per lvl or a nymph at lvl 13 for 6 seconds per lvl ?
Pretty sure the SNA also only last 1 round per level if you are allowed to also have your eidolon out.
It's only a standard action because SLA are a standard action unless noted otherwise.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
So, it's whatever SNA is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure the SNA also only last 1 round per level if you are allowed to also have your eidolon out.
It's only a standard action because SLA are a standard action unless noted otherwise.
Depends on how you interpret this line:
"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description"
In my opinion it simply conforms to the spell, if it doesn't duplicate a spell it will be a standard action unless noted otherwise.
Yeah it doesn't make sense to even have "A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description" this line if it means read the spell description.