So, it seems like the biggest gripe people have with the summoner is that it is overpowered.
Yes, some people complain about the spell-list level adjustments making magic items wonky, and yes, some complain that the synthesist is just 3.5 polymorph back in play, but almost all the real complaints center around the eidolon being so effective when the summoner is already a very good caster at everything but save-or-die (due to the crappier DCs).
And the master summoner is busted because having so many summoned monsters on the field at once both grinds play to a halt and steamrolls encounters.
So, here's my fix:
An archetype that does the following:
Replace the eidolon with the arcanist's arcane pool class feature, the life link class feature with Augment Summoning as a bonus feat, and the eidolon-related class features gained at even levels with arcanist exploits. They do not gain access to the bloodline development or school understanding exploits. They gain access to greater exploits at 12th level. They do not gain the consume spells feature, and do not prepare spells from a spellbook, and thus the following exploits are useless to them: consume magic items, quick study, swift consume, suffering knowledge.
They still can only have one use of their summon monster SLA in effect at one time, just as if they had an eidolon summoned (even though they don't have an eidolon). To compensate somewhat for the loss of the eidolon, the uses per day increase to 5 + Cha modifier, and the following change is made to the summon monster SLA:
The summoned creature or creatures interact with spells and effects such as protection from evil, magic circle against evil, dispel magic, greater dispel magic, antimagic field, mage's disjunction, control summoned creature, and summoner conduit as if they were a called creature conjured by an instantaneous effect, rather than a summoned creature. However, the creature still returns to its home plane when the actual duration of the effect that summoned it expires, or if it is killed. Unlike a true called creature, it does not permanently die if killed while summoned, and it does not gain the use of its teleportation or summoning abilities or any spell-like or supernatural abilities that duplicate spells, feats, or class features with expensive or unusual material or focus components.
Instead of the almighty and gamebreaking gate, at 19th level the creature or creatures summoned via their summon monster SLA remain until the summoner chooses to dismiss them, uses the SLA again, or the creatures are dismissed, banished, or otherwise involuntarily returned to their home plane.
The following spells are removed from their class spell list:
life conduit
lesser rejuvenate eidolon
unfetter
lesser evolution surge
lesser restore eidolon
summon eidolon
evolution surge
improved life conduit
rejuvenate eidolon
restore eidolon
greater evolution surge
purified calling
transmogrify
greater life conduit
greater rejuvenate eidolon
Design notes:
With the reduced spell levels, the ability to boost the save DC is not as powerful as it would be on a full 9th-level caster.
The counterspell and greater counterspell exploits are less powerful due to the reduced spell levels.
The summon monster abilities are strong enough on their own even without the eidolon, and given the wonky spell list of the summoner, they don't gain as much benefit from some of the more powerful exploits as an actual arcanist would. So I believe this is a fair trade.
I'm sure the comparison has been done to death, but I still really believe that the summoner should be more like the magicians from the Bartimaeus trilogy by Jonathan Stroud, and not all "woo-woo with the rune on my head and the psychic eidolon linked to my soul woo-woo-woo." And this archetype makes them closer to that.
I don't think 'X is overpowered' is a good reason to attempt a remake of any non tier-1 class.
It's a nice archetype you have created. I would never use it over the occultist arcanist archetype, though. Occultist is the same thing but better, essentially.
Umm, the Paizo devs said out loud in front of an audience at GenCon that the summoner is broken.
Okay, I just looked at the Occultist, and it seems that the devs didn't even care that they were obsoleting the summoner. Losing the eidolon hurts at low levels, but at the upper end, 9th-level casting from potentially the entire wizard list (not at once, of course, but you save a fortune on scrolls) is easily better than the eidolon, which pretty much just hits things.
Umm, the Paizo devs said out loud in front of an audience at GenCon that the summoner is broken.
They've been saying it for a lot longer than that.
Since I haven't played the class, I haven't attempted a "fix" of it. I have seen one in play however, and if I attempted it, I would keep the eidolon (because its a fun class feature) and begin by lowering the number of evolution points and/or placing additional restriction on how the points are spent. IMHO, it is too easy to "break" the eidolon without even trying hard.
I have no real issue with the version you have presented, but as you said it is an archetype and does not change the base class.
