Speculation on the unchained summoner


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 432 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A level one spell that will dismiss the eidolon? Sleep.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I always liked James' idea of a set of outsiders you get to choose from. It reduces the Build Your Own Monstrosity issue we get in today's version, where people can just cherry pick the best abilities to create something that marginalizes the rest of the team. I like the idea of having a "family" of outsiders you select, and that gives you some abilities. But within that family, you get to choose one outsider, and that further specializes your abilities. And then you get a gimped version of that outsider, one that grows with you to get more power faster. Or maybe Summoners are like the Cosmic Infant Nurses, where they take nascent outsiders, and nurture them into the full thing, rather than the souls waiting <X> <timeframe> for themselves to coalesce into their full version.

Or, y'know, someone focused on actual summoning, rather than Another Pet Class.

Shared Actions would go a long way to reducing issues too.

Scarab Sages

Undone wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Undone wrote:
Ediolons may never gain more attacks per turn than maxlisted on the table (Identical to current but for all attacks) including haste and manufactured weapons.
Mixing manufactured weapons with natural weapons looks impressive on paper but decreases DPR. You've just cut all your (huge) strength bonuses to damage in half and split your WBL among multiple weapons + an AMF. On top of already splitting WBL between the summoner and eidolon.
Except at high levels where the pet wields a few dozen guns.

Please post the build. Be sure to include the summoner half.

I want to see where all your wealth is going: a dozen enchanted guns are not cheap. You certainly won't be breaking DR with them.

Quote:
Artanthos wrote:
Adding specific exclusions to Haste? If Haste is broken on the eidolon what do we call it when applied to the pouncing barbarian?
It's not broken. I just see no reason to allow a PET to come even closer to actual CLASSES.

With nearly all WBL, Feats & FCB focused on the eidolon, it is the class. The summoner becomes the pet.

Quote:
Artanthos wrote:
Quote:
The summoner must chose at creation the pet or the SLA.
Because the summoner is already using both simultaneously?
Welcome to the ability to have free options. When the pet dies he just magically superior summons an army. So killing the pet actually POWERS UP THE SUMMONER. You don't see a problem with that?

Let me introduce you to the Conjurer and Necromancer, both of whom can permanently maintain small armies, and do it better than the Summoner.

On a more serious note: if you have spent the majority of the summoner's WBL, feats and FCB on an eidolon, the summoner itself is not going to be anywhere near as survivable or potent as a character that has invested in himself. You've traded away a significant portion of the summoner's personal power.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

I always liked James' idea of a set of outsiders you get to choose from. It reduces the Build Your Own Monstrosity issue we get in today's version, where people can just cherry pick the best abilities to create something that marginalizes the rest of the team. I like the idea of having a "family" of outsiders you select, and that gives you some abilities. But within that family, you get to choose one outsider, and that further specializes your abilities. And then you get a gimped version of that outsider, one that grows with you to get more power faster. Or maybe Summoners are like the Cosmic Infant Nurses, where they take nascent outsiders, and nurture them into the full thing, rather than the souls waiting <X> <timeframe> for themselves to coalesce into their full version.

Or, y'know, someone focused on actual summoning, rather than Another Pet Class.

Shared Actions would go a long way to reducing issues too.

I would be more in favor of separate evolution pools for combat and non-combat evolutions. The flexibility to build to any concept is a huge strength of the class.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've recently been touting the Monster Trainer from Northwinter Press' "Mystical: Kingdom of Monsters" as a great example of what a balanced Summoner class could like.
A spell list that is determined by the monster you currently have active, shared action economy, and some encounter-based limitations make it an awesomely balanced class with great thematics and great mechanics.

Alternatively, as Cheapy suggested, rethinking the class from the ground up and making it a class whose shtick is actually actively summoning instead of "that guy who primarily walks around with his murderbeast and may never actually cast a summon spell if things go his way". Granted, my Summoners are typically actively summoning and only bringing their eidolon in via summon eidolon so they can apply their summon buffing feats and take advantage of the superior spell versatility that the summon monster SLA provides, but I'm pretty sure I'm in a vast minority.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

I've recently been touting the Monster Trainer from Northwinter Press' "Mystical: Kingdom of Monsters" as a great example of what a balanced Summoner class could like.

A spell list that is determined by the monster you currently have active, shared action economy, and some encounter-based limitations make it an awesomely balanced class with great thematics and great mechanics.

Alternatively, as Cheapy suggested, rethinking the class from the ground up and making it a class whose shtick is actually actively summoning instead of "that guy who primarily walks around with his murderbeast and may never actually cast a summon spell if things go his way". Granted, my Summoners are typically actively summoning and only bringing their eidolon in via summon eidolon so they can apply their summon buffing feats and take advantage of the superior spell versatility that the summon monster SLA provides, but I'm pretty sