Why does everyone hate summoners?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I've noticed a pattern over the last year or so of a general apparent consensus that summoners are the worst class ever( not in terms of power) with a few people going so far as to assert that anyone who would ever want to play a summoner should be permanently banned from the table because they're such a horrible person (etc). Among other nastier things.

Interestingly I haven't actually noticed this sentiment being repeated on other pathfinder websites other than Paizo.com, so I was wondering if anyone had any insight as to why the class is so universally reviled.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't noticed any of that. Unless by summoner you mean rogue.


Universally hated? No. Largely disliked and marginally tolerated by many? Yes.

Personally I think as written is a problem and needs major adjustments to make workable. If they made a Master Summoning Rogue archetype I guarantee everyone would be changing their tune. Many see Summoner as the Pokemaster (or whatever it's called) of D&D and you're just summoning everything to fight for you. I don't recall this ever being said about conjurers but they also don't get to spam monsters the same way either. It's also a pain because Druids and the like can be bad enough with having to have the PC and the DM track a companion, now you have someone with 8 monsters on the field and you're trying to keep track of way more. Don't forget "Hold on guys I have to spend 8 minutes figuring out which monster to summon and what their stats do".

If someone came to me wanting to do summoner I'd probably tell them they need to have the Bestiary for the monsters with the applicable monster's pages bookmarked, that or have a mobile device with their monsters bookmarked on their web browser.

Liberty's Edge

I would not say I have seen the hate go that far, the main reason people do not like it is because it is a very powerful class. Summoning is regulated as one of the best tactics and the summoner is amazing at it. Summons last 10 times longer than others and he can use it so many times throughout the day 3 or 5 plus his main casting stat. And then there is his eidolon. That is a super customized companion with full BAB D10 hit die and evolutions that are very strong. So really the hate is because it can be much more powerful than other classes very easily. I like the class and encourage my players to use it as they are a very martial focused group. Hope this helps clear sone stuff up for you.

The Exchange

swoosh wrote:
...a general apparent consensus that summoners are the worst class ever( not in terms of power) with a few people going so far as to assert that anyone who would ever want to play a summoner should be permanently banned from the table because they're such a horrible person (etc)...

I cannot speak for the masses, only for myself. I dislike the summoner on the basis that there was already a specialist wizard devoted to the same concept; on the basis that its "six spell levels" simply stretch the power of the 4th-6th level spells to make them include things like summon monster IX; and because the eidolon, while great for player freedom, didn't strike me as particularly well-balanced. Those three still don't add up to banning a player for wanting to play one; I'd far rather suggest alternatives (the druid first, the conjurer wizard second) than turn somebody away from my table.

But I am thankful to the class for giving me a chance to dust off all my tired old Pokemon jokes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I dislike the summoner on the basis that there was already a specialist wizard devoted to the same concept; on the basis that its "six spell levels" include spells that are ordinarily 7th, 8th, or 9th (unlike the inquisitor or bard); and because the eidolon, while great for player freedom, didn't strike me as particularly well-balanced.

Seconded. But it's the "taking the conjurer's stuff" that I most dislike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it's not on other forums, maybe it's just a quirk of the paizo forum. That being said, and although I haven't seen the extremes you're talking about, I also really dislike the class.

For one thing, It's overpowered, for another, minions are just a pain in the ass, extra bookkeeping, and they slow the game down to a grind as the summoner player flips through the bestiary looking for the bestest monster to summon, recalculates hit points because he forgot about augment summoning's con bonus, and his dire tiger really shouldn't have died last turn, and a million other fiddly little things while I sit on my hands asking if it's finally my turn and I can just cast my dazing fireball and be done in half the time it took for the summoner player to decide which beastie to summon.

Plus the class gets nonsensical stuff like Haste, which has nothing to do with summoning, other than the fact that it works really well with summoning.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

People talk about rogues because people want to like them. Most of the rogue threads are either about dissuading new players from playing the rogue, having a poor experience, and abandon the game; or fixing the rogue so people can play the rogue and have a good experience.

Nobody even wants to like the summoner.

The summoner's problems are manifold.