My personal gripe is with the fact the eidolon can mold into something completely different on leveling up and the players who like to play summoners tend to also be ones who conveniently forget rules and have problems tracking points.
I don't know if the summoner is really broken, but I stop associating with problem players and now no summoners show up at the table.
That might be because it's a bit of a bookkeeping hassle and requires planning. The number of evolution points only goes up by 1 per level on most levels, but most of the good evolutions are 2-point evolutions.
So you have to shuffle everything around.
It's an easy class to make combat effective. So are Barbarians, and they do it better anyway.
The problem is how easily people tend to 'forget' certain rules.
|
My personal gripe is with the fact the eidolon can mold into something completely different on leveling up and the players who like to play summoners tend to also be ones who conveniently forget rules and have problems tracking points.
I don't know if the summoner is really broken, but I stop associating with problem players and now no summoners show up at the table.
What you need are players like me, who plan out their entire character build before the game starts, know what they're taking at each level, have all the math broken down and available in a google doc where the GM can see it, and also have the character's sheet as a google doc.
I know what you mean though. If a player isn't capable of keeping track of the required fiddly bits (EPs, Spells per day/Spell Selection, Which summons to use in which situations, and the stats of their summons) then they should not play those options.
The Occultist is what I expected the Summoner to be before the playtest. I will definitely keep it in mind. IMO the main point of the Summoner Class is the Eidolon. If I were trying to tone down the Summoner class (It is very good) I would likely do so by making the Summoner less useful and leaving the Eidolon untouched. The Summoner is my favorite class for more reasons than power; A custom tailored pet class is a really fun idea (again, so long as you have a capable player) and I really like the idea of a Turns into a monster aspect of the Synthesist. I had a lot of fun playing a sort of Breath-of-Fire Turn into a Dragon type of character with it, and I also enjoyed playing as a gnome mage who turned into a sort of Ogre Mage with a greatsword to wreck face, as his main schtick. I understand the polymorph argument, but the way I see it is that the Synthesist should be designed around being balanced "while polymorphed". I could really go for a shapechanging class that has a couple of different forms that were built using points.
Do I think they hit the right power level? Not quite so much. It's a powerful Tier 2 class, whose numbers can get a bit too high.
I do agree though, that your tweaks seem to result in a less powerful Occultist.
I'm not sure that your proposed rebuild is going to tone down the summoner. I don't even use my eidilon (not master summoner because of society) and I get told I'm as broken as a regular summoner, if not more all the time. I think the arcane pool and free augment summoning would've made him that much more powerful, not toned him down.
Isn't the extra arcane point/spell level pretty limiting on the Occultist? Thats like a Twice(once at higher levels)/day ability without draining out resources using all your arcane pool.
|
Devs also nerfed crane wing and gave us divine grace as a feat, i dont think they are always correct.
However i think the summoner covers a little bit too much in general, much as was the old druid in 3.5. Probably only his spell list needs reshufling, as of now is a little bit too strong for a class who also has a fighter as a class feature
Bleeding Sun, I think the idea with the Occultist is you end up with so many low level spells and level 2 spell items to burn that you can keep refilling the pool by the time it becomes too restrictive.
|
|
So, here's my fix:
Replace the Eidolon.
Okay, for many people, from an RP point of view, THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CLASS IS THE EIDOLON/SUMMONER RELATIONSHIP. Bluntly, it's like saying remove all the Gods from the cleric class, or remove the spells from the wizard and not allowing fighters to use weapons.
As for the spells mentioned, NONE of the eidolon maintenence spells are mentioned commonly as an issue. It's things like haste at 4th level that are an issue.
The master summoner is broken, I agree on this. Simple response, ban it and let them use feats to create a master summoner style character. I've done it for PFS. I could post it but I don't think that's the point right now.
As for the Paizo Devs, they may think it is overpowered. I asked James Jacobs if Summoner was his least favorite class and he said yes.
But I would submit that they have also spent the least amount of time with the class. It certainly seems to be the case based off them not showing up as opponents on adventure paths and modules and the lack of any really great or thematic archetypes, and very little in secondary sources like player companions.
So I suspect Paizo's attitude is more a matter of neglect than understanding. Basically, if Paizo's recieved wisdom is going to be wrong in a given area, this is a strong candidate for such an area to be wrong in.
See the thing with the summoner is that it is a close relationship with an outsider (That happens to evolve).
Before the class existed, the best way to resolve something like this was to be on good grounds with your GM and to work it out. Probably along the lines of reworking leadership or some prestige class. You may have not gotten it till level 6, but come on, it's a powerful being that you're chummy with... There's a lot of roleplay and plot to get to that point. Player was probably a wizard or sorcerer who focused on summoning.
Instead, Paizo was on the road of giving you things at level 1. You want that extraplanar being under your control? You've got it. Out popped the Summoner in all it's glory. Forget working up to that point and working it out with your GM, we're giving it to you now, all submerged in this one class.
With no roleplay and it all being background which may or may not be glossed over. It ends up feeling more like a pokemon trainer. Especially with how the evolutions work. But I guess they couldn't decide how good the summon was thus all the tweaking with base character (whom is a nerfed conjurer / sorcerer with the casting and bab of a bard).
The concept is cool, the execution was poorly done and easily abused.
Before I attack the class, I want to point out that I absolutely love the concept of the summoner. The eidolon strikes me as a class feature that encourages players to invent a story around the mechanics of their character. That's absolutely wonderful and wish more classes executed that well. I came up with like 20 or 30 fun character concepts around the relationship between a summoner and the eidolon, my favorite being your eidolon being yourself from the future.
I feel the biggest issue with the summoner is that the class and eidolon have no meaningful weaknesses. Animal companions are balanced because you have to make sure they survive, they have to accompany you everywhere, and they aren't intelligent. Familiars are balanced because they're mostly not combat capable. Eidolons have none of these weaknesses. Even if they die, it's only a minor inconvenience for a summoner. They get the eidolon back the next day. Until then, the summoner can spam summon monster, cast spells, or fight by themselves. By contrast, a class with a familiar or animal companion is out of luck for a week.
I firmly believe in giving some meaningful weaknesses to classes that encourage players to play around them and encourage teammates to cover for them.
|
|
My personal gripe is with the fact the eidolon can mold into something completely different on leveling up and the players who like to play summoners tend to also be ones who conveniently forget rules and have problems tracking points.
I don't know if the summoner is really broken, but I stop associating with problem players and now no summoners show up at the table.
I was about to tell you why you are obviously wrong, but I thought about it. I'll say this simply doesn't mach my experience. Where I play (local pfs and a home game made up of people who've met in pfs) summoners are played with experienced players with solid rp concepts and a solid understanding of the rules.
I have never met a player who rewrote their eidolon 'from scratch' every level. Usually, all evolutions have tended to come from "oh I have claws on my feet, I'll get pounce or I'll grow claws on my hands." "Lets switch out claws with a tail" simply doesn't happen.
Before the class existed, the best way to resolve something like this was to be on good grounds with your GM and to work it out. Probably along the lines of reworking leadership or some prestige class. You may have not gotten it till level 6, but come on, it's a powerful being that you're chummy with... There's a lot of roleplay and plot to get to that point. Player was probably a wizard or sorcerer who focused on summoning.
That would not work for something like PFS (70% or so of my gaming). It wouldn't work with a GM I'm just starting out with.
Also it wouldn't work with half the character concepts I could think of, be it a kid and their imaginary friend (or former kid), spirit of a lost relative, a physical manifestation of a supressed part of their personality, and experimental test subject/victim.
All of these are rich background material that simply don't work by "reworking leadership".
With no roleplay and it all being background which may or may not be glossed over. It ends up feeling more like a pokemon trainer.
All characters (worth their salt) start with an origin/background story. It's up to the player as to whether it fells like a pokemon trainer.
I would further submit that anyone who would come up with a pokemon trainer would come up with a simularly uninspired anything else, i.e Joe generic, cleric of whats his face as compared to Gwinvine, dancer and priestess of Sheyln, raised in a temple after her family was killed and is having a hard time reconciling the hatred she feels for her family's killers with the teachings took her from being a scared orphan to an accomplished young woman.
Basically, the problem is some players and has nothing to do with the class. It might have something to do with a hostile gm stereotyping a class and prejudging a character based on a class and saying "all players of xxx class are like this." This is a perception/stereotyping problem (not on the part of the summoner player) rather than a mechanical problem.
