|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of my personal complaints with Summoners come down to the idea that they aren't really a 6 level caster, they're a 9th level caster faking being a 6 level caster, the Eidolon is also a problem, but far less of one, IMO. So, how about we make Summoners a 9 level caster?
Hit Die: D6
BAB: Slow Progression
Skills and Proficiencies: Remain the same
Eidolon: An Eidolon’s maximum attack number does include attacks with weapons, though all attacks with a particular weapon count as only one.
The Pounce evolution is available to all Eidolons, regardless of base form.
Other non spell-casting Class Features: Remain the same
Spells:
Spells Per Day:
Level 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
1st: 1 - - - - - - - -
2nd: 2 - - - - - - - -
3rd: 3 - - - - - - - -
4th: 3 1 - - - - - - -
5th: 3 2 - - - - - - -
6th: 4 2 1 - - - - - -
7th: 4 3 2 - - - - - -
8th: 4 3 2 1 - - - - -
9th: 4 3 3 2 - - - - -
10th: 4 4 3 2 1 - - - -
11th: 4 4 3 3 2 - - - -
12th: 4 4 4 3 2 1 - - -
13th: 4 4 4 3 3 2 - - -
14th: 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 - -
15th: 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 - -
16th: 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 -
17th: 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 -
18th: 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
19th: 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2
20th: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2
Or use Wizard progression if you're lazy.
Spells Known:
Level 0th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
1st: 3 2 - - - - - - - -
2nd: 3 2 - - - - - - - -
3rd: 3 3 - - - - - - - -
4th: 4 3 1 - - - - - - -
5th: 4 3 2 - - - - - - -
6th: 4 4 2 1 - - - - - -
7th: 4 4 3 2 - - - - - -
8th: 4 4 3 2 1 - - - - -
9th: 4 4 3 3 2 - - - - -
10th: 4 4 4 3 2 1 - - - -
11th: 4 4 4 3 3 2 - - - -
12th: 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 - - -
13th: 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 - - -
14th: 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 - -
15th: 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 - -
16th: 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 -
17th: 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 -
18th: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
19th: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2
20th: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2
Yes that's basically the same table, with 1s replaced with 2s. I'm cool with that.
Spell List:
1st—alarm, ant haul, compel hostility, corrosive touch, daze monster, endure elements, enlarge person, expeditious retreat, feather fall, grease, icicle dagger, identify, jump, jury rig, life conduit, mage armor, magic fang, magic mouth, mount, protection from chaos/evil/good/law, ray of sickening, reduce person, rejuvenate eidolon (lesser), shield, summon minor monster, summon monster I, unfetter, unseen servant, ventriloquism,
2nd—ablative barrier, alter self, ant haul (communal), barkskin, bear's endurance, blur, bull's strength, cat's grace, create pit, cushioning bands, detect thoughts, eagle's splendor, fox's cunning, glide, glitterdust, invisibility, levitate, misdirection, mount (communal), owl's wisdom, protection from arrows, protection from chaos/evil/good/law (communal), resist energy, restore eidolon (lesser), see invisibility, spider climb, summon monster II, summon swarm, twisted space, warding weapon, web shelter, wind wall,
3rd-aqueous orb, agonize, control summoned creature, devolution, dispel magic, displacement, evolution surge (lesser), fly, haste, heroism, mad monkeys, magic circle against chaos/evil/good/law, magic fang (greater), marionette possession, nondetection, pellet blast, phantom steed, protection from arrows (communal), protection from energy, rage, rain of frogs, rejuvenate eidolon, resist energy (communal), slow, summon eidolon, seek thoughts, spider climb (communal), spiked pit, summon monster III, tongues, water breathing
4th—acid pit*, black tentacles, charm monster, daze (mass), dimension door, dimensional anchor, dismissal, enlarge person (mass), evolution surge*, fire shield, invisibility (greater), locate creature, minor creation, obsidian flow, phantom chariot, phantom steed (communal), protection from energy (communal), reduce person (mass), restore eidolon, summon monster IV, tongues (communal), vitriolic mist, wall of fire, wall of ice,
5th—baleful polymorph, contact other plane, energy siege shot, evolution surge (greater), hold monster, hostile juxtaposition, hungry pit, insect plague, life conduit (improved), mage's faithful hound, magic jar, major creation, overland flight, planar adaptation, planar binding (lesser), purified calling, rejuvenate eidolon (greater), sending, stoneskin, summon monster V, summoner conduit, teleport, transmogrify, wall of stone, wreath of blades,