1) The Eidolon rules are complicated, clumsy, poorly balanced with a very high optimization floor, and the limits are hidden or confusing while the options are an easy to see menu leading to a rash of ridiculously overpowered eidolons by people who misread the rules. I think it was almost a year from publication before many people started posting eidolon builds that everyone agreed were rules legal.

2) The spell list causes ripple problems in item pricing and availability.

3) The fluff was just not there. It's a concept that takes a lot of fluff to sell because it isn't anchored in preexisting character concepts and until Balthazar's story was published there was none at all. Paizo needed Balthazar up before the APG hit the shelves to sell the new class and they held him back for years until the interest had died down.

#1-2 get the summoner banned at rules oriented tables and #3 gets it ignored at roleplaying tables.


I dont dislike them but I see why people do...
1) easy to make super optimized even by accident.
2) rules are sufficiently complicated the innocent people cheat by accident and not so innocent people can easily hide that they are cheating on purpose
3) many short cuts to destroy acction economy.
4) access to a hanful of good spells earlier than most.
5) dont like pokemon in my D&D's
6) synthesist is pretty easily broken at early levels on stats alone
7) uncontrolled creativity can lead to conflicts with setting IE: why cant I be a giant steampunk robot in your primitive barbarian campaign!?

And that list took seconds to craft from someone who wouldnt mind playing one someday.


I said hatred simply because one of my players was wanting to play one and when I looked stuff up on this forum for information I found a wealth of comments along the lines of (in older threads) "You should ban him from the table" and " the single greatest mistake in the history of tabletop RPG designs" "If FATAL was a class, it would be the summoner" and "Whoever designed it should have been fired".

It being too strong makes sense, but why then does it seem more singled out than say, wizards or paragon surge oracles and other dominant classes?

Similarly I don't see other minionmancy classes getting as much raw and complete loathing, even other top tier ones.

The most understandable complaint I've heard is that the summoner basically gets a free pet fighter, which makes sense. Though I'm not sure how much of that is the eidolon being too strong and how much of that is the fighter being a fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I dislike the summoner on the basis that there was already a specialist wizard devoted to the same concept; on the basis that its "six spell levels" include spells that are ordinarily 7th, 8th, or 9th (unlike the inquisitor or bard); and because the eidolon, while great for player freedom, didn't strike me as particularly well-balanced.
Seconded. But it's the "taking the conjurer's stuff" that I most dislike.

Yeah, this.

I mean, who thought, I know, let take one of the most powerful and popular tactics, from one of the most powerful and popular subtypes (conjurer specialization, which is already too good compared to other Wizard specializations), of one of the most powerful and popular classes, even though that class subtype already perfectly represents the intended archetype, and then make it make way more powerful and effective at that one thing! Oh, and give it a completely customizable full BAB familar/pseudo cohort that makes the Fighter weep, as a class feature.

Brilliant.

The Exchange

11 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
...I found a wealth of comments along the lines of... "If FATAL was a class, it would be the summoner"...

Oh, my God. No class deserves that comparison.


Hm. I thought the consensus was that wizard won out (handedly even) if you weren't a master summoner and the other archetypes were more around the level of uncheesed sorcerers and oracles.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you've already seen some of the hate in this very thread :)

My explanation is that no matter what your hot-button issue is, the summoner is almost sure to touch on it at some point.

Do you dislike:
- Characters who take more time per turn than others (with equally good players)?
- Save-or-suck spells?
- Superpowerful melee?
- Builds that can't be easily understood by anyone at the table?
- Overlap of class abilities with existing classes?
- Increased chance of honest mistakes resulting in overpowering builds?
- Dump stats?

People can (and do) argue about whether any or all of those items are true but if you have something that you think is "not how the game should be played" you are going to find something to point at in the summoner class as an example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

I said hatred simply because one of my players was wanting to play one and when I looked stuff up on this forum for information I found a wealth of comments along the lines of (in older threads) "You should ban him from the table" and " the single greatest mistake in the history of tabletop RPG designs" "If FATAL was a class, it would be the summoner" and "Whoever designed it should have been fired".

It being too strong makes sense, but why then does it seem more singled out than say, wizards or paragon surge oracles and other dominant classes?

Similarly I don't see other minionmancy classes getting as much raw and complete loathing, even other top tier ones.