Especially with how the evolutions work. But I guess they couldn't decide how good the summon was thus all the tweaking with base character (whom is a nerfed conjurer / sorcerer with the casting and bab of a bard).
vs your earlier post
I don't know if the summoner is really broken, but I stop associating with problem players and now no summoners show up at the table.
It sounds like you really don't know, but your parroting what you've heard/looked at on a surface level. It also sounds like you've had a bad experience while I had just the opposite i.e. players who came up with cool concepts for the summoner, knew how to do their paperwork, and were a joy to play with and who made me a fan of the class.
It's not a class I would recomend for beginers. I do have some issues with spell progression. But overall, we've had a lot of fun with it. And I happen to see a lot of summoners because other players have seen other created cool summoners. I could see the reverse happening: i.e. few summoners because the first few were played by powergamers/uninspired roleplayers.
And I suspect this is part (not all) of the classes image problem. There was few models for what a summoner was supposed to be as a character that many of the early players fell flat.
All I'm asking you and any other person reading this is to when you encounter a summoner either at PFS or in a home game, don't prejudge the player or make assumptions about the player, such as he's a gish powergamer or whatever, jump down the players throat or assume he doesn't have his paperwork in order unless he gives you reason to question them.
Basically, give the player and the class a fair chance.
All the best,
Kerney
|
There is a good bit of discussion here about the eidelon. The rules are complex with enough corner cases and overruling enough general rules that many manage to build invalid eidelons without noticing (or in hopes the DM won't notice). Also, a properly built eidelon can be better than a cohort and leadership is easily the least balanced feat in the game.
However, my primary concern with this class is the difficulty of it in actual play. There is a lot of bookkeeping with the eidelon AND the purpose of the class is to summon additional PC controller creatures which can slow play to a crawl. I could easily have 8-10 creatures to control every turn in any given combat. The skewed action economy breaks things as well as causing the summoners turn to typically take much longer than other players. An inexperienced player should simply not play the class as choosing summoned creatures, choosing actions for all controlled creatures, and managing all statistics (e.g., hitpoints) for all controlled creatures is simply overwhelming.
I would prefer to see the class get some streamlined rules for play. Simplify the eidelon to something closer to the animal companion. Limit controlled creatures. Perhaps remove summon from the spell list. Revise the synthesist summoner to something closer to wildshape or just give the synthesist summoner evolution points.
Once these are addressed, then we can discuss balance concerns. I feel simplifying the eidelon (and synthesist) and limiting action economy through reduced summons will help a lot.
It is interesting to see the variety of problems - some which folks are making for themselves, others which are inherent to the class - and how others handle them. I do not agree with the camp that claims summoners are fine, as is. I'm also not going to argue about it.
While I don't think any of the solutions are terrible (on the contrary, some of them have given me additional material to work with for our games), I went about correcting it in a different way.
Problem spells, such as haste, were moved to an appropriate level; other spells were removed outright. Problem spells depends on the GM, so I won't go into that.
Action economy was the big deal for us, so I went about solving it in the following fashion, and took a little bit of inspiration from the Final Fantasy 10 summoner, which I originally thought this class was going to mimic prior to getting my copy of the book:
Summoning the eidolon at level 1 requires a full-round action. This action is decreased incrementally to an immediate action around level 19-20 (I think 19, but I don't have acess to my material at the moment). The summoner must maintain Concentration to keep the eidolon in this world and direct its actions, i.e. he must expend his Standard action to maintain control and grant the Eidolon a normal array of actions (standard, move, swift, etc), but may otherwise use his move action as appropriate (i.e. you're not a sitting duck). During this time, the Summoner is protected by what equates to a Sanctuary spell (DC 10 + 1/2 the summoner's level + the summoner's Charisma modifier). If this "protection" is penetrated, the summoner must make a Concentration check; failure results in the eidolon returning to its plane.
We had to make other minor changes, for example (Maker's Call is a move action, Merge Forms is a full-around action which doesn't interrupt Concentration, an eidolon model is chosen at 1st level from the list of available and in some instances, new models have been made, and so on). Overall, it's worked out fine.
I'd actually considered at one point "Banishing the summoner" while the eidolon was out, with some sort of "nova" effect in the area which it appeared, i.e. they exchange places, but that's a concept we've archived until such time as someone's interested in it.