6th—banishment, bear's endurance (mass), bull's strength (mass), cat's grace (mass), conjure black pudding, dispel magic (greater), eagle aerie, eagle's splendor (mass), fox's cunning (mass), heroism (greater), ice crystal teleport, invisibility (mass), owl's wisdom (mass), planar binding, plane shift, stoneskin (communal), summon monster VI, tar pool, true seeing, wall of iron,
7th-create demiplane (lesser), creeping doom, energy siege shot (greater), ethereal jaunt, hostile juxtaposition (greater), life conduit (greater), planar adaptation (mass), repulsion, sequester, simulacrum, spell turning, summon monster VII, teleport (greater), walk through space,
8th-antipathy, binding, create demiplane, dimensional lock, discern location, incendiary cloud, maze, planar binding (greater), sympathy, summon monster VIII,
9th—charm monster (mass), create demiplane (greater), dominate monster, gate, protection from spells, summon monster IX, teleportation circle,
So, I gave them Create Demiplane (Greater) and Gate at 9th (both are too appropriate not to give them), and reassigned a bunch of stuff. This is purely core rules stuff, for stuff outside that, use the level of any other caster that gets it. For Summoner only spells outside core...make something up. Shouldn't come up often.
Eidolons remain unchanged for the most part, though I have a few additional ideas for the Synthesist...
Does this make Summoners less powerful? No, it ups their Save DCs a bit and adds a couple of spells per day, but drops their combat prowess and durability significantly. I'd say those two even out. It does make lower level ones less powerful (Haste at 6th level, not 4th, Black Tentacles at 8th, not 7th)...and probably makes 18th level or higher ones a bit more powerful with the additional available spells I threw in. But I'd say it doesn't change the class's balance of power a whole lot (though it does make them squishier, a change of which I approve).
What it does is make Summoners actually function like other classes do and removes the problems with them getting spells at lower levels (Wand of Teleport, anyone?) So it fixes that issue.
So...what do people think, good idea, bad idea, completely useless idea, or what?
Seems fair enough; they get their melee from their eidolon and they're otherwise already full casters with 9 levels of spells compressed into 6 ... certainly the d6 hit die and slow BAB progression should have been there in Paizo's official version.
I'd also only give them only 2 skill points, like other full casters (witch, sorcerer and wizard); also summoners get access to extra skills anyway through their eidolons.
Instead, I'd actually be tempted to make them a prestige class (albeit allow twenty levels; if only because it saves having to change them!)
Prerequisites:
Ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells.
If a wizard, specialised in the Conjuration School
Knowledge (arcane) 3 ranks and Knowledge (planes) 3 ranks
With those prereqs and the prestige class status, I'd be happy to leave the summoner as he is.
How does that sound?
I think the eidolon is (if optimised) overpowered alongside level 1 fighters, but as a prestige class it'd probably be alongside at least level 4 fighters; more balanced?
|
That has the distinct issue of making them a Sorcerer. Only with an Eidolon. Why would anyone play Sorcerers ever again?I would have the summoner (and the msgus) use the wizards spell list, with the class specific spells added in.
Other than that, looks good.
1. The numbers you posted would give the summoner far fewer spells per day.
2. No bloodline powers.
3. Summoners can already access the wizard spell list via items.
|
|
1. The numbers you posted would give the summoner far fewer spells per day.
True...but at 2/3 the amount the Eidolon and associated benefits are gonna outweigh that particular difference.
2. No bloodline powers.
The Summoner class features are flat-out better than most Bloodlines, and on par even with the best ones.
3. Summoners can already access the wizard spell list via items.
True...but not really relevant. A Cleric can access the Wizard list via items, too, but that doesn't mean he should get the whole list added to his.
I'd love to play a master summoner minus the eidolon and with a wizards spell list and progression.
|
|
3. Summoners can already access the wizard spell list via items.True...but not really relevant. A Cleric can access the Wizard list via items, too, but that doesn't mean he should get the whole list added to his.
I am specifically referring to the Ring of Spell Knowledge. The same item sorcerers use to become more flexible in their spellcasting than wizards. As a spontaneous caster, summoners also have access.
As a secondary function, the ring allows the sorcerer (or summoner in this case) to access the spell lists of other arcane casters.