The most understandable complaint I've heard is that the summoner basically gets a free pet fighter, which makes sense. Though I'm not sure how much of that is the eidolon being too strong and how much of that is the fighter being a fighter.

There is a difference between top tier and broken.

Like I pointed out in my post above, a Conjurer with an emphasis on summoning (emphasis, not tunnel vision), is already generally considered one the most effective ways to play a very dominant class.

Then the Summoner comes along and is even better at that tactic, and has an "Eidolon" (whatever that is) to boot, of course people are going to hate it.


I was under the impression that it was mostly the synthesist and master summoner archetypes that generate a lot of hate, and regular summoners are, eh, tolerated. Yes, they are about as powerful as some full casters, but you can probably do worse when it comes to annoying your DM and fellow players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Nobody even wants to like the summoner.

Objection! The summoner's flavor makes it one of my favorate classes, and I know that I'm not the only one. ;)

Admittedly though, the class does needs one of the following to not mess up a game: a rework, gm supervision, or a very well prepared and trustworthy player running it.


For me ...

1. The brokenness of the Master Summoner and Synthesist.
2. I hate summoning in general. Juggling multiple character sheets, and one player taking 4 or 5 turns while everybody else just watches.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:


1) The Eidolon rules are complicated, clumsy, poorly balanced with a very high optimization floor, and the limits are hidden or confusing while the options are an easy to see menu leading to a rash of ridiculously overpowered eidolons by people who misread the rules. I think it was almost a year from publication before many people started posting eidolon builds that everyone agreed were rules legal.

Yes, every Eidolon I have seen was illegal, first shot.

And, one other problem- the class is a 'spotlight hog". Master Summoner is the worst here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the summoner.

I've had a summoner in my game, and it didn't ruin combat, destroy challenge ratings, cast all the spells, and couldn't solo any fights. The eidolon mechanic took some work and reading, buy so does any new and developed mechanic.

The player felt the class was too weak at times and later switched out for a sorcerer, and began soloing encounters and casting all the spells. :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

I've noticed a pattern over the last year or so of a general apparent consensus that summoners are the worst class ever( not in terms of power) with a few people going so far as to assert that anyone who would ever want to play a summoner should be permanently banned from the table because they're such a horrible person (etc). Among other nastier things.

Interestingly I haven't actually noticed this sentiment being repeated on other pathfinder websites other than Paizo.com, so I was wondering if anyone had any insight as to why the class is so universally reviled.

I haven't seen many who take their distaste to that extreme. Some posters do tend to be a bit . . . hyperbolic when they don't like a mechanic.

The class could use work, in my opinion. It presents itself as a class with near-infinite customization possibilities flavored by the ubiquitous lore of a magical practitioner conjuring demons/spirits/primal-forces-made-manifest to do their bidding. Unfortunately, the most viable eidolon builds are crazy-multiattacking-glass-cannon and skill monkey. The former represents the quintessential "rocket tag" style of play people have been trying to get away from since d20 became a thing. The latter is . . . thematically underwhelming.

Others don't like that the summoner spell list seems to include a lot of non-thematic spells (haste being the usual target) at similar effective levels to other casters, and this seem to steal the limelight from those casters. (Personally, I'd like to see more of the summoner's magical abilities taken away and put into the eidolon.)

Enter the archetypes. Master summoner is a lot of fun when done correctly, but most players (hell, most GMs) have trouble properly managing that many minions in a time-efficient manner, and the vastly increased action economy can have rather chaotic effects on an encounter not designed for it. The former problem is very serious--having to wait five minutes for a single player to finish "their" will very likely result in the rest of the players putzing around on their phones. The latter problem I don't actually see as a problem, but I understand why some do--it can make the other party members feel inadequate when a master summoner clobbers an encounter before the barbarian can even reach melee--if they even can enter melee with all those minions in the way. Synthesists, on the other hand, bring back all of the problems people had with Druidzilla back in the 3.5 days.

To me, the biggest problem with the summoner is that it just doesn't look right. Eidolons in fantasy (not Greek lore) are mystical, otherworldly beings with phenomenal magical powers that generally dwarf their mere physical presence. That really doesn't show up in the regular summoner write-up. A few racial archetypes get closer, but none quite make it there.