A lot of my personal complaints with Summoners come down to the idea that they aren't really a 6 level caster, they're a 9th level caster faking being a 6 level caster, the Eidolon is also a problem, but far less of one, IMO. So, how about we make Summoners a 9 level caster?
Is this mostly supposed to be an adjustment to fit the summoner to the "flavor" of other powerful arcane casters (being a squishy type bad at swinging swords is mostly a flavor thing for sorcerers and wizards)? Or is it to actually bring the summoner mechanics more in balance with those of other classes? I'm guessing you're primarily looking to achieve the latter, so I'll reply as if that is your goal.
I don't really get your reasoning, but it's possible I've misinterpreted something. Please tell me if my reading is correct:
1. You say most of your complaints with the summoner boils down to "fake" 6th level casting (presumably because of their summon SLA and abuse-friendly cases of early spell access?), but instead of fixing those issues, you give them access to several additional high level spells?
2. You say the eidolon is also a problem, albeit far less of one in your opinion, and then you present a mechanical suggestion which would actually make most eidolons more powerful? You're basically trading a lower cap on full attack damage potential for a much improved ability to make full attacks in the first place. And I mean, pounce is the reason why most barbarian builds you see go for beast totem, and why most damage-focused eidolons you see are quadruped. In a game where only very few niche PC builds of certain races/classes may access pounce, and not before level 10, even giving one of the eidolon base forms level 1 access, as in the official rules, was a poor idea IMO. This is worse, especially when considering nearly all eidolons will benefit from pounce (not just those built for damage) and the eidolon full attack damage potential will remain one of the highest in the game despite your cap. And your suggestion becomes even more confusing when considering that the summoner doesn't have to risk life in close combat, or even spend actions, in order to use that pounce, while a crazy "hundred-weapon fighting" eidolon at least costs the summoner plenty of EPs and gold in order to be viable.
IMO, the eidolon is one summoner class feature among others that are also very strong, and as such it shouldn't be capable of easily outshining dedicated martial builds in combat they way it currently is, unfortunately. Even though I agree that from a purely mechanical and game-wide perspective the class imbalance caused by the eidolon is minor, from what I've heard and seen the eidolon often becomes the game's most blatant and annoying balance problem according to the players. Completely understandable since the eidolon often has to be intentionally nerfed by the summoner player (or the DM) to prevent it from steamrolling right over the martial PC's toes, especially if their toes are the typical martial focuses such as single-target damage, durability or scouting.
Does this make Summoners less powerful? No, it ups their Save DCs a bit and adds a couple of spells per day, but drops their combat prowess and durability significantly. I'd say those two even out.
I'd say those two are not even remotely close, power-wise. As an illustration of why, consider that the wizard could basically stop progressing HP and BAB after level 10 or so and very likely still be one of the top three most powerful classes in the game. Likewise, IME, after the first few levels, only the very rare "melee-team" type summoner gives a rat's butt about her BAB. And the summoner's own HP is mostly used for Life Link, so lowering it probably affects the eidolon's durability more than the summonner's.
In short, trading more high-level spells known for less HP and BAB doesn't make summoners less powerful, it makes them more powerful.
It does make lower level ones less powerful (Haste at 6th level, not 4th, Black Tentacles at 8th, not 7th)...and probably makes 18th level or higher ones a bit more powerful with the additional available spells I threw in. But I'd say it doesn't change the class's balance of power a whole lot (though it does make them squishier, a change of which I approve).
Shouldn't it change the class' relative balance of power though? And provided the power is lessened rather than increased, would the game suffer or make the summoner too weak? If you agree with me and think not, I'd suggest you simply:
1. Keep original casting in terms of spells known and per day
2. Change the spell level of the glaring exceptions, like haste, to wiz/sorc levels
3. Reduce number of SM+gate SLAs/day, or perhaps introduce a scaling cost, demanding multiple uses of the SLA to cast the highest known level
4. Reduce HD to 1d6
5. Change BAB progression to slow
I don't think those changes would cause any problems, and the summoner would certainly still be very powerful. If I was seriously attempting to improve the balance between the summoner and other classes, I'd definitely nerf the eidolon as well (especially it's damage potential).
I'd also only give them only 2 skill points, like other full casters (witch, sorcerer and wizard); also summoners get access to extra skills anyway through their eidolons.
What do you mean? The summoner already gets 2 skill points.
|
|
Is this mostly supposed to be an adjustment to fit the summoner to the "flavor" of other powerful arcane casters (being a squishy type bad at swinging swords is mostly a flavor thing for sorcerers and wizards)? Or is it to actually bring the summoner mechanics more in balance with those of other classes? I'm guessing you're primarily looking to achieve the latter, so I'll reply as if that is your goal.
It's much closer to the second than the first. Though there's some nuance I'll get into as we go.
I don't really get your reasoning, but it's possible I've misinterpreted something. Please tell me if my reading is correct:
Sure.
1. You say most of your complaints with the summoner boils down to "fake" 6th level casting (presumably because of their summon SLA and abuse-friendly cases of early spell access?), but instead of fixing those issues, you give them access to several additional high level spells?
Two spells is not several. And won't come up in most games at all, since you need to be 18th level to get them at all. At least not with PCs. And all I added were Gate and Create Demiplane (Greater), the rest is just the standard summoner list reorganized to spread over 9 levels instead of 6.
And the big issue there is that they break key game assumptions (the Wand of Teleport thing is a great example...it's not an intended item in the setting, and only possible because Summoners effectively cheat)...which making them 9 level casters fixes quite handily.
2. You say the eidolon is also a problem, albeit far less of one in your opinion, and then you present a mechanical suggestion which would actually make most eidolons more powerful? You're basically trading a lower cap on full attack damage potential for a much improved ability to make full attacks in the first place. And I mean, pounce is the reason why most barbarian builds you see go for beast totem, and why most damage-focused eidolons you see are quadruped. In a game where only very few niche PC builds of certain races/classes may access pounce, and not before level 10, even giving one of the eidolon base forms level 1 access, as in the official rules, was a poor idea IMO.
I don't necessarily disagree, actually. I'm seriously considering giving it a level requirement of some sort. But that's a separate issue from the listed change.
This is worse, especially when considering nearly all eidolons will benefit from pounce (not just those built for damage) and the eidolon full attack damage potential will remain one of the highest in the game despite your cap. And your suggestion becomes even more confusing when considering that the summoner doesn't have to risk life in close combat, or even spend actions, in order to use that pounce, while a crazy "hundred-weapon fighting" eidolon at least costs the summoner plenty of EPs and gold in order to be viable.
Here's where I disagree. Mechanically, as is, there's no reason to take any form but quadruped. None of them give anything that's a fraction as good as Pounce. Indeed, I'm not sure I've ever run into another Evolution that required a certain base form. And anyone can take a quadruped.
So literally all the restriction is doing is punishing people who, thematically, want a non-quadrupedal Eidolon. And that's not cool. Hence the change.
What I do there doesn't improve the summoner's power at all, it just avoids penalizing someone who wants an Eidolon that looks different.
IMO, the eidolon is one summoner class feature among others that are also very strong, and as such it shouldn't be capable of easily outshining dedicated martial builds in combat they way it currently is, unfortunately. Even though I agree that from a purely mechanical and game-wide perspective the class imbalance caused by the eidolon is minor, from what I've heard and seen the eidolon often becomes the game's most blatant and annoying balance problem according to the players. Completely understandable since the eidolon often has to be intentionally nerfed by the summoner player (or the DM) to prevent it from steamrolling right over the martial PC's toes, especially if their toes are the typical martial focuses such as single-target damage, durability or scouting.
I agree with this to some extent. However, I haven't seen enough summoners in play as of yet to undertake the (much more complex) task of rer-writing the Eidolon rules. And in any game that lacks a Summoner PC the Eidolon isn't a problem...but the spell list still is.
I'd say those two are not even remotely close, power-wise. As an illustration of why, consider that the wizard could basically stop progressing HP and BAB after level 10 or so and very likely still be one of the top three most powerful classes in the game. Likewise, IME, after the first few levels, only the very rare "melee-team" type summoner gives a rat's butt about her BAB. And the summoner's own HP is mostly used for Life Link, so lowering it probably affects the eidolon's durability more than the summonner's.
In short, trading more high-level spells known for less HP and BAB doesn't make summoners less powerful, it makes them more powerful.
Okay, you're operating on some misapprehensions here. To clarify what these rules do, let's look at what spells, oh, a 14th level Summoner has in my version and the official version (Note: 14th, and all even levels, favor my version...while odd ones favor the official), assuming 24 Charisma (as an arbitrary number).