All in all, the summoner is a really fun class to play, but it isn't for every table. It can create a lot of new challenges for GMs who aren't expecting such a vast effect on game style, and GMs are universally overworked as it is.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't hate the summoner, hate the eidolon. :P


The Shaman wrote:
I was under the impression that it was mostly the synthesist and master summoner archetypes that generate a lot of hate, and regular summoners are, eh, tolerated. Yes, they are about as powerful as some full casters, but you can probably do worse when it comes to annoying your DM and fellow players.

My impression was that all flavors of summoners are to be hated but master summoners in particular are to have their character sheets ritually sacrificed.

Though like I said, this is the first thread I've seen where the agreement was that any flavor of summoner completely and utterly outclasses the wizard. Usually I've seen it put the other way around (save for master summoners).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, do we have such an agreement? I thought most people just agreed summoners (or some versions thereof) are annoying and step on the conjurer's toes, not that they are stronger. They rival full casters, but outclassing them, eh, that is rather doubtful.

It's not about the strength, it is that it is a class with an archetype that is already mostly covered elsewhere and with confusing/clunky mechanics.


I most certainly do not agree that summoners outclass wizards. Wizards, in fact, are one of the most capable means of completely shutting down a summoner, as they have all of the appropriate spells to remove summoned creatures completely or render them ineffective. Lacking those, the usual battlefield control spells work quite well, as does blasting for master summoners who like throwing weenie waves. Wizards also have far more options available to them for situations where throwing a monster at a problem just doesn't cut it.


The Shaman wrote:
Wait, do we have such an agreement? I thought most people just agreed summoners (or some versions thereof) are annoying and step on the conjurer's toes, not that they are stronger. They rival full casters, but outclassing them, eh, I rather doubt it.

Well I was basing that on the stuff a few posts up about the Summoner doing everything a wizard does but better.

Personally I don't mind having specialist mages that overlap with generalist ones. Beguilers and DNs were fun in 3.5 (etc.). Off topic though!

Quote:
Others don't like that the summoner spell list seems to include a lot of non-thematic spells

Strange that I never noticed that before. I guess I always just figured having ancillary spells to make his pet better was kind of thematic.


The Shaman wrote:

Wait, do we have such an agreement? I thought most people just agreed summoners (or some versions thereof) are annoying and step on the conjurer's toes, not that they are stronger. They rival full casters, but outclassing them, eh, that is rather doubtful.

It's not about the strength, it is that it is a class with an archetype that is already mostly covered elsewhere and with confusing/clunky mechanics.

My objection was primarily conceptual...I've not done enough with Summoners to know whether they're too powerful, but I do know that they heavily intrude in the conjurer's conceptual space.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:


My objection was primarily conceptual...I've not done enough with Summoners to know whether they're too powerful, but I do know that they heavily intrude in the conjurer's conceptual space.

This doesn't bother me at all. I've no problem with their being more than one way to realize a character concept.


Zhayne wrote:

This doesn't bother me at all. I've no problem with their being more than one way to realize a character concept.

That is actually fairly often the case. Ever since the APG there have been multiple options that cover the same concept. Look at the duelist PrC - there are fighter archetypes that sort of do this, a rogue archetype that somewhat does the same thing conceptually (swashbuckler - though I find it trash from a mechanical perspective), and now the advanced class guide has a class to do it.

Still, it can be annoying, especially if the mechanic is perceived as clunky. Yet I think if a game can handle a wizard, it can handle a summoner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

My objection was primarily conceptual...I've not done enough with Summoners to know whether they're too powerful, but I do know that they heavily intrude in the conjurer's conceptual space.

Makes sense, though I almost feel like that might be the problem of the Wizard being every style of spellcaster at the same time. That said, talking to a friend of mine who's played both extensively he insists they feel different enough to be relevant (I've never played one so I can't comment).

Do you feel the same way about say, the sorcerer? Paladin? Certain "half class" archetypes?

Sovereign Court

Can we get a link to this "kick the player from your game completely for wanting to play a summoner" thread?


Pan wrote:
Can we get a link to this "kick the player from your game completely for wanting to play a summoner" thread?