My version:
7th: 2/day: Creeping Doom,
6th: 3/day: Dispel Magic (Greater), Planar Binding,
5th: 4/day: Magic Jar, Overland Flight, Hungry Pit,
4th: 5/day: Dimensional Anchor, Dimension Door, Black Tentacles, Charm Monster,
3rd: 6/day: Magic Circle Against Chaos, Haste, Evolution Surge (Lesser), Summon Eidolon,
2nd: 6/day: Barkskin, Resist Energy, Rejuvenate Eidolon (Lesser), Glitterdust,
1st: 6/day: Mage Armor, Shield, Protection From Evil, Grease,
Official version:
5th: 3/day: Creeping Doom, Dispel Magic (Greater), Planar Binding,
4th: 5/day: Magic Jar, Overland Flight, Hungry Pit, Baleful Polymorph,
3rd: 6/day: Magic Circle Against Chaos, Charm Monster, Dimension Door, Black Tentacles, Dimensional Anchor,
2nd: 7/day: Barkskin, Haste, Glitterdust, Resist Energy, Evolution Surge (Lesser), Summon Eidolon,
1st: 7/day: Rejuvenate Eidolon (Lesser), Mage Armor, Shield, Protection From Evil, Grease, Feather Fall,
So...my build has 9 5th-7th level spells, the official version has 8 4th-5th level ones...and that's the same list of spells (except that the official build has Baleful Polymorph).
My build has 23 1st-4th level spells, while the official one has 20...and again, those are almost the same list (the official one has Feather Fall, which mine doesn't). And the official build got most of it's spells a lot quicker than mine did.
That's...not a vast increase in power. It's an increase in Save DC (because the spells are higher level) and a very few more spells per day, at what amounts to the cost of a few spells known. That's all.
It is a slight increase, but losing an HD category and 5 points of BAB seems a solid balance there, honestly.
Shouldn't it change the class' relative balance of power though? And provided the power is lessened rather than increased, would the game suffer or make the summoner too weak? If you agree with me and think not, I'd suggest you simply:
1. Keep original casting in terms of spells known and per day
2. Change the spell level of the glaring exceptions, like haste, to wiz/sorc levels
The issue here is, their entire list is made of such exceptions. No really, their 6th level list is almost entirely made of 8th and 9th level spells. Which is why I went with the solution I did.
3. Reduce number of SM+gate SLAs/day, or perhaps introduce a scaling cost, demanding multiple uses of the SLA to cast the highest known level
4. Reduce HD to 1d6
5. Change BAB progression to slowI don't think those changes would cause any problems, and the summoner would certainly still be very powerful. If I was seriously attempting to improve the balance between the summoner and other classes, I'd definitely nerf the eidolon as well (especially it's damage potential)
Dropping down the Eidolon somewhat is definitely a possibility, but not really the goal of this overhaul specifically, and would go in a different post.
It's much closer to the second than the first. Though there's some nuance I'll get into as we go.
Ah, yes, I think I understand what you're getting at now.
Two spells is not several. And won't come up in most games at all, since you need to be 18th level to get them at all. At least not with PCs. And all I added were Gate and Create Demiplane (Greater), the rest is just the standard summoner list reorganized to spread over 9 levels instead of 6.
And the big issue there is that they break key game assumptions (the Wand of Teleport thing is a great example...it's not an intended item in the setting, and only possible because Summoners effectively cheat)...which making them 9 level casters fixes quite handily.
snip
Okay, you're operating on some misapprehensions here.
snip
That's...not a vast increase in power. It's an increase in Save DC (because the spells are higher level) and a very few more spells per day, at what amounts to the cost of a few spells known. That's all.It is a slight increase, but losing an HD category and 5 points of BAB seems a solid balance there, honestly.
I have to apologize for my previous knee-jerk reaction, guess the "full" caster progression and the few new spells jumped out at me. That's what I get from being instinctive rather than rational, I guess...
In short, I think you're absolutely right, the increased DC and slight increase in spells known and per day won't be easily worth the reduced BAB, later spell access and smaller HD size. It will probably reduce the summoner's power somewhat, which isn't bad IMO.
2. You say the eidolon is also a problem, albeit far less of one in your opinion, and then you present a mechanical suggestion which would actually make most eidolons more powerful?Here's where I disagree. Mechanically, as is, there's no reason to take any form but quadruped. None of them give anything that's a fraction as good as Pounce. Indeed, I'm not sure I've ever run into another Evolution that required a certain base form. And anyone can take a quadruped.
Perhaps the subject of eidolon pounce is somewhat peripheral to your thread, so feel free to ignore this if you feel it's derailing. Anyhow, though I think you would of course be right to give all forms pounce assuming there were no mechanical reasons to take any other form, I don't agree with that assumption. For example, a BFC-focused "grabdolon" has a lot more to gain mechanically from having primarily one awesome bite attack with reach than from having multiple attacks with pounce, thus going biped for greater Str and reach. Both the damage-focused "100-attack-pouncedolon" and the BFC-focused "grabdolon" can easily one-shot most enemies, and I think they're quite equal in terms of overall combat effectiveness (and in terms of causing DM tears). Still, the grabdolon would benefit from pounce, especially from a cost vs. gain perspective in higher levels since it's not as EP starved as most other eidolon types. Giving a grabdolon access to cheap pounce would probably make it superior to anything else melee-focused controlled by the players during most levels, sometimes unintentionally. (Basically an enemy without constant or contingency-prepped Freedom of Movement within charge distance is even more screwed, as well as any enemy provoking an aoo within the 70x70 feet area the grabdolon threatens.)
So literally all the restriction is doing is punishing people who, thematically, want a non-quadrupedal Eidolon. And that's not cool. Hence the change.
What I do there doesn't improve the summoner's power at all, it just avoids penalizing someone who wants an Eidolon that looks different.
Well, I think you're right when comparing the quadroped's current benefits to those of the serpentine and - in most campaigns - aquatic forms, but definitely not when comparing to those of the biped. Perhaps the pounce evo should be accessible to all forms except biped? And, even better IMO, also put a quite high level restriction (10?) on the pounce evo as well as a significantly increased EP cost (4?).
Personally i could see evolutions be spread out further in point cost, maybe up to 6 points.
|
|
Ah, yes, I think I understand what you're getting at now.
I have to apologize for my previous knee-jerk reaction, guess the "full" caster progression and the few new spells jumped out at me. That's what I get from being instinctive rather than rational, I guess...
Apology accepted. I can see where you were coming from, there.
In short, I think you're absolutely right, the increased DC and slight increase in spells known and per day won't be easily worth the reduced BAB, later spell access and smaller HD size. It will probably reduce the summoner's power somewhat, which isn't bad IMO.
Yeah, that was my general feeling. It's not a huge power-down, but it vastly helps with fitting them in with the rest of the classes, mechanically speaking.
Perhaps the subject of eidolon pounce is somewhat peripheral to your thread, so feel free to ignore this if you feel it's derailing. Anyhow, though I think you would of course be right to give all forms pounce assuming there were no mechanical reasons to take any other form, I don't agree with that assumption. For example, a BFC-focused "grabdolon" has a lot more to gain mechanically from having primarily one awesome bite attack with reach than from having multiple attacks with pounce, thus going biped for greater Str and reach. Both the damage-focused "100-attack-pouncedolon" and the BFC-focused "grabdolon" can easily one-shot most enemies, and I think they're quite equal in terms of overall combat effectiveness (and in terms of causing DM tears). Still, the grabdolon would benefit from pounce, especially from a cost vs. gain perspective in higher levels since it's not as EP starved as most other eidolon types. Giving a grabdolon access to cheap pounce would probably make it superior to anything else melee-focused controlled by the players during most levels, sometimes unintentionally. (Basically an enemy without constant or contingency-prepped Freedom of Movement within charge distance is even more screwed, as well as any enemy provoking an aoo within the 70x70 feet area the grabdolon threatens.)
I must admit I wasn't considering the advantage of natural reach in that amount...still, it seems like it should be available in theory, thematically speaking. Maybe a higher level minimum? Or just costing more. Or both. Yeah, both seems a good call.
Well, I think you're right when comparing the quadroped's current benefits to those of the serpentine and - in most campaigns - aquatic forms, but definitely not when comparing to those of the biped. Perhaps the pounce evo should be accessible to all forms except biped? And, even better IMO, also put a quite high level restriction (10?) on the pounce evo as well as a significantly increased EP cost (4?).
I'd probably go with 7th level. That's when Animal Companions can wind up with it, and a level after Druids get it. 4 points sounds legitimate, though.
Then up it to 10th level and 6 or 8 points for Bipedal Eidolons? Something like that...maybe have to try it in play and see how it works.