I'm looking for the threads right now. It was a couple days ago so I'm having trouble finding all of them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So many reasons, I'll try to list them below. But why is it "universal"? - because the problems stretch from the least experienced to the most experienced, from the fluffiest role-player to the nuttiest munchkin.

  • Complicated: newbies don't get it right, oldbies don't always either, and being able to tell quickly is hard for anyone.
  • Slow: a druid and his animal companion can feel like a long turn. A summoner is about that, plus often more unusual abilities. If their summons are out instead of the Eidolon, it can stretch more.
  • Analysis Paralysis: sometimes a summoner has way too many options available (the full list of summon-able creatures, potentially with spell-like abilities to look up).
  • Broken-ness, by Player: the Eidolon is incredibly strong, and system-mastery increases that strength by leaps and bounds.
  • Broken-ness, by Design: the Summoner gets a lot of spells at an lower spell level than anyone else, some at a lower class level as well. While they are theoretically a 6-level progress on spell-casting, the actual spells they get are closer to 8th or 9th-level spells. This can be really irritating to some (e.g. me). I can't see any reason under the sun that a summoner should get certain powerful spells 1-2 levels before a sorcerer does (e.g. haste, slow, dimension door, greater/mass invisibility).

    It's not a single one thing for 'everyone', it's one or more of many things.

    It's not a completely intractable problem. I had a player begging to play a summoner, with back story galore, etc. After toning things down in a number of small ways (limited rebuilds at level up, SNA instead of SM, a few banned spells), it worked out okay. The Eidolon still out-fought the Barbarian, but at least not the whole party.

  • Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Meh, it's not too well-balanced a class, and it does create problems especially if the person playing them is not very good at multi-tasking, thus taking up more time. However, I just recommend people use flash-cards for the stats of their summoned dudes, and the rest isn't too bad a problem. Every class has its annoying quirks, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. I can conceptually understand the vitriol, but I don't see any reason to hate the Summoner.


    Falcar wrote:
    I would not say I have seen the hate go that far, the main reason people do not like it is because it is a very powerful class.

    It is a very powerful and complicated class. Audit an eidolon is a pain, and then the result could still just be absurdly not balanced at all, it is just not worth the effort.


    Class-ism?


    Great class. The Master Summoner is awesome. A lot of people say it falls behind the pure casters as you gain levels but I haven't seen it.

    They get most of the standard gamebreaker spells (Teleport, Simulacrum), and most of the utility spells.

    They can craft pretty well too, if they go that route. Really the biggest weakness they have is they don't get a bonus spell known per level like the other spontaneous casters (as a race bonus; that really amps up the other spontaneous guys).

    I think Master Summoner is the best Summoner. If you study those lists and are familiar with them, you can do more with them than any other class. And there are a ton of spells that things you can summon can cast.

    When I saw one make it up to the higher levels, no on really checked up on the eidolon to see if it was "legal." It was more of an occasional scout/perceiver/buddy kind of eidolon.

    The summons were where it was at.

    But like everyone says you multiply the sheer amount of stuff one guy has to position and make rolls for. And if you aren't prepped on what you could summon (and you will find uses even for lower level summons) you have a guy that is going to dig through books unless he has a sheet for everything he could summon, or just knows it from memory.


    The only time a Summoner is really a problem at my table is when the player hasn't done his homework. That is to say, that whole, "...constantly thumbing through the Bestiary..." shouldn't be an issue. If you have a player who wants to play a Summoner, INSIST that they have all their potential summons statted out BEFORE sitting down to the table (yes, the Summoner has a large list...but no larger than a Conjurer or Druid does, and nearly all of the time they will resort to summoning the same creatures over and over again...elementals seem to be a favourite due to their versatility). If they plan on relying on their eidolon, go over it with them carefully and make sure it's legal.

    What I have found at my tables is that Summoners tend to go one way or the other for RP reasons: Either focusing on their ediolon and buff spells, or ignoring the eidolon in favour of summoning creatures and buff spells. I'm not saying, "That's how it always goes.", I'm saying, "That's been my experience."

    In truth, I'm having a hard time figuring out why Summoners get this particular brand of "complicated and over-powered" hate while Druids don't. They both have a multitude of class features that have to be kept track of (combat involving a Wild-Shaping Druid who hasn't bothered to pre-stat himself in his alternate shapes is just as time-consuming and frustrating as a Summoner who hasn't done his homework...try it sometime)...and a Summoner can't even Wild Shape into a fire elemental when he's been grappled. The animal companion isn't as powerful as an eidolon in combat, true, but a carefully selected and well-played animal companion can add just as much (if not more) versatility to the build, and the Druid has a MUCH better spell list (Cure spells and fire, anyone?).

    In closing, why do Summoners do Summoners get all that hate? Because they're new...and that's about it, really. (In my opinion, anyway.)


    Elbe-el wrote:

    The only time a Summoner is really a problem at my table is when the player hasn't done his homework. That is to say, that whole, "...constantly thumbing through the Bestiary..." shouldn't be an issue. If you have a player who wants to play a Summoner, INSIST that they have all their potential summons statted out BEFORE sitting down to the table (yes, the Summoner has a large list...but no larger than a Conjurer or Druid does, and nearly all of the time they will resort to summoning the same creatures over and over again...elementals seem to be a favourite due to their versatility). If they plan on relying on their eidolon, go over it with them carefully and make sure it's legal.

    What I have found at my tables is that Summoners tend to go one way or the other for RP reasons: Either focusing on their ediolon and buff spells, or ignoring the eidolon in favour of summoning creatures and buff spells. I'm not saying, "That's how it always goes.", I'm saying, "That's been my experience."

    In truth, I'm having a hard time figuring out why Summoners get this particular brand of "complicated and over-powered" hate while Druids don't. They both have a multitude of class features that have to be kept track of (combat involving a Wild-Shaping Druid who hasn't bothered to pre-stat himself in his alternate shapes is just as time-consuming and frustrating as a Summoner who hasn't done his homework...try it sometime)...and a Summoner can't even Wild Shape into a fire elemental when he's been grappled. The animal companion isn't as powerful as an eidolon in combat, true, but a carefully selected and well-played animal companion can add just as much (if not more) versatility to the build, and the Druid has a MUCH better spell list (Cure spells and fire, anyone?).

    In closing, why do Summoners do Summoners get all that hate? Because they're new...and that's about it, really. (In my opinion, anyway.)

    I can't stand Druids either. But that is sort of an odd pet hate, a very uncommon one I believe.

    BTW, who cares about cure spells like they're some big deal anyway? Summoners get Haste!


    Don't misunderstand...I love Druids, I love to play them and I love to see them played at my tables. I think they're a great class, versatile, balanced, and when well played, nearly unstoppable.

    ...just like Summoners. Even (especially) the Synthesist. The Synthesist is not a difficult class to run, play or understand. The Synthesist should NEVER cause any problems for a DM who knows what they're doing. Paizo did not fail in design with the Synthesist or the Master Summoner. Paizo failed in design with the Cavalier, Bard (a class that shouldn't even exist as a PC class...the Bard should be an NPC class, like the Noble or Commoner), Samurai, Ninja, Gunslinger, and absolutely every class in the Advanced Class Guide.

    "BTW, who cares about cure spells like they're some big deal anyway? Summoners get Haste!"

    ...and every single spell casting class gets Dispel Magic, which, BTW, works quite well not only against buffs, but against those summoned monsters that everyone says causes so much trouble. The spell caster who is ABLE to prepare that spell at least once and hasn't every day (good guy or bad guy) is quite simply WRONG, period. (That's right, my fellow DM's, your party's BEST techniques can be undone by a 3rd level spell...how did you all forget that?)

    (My personal favourite? Three Rogues...you know, the ones that everyone say are useless...with tricked out Stealth, tricked out UMD, and a wand of Dispel Magic in one hand and a wand of Greater Invisibility in the other. Come on Wizard/Summoner/Druid/Cleric...let's play! No he won't kill everyone by himself, but he will certainly make it easier for the Golems, Dread Wraiths and Shadows to do so. And yes, Golems of any kind and multiple Dispel Magic castings every turn should ALWAYS be paired with incorporeal undead...or Liches. How is it any kind of challenge any other way?)