I must admit I wasn't considering the advantage of natural reach in that amount...still, it seems like it should be available in theory, thematically speaking. Maybe a higher level minimum? Or just costing more. Or both. Yeah, both seems a good call.
snip
I'd probably go with 7th level. That's when Animal Companions can wind up with it, and a level after Druids get it. 4 points sounds legitimate, though.Then up it to 10th level and 6 or 8 points for Bipedal Eidolons? Something like that...maybe have to try it in play and see how it works.
Well, I don't really know if a grabdolon is the most suitable example of a biped for this purpose. But anyhow, a 4 EP pounce would probably be a poor option for a grabdolon before level 14, when Snatch becomes available. Then, a 4 EP pounce suddenly becomes a great option that grants the eidolon three or more chances (claws + bite) to grab an enemy when charging instead of one (bite). But since that's (usually) rather late in the eidolon's career, I don't think the grabdolon motivates giving biped pounce a higher level requirement or EP cost than other forms.
I guess a more damage focused biped might though, considering it gets a higher strength and starts with two attacks. But that advantage probably doesn't motivate an 8 EP pounce for bipeds. 6 EPs sounds more reasonable, and no higher level requirement than the other forms (though I think that could be higher than 7, as PC's cannot access pounce before 10).
|
|
Well, I don't really know if a grabdolon is the most suitable example of a biped for this purpose. But anyhow, a 4 EP pounce would probably be a poor option for a grabdolon before level 14, when Snatch becomes available. Then, a 4 EP pounce suddenly becomes a great option that grants the eidolon three or more chances (claws + bite) to grab an enemy when charging instead of one (bite). But since that's (usually) rather late in the eidolon's career, I don't think the grabdolon motivates giving biped pounce a higher level requirement or EP cost than other forms.
I guess a more damage focused biped might though, considering it gets a higher strength and starts with two attacks. But that advantage probably doesn't motivate an 8 EP pounce for bipeds. 6 EPs sounds more reasonable, and no higher level requirement than the other forms
Yeah okay, that sounds good and reasonable.
(though I think that could be higher than 7, as PC's cannot access pounce before 10).
As mentioned, Druids get it at 6th level. And some Animal Companions get it at 7th.
Now...anyone else have any commentary on the original topic?
Anyone?
I think it looks good Deadmanwalking, and it's very similar to what I did to allow summoners in my campaigns as well.
Though I'd really like to see the vast majority of their spell list ripped to shreds. They get the best spells from the illusion, transmutation, conjuration, and a lot of enchantment spells.
Honestly, I'd rather fry their spell list down to conjuration, some buffs, and some abjurations (the summoning / dismissing sorts). I really see no reason, thematically, for them to have things like greater invisibility, simulacrum, true seeing, baleful polymorph and charm spells.
|
|
I think it looks good Deadmanwalking, and it's very similar to what I did to allow summoners in my campaigns as well.
Thanks. :)
Though I'd really like to see the vast majority of their spell list ripped to shreds. They get the best spells from the illusion, transmutation, conjuration, and a lot of enchantment spells.
That is a bit of an issue, though I feel like the level at which this House Rule makes them drastically limited spontaneous casters helps to make up for it quite a bit.
Honestly, I'd rather fry their spell list down to conjuration, some buffs, and some abjurations (the summoning / dismissing sorts). I really see no reason, thematically, for them to have things like greater invisibility, simulacrum, true seeing, baleful polymorph and charm spells.
I can actually see True Seeing and Greater Invisibility making sense just from the 'master of buff spells' thing, which is their thematic niche in part, but I agree on the others, thematically at least. Honestly, the teleportation stuff doesn't make a lot of thematic sense either, when you think about it.
I haven't actually seen a lot of Summoners in actual play yet, though, and feel like I should get a solid feel for the class in play before changing what it does too much. Some stuff is obviously just poor design (Wands of Teleport, first level Pounce, etc.) but the actual function of the class (pet + spells) seems like I should get a better feel for things before fiddling with it. I've actually got a Summoner joining my current game and may modify the Class further after seeing how that goes...
That's fair. Teleportation never bothered me though since it has to do with planar travel. It says right in the core rules that when you use a [Teleportation] spell you travel instantly through the astral plane.
Teleportation: A teleportation spell transports one or more creatures or objects a great distance. The most powerful of these spells can cross planar boundaries. Unlike summoning spells, the transportation is (unless otherwise noted) one-way and not dispellable.
Teleportation is instantaneous travel through the Astral Plane. Anything that blocks astral travel also blocks teleportation.