    I actually think the master summoner is better balanced power-wise than the base summoner.

    -No crazy eidolon being as good or better at melee than barbarians and paladins.

    -A really neat trick that allows you to keep up with fullcasters

    The caveat is that you have to play a master summoner responsibly. You want to have 1 minute turns.

    Also what I like about master summoner is that it is actually focused on summoning as opposed to forging 1 stupid strong mob and then trying to cast spells like a wizard.


    "The caveat is that you have to play a master summoner responsibly. You want to have 1 minute turns."

    In other words, "The player should do their homework". EXACTLY! Combat doesn't take that long if everyone does a little prep-work. It isn't that hard, doesn't eat up too much of your free time (And so what if it does? The whole point of a good hobby is to take up time you would otherwise be using for...whatever, anyway), and it makes things so much easier (and therefore, fun) for the whole table.

    Silver Crusade

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Personally I love the summoner and the eidolon.

    Yes it takes more oversight, but the flavor possibilities it opens up for players and GMs alike are priceless.


    I agree with Mikaze about flavor.

    One such I'm putting together is a gestalt Paladin/Synthasist. The eidelon is a summoned "angel" that bonds with the paladin.

    Personally I've not had any issues feel and flavor wise - and mechanically a little complex, but we play with a lot of 3PP classes that are much more mechanically odd than the summoner, and we come from a background of HERO system, so no Pathfinder build looks that complex.

    I can see why people could and would dislike it, but it works for us.


    Years ago, in early 3.5, a player built a "summoner" in my campaign, although the flavor was more like a druid. They were basically a nerfed druid. Exchange a good Will save for a good Reflex save, lame weapon proficiencies (a whip), an animal companion, and can only cast Summon spells. The PC was flatly weaker than a druid, with only a better Reflex save.

    Can you say mistake? It was like a druid with all the good stuff taken away except summoning, so of course all he did was summon. It was stupendously powerful. Yes, a druid or wizard would have been more powerful, but it was just ... annoying. The turns were very long. I've never seen a druid go all summons, or a conjurer go all summons. There's too many other interesting options. I guess it's kind of like the wizard. You can cheese the game by being a wizard, but you don't have to. Plenty of wizard players do not break the game over their kneecaps by abusing Simulacrum.

    And then there's the synth. Probably weaker than the standard summoner, but one of the most broken fighting classes out there.

    Lincoln Hills wrote:
    swoosh wrote:
    ...I found a wealth of comments along the lines of... "If FATAL was a class, it would be the summoner"...
    Oh, my God. No class deserves that comparison.

    I agree. I hate summoners, but ... wow.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Class warfare?

    The Exchange

    I love my summoner, it is all in the way it is played. Yes i made sub optimal choices in terms of power but that is (only) keeping me equal to the rest of the party for the most part. Could i out do them? sure, but then again i just suicide lost a magus when i realized how ugly those can get.

    Shadow Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I rather enjoy the Summoner, even power-wise. It might be partially because my group [or at least, the people willing to try the class] will generally triple-check legality on their Eidolon themselves, have stats for summons written down on Index Cards beforehand, and often do suboptimal things for coolness factor, as Eidolon is infinitely reflavorable.


    Personally I am a HUGE fan of the First-Worlder for the interesting flavor and being better than a druid at the whole "one with the fey" thing


    Marthkus wrote:

    I actually think the master summoner is better balanced power-wise than the base summoner.

    -No crazy eidolon being as good or better at melee than barbarians and paladins.

    -A really neat trick that allows you to keep up with fullcasters

    The caveat is that you have to play a master summoner responsibly. You want to have 1 minute turns.

    Also what I like about master summoner is that it is actually focused on summoning as opposed to forging 1 stupid strong mob and then trying to cast spells like a wizard.

    Interesting. Most of the people I've been speaking to on the subject put a master summoner a full tier above their default counterpart (and like two or three tiers above weaker summoner archetypes). Even the ones who have a rather conservative view of summoner power. Sure, you don't get your one pet that's a better fighter than a fighter (to be fair, fighters are terrible and shouldn't exist in the first place), but you do get like, twenty pets that are all almost as strong.

    1 to 50 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why does everyone hate summoners? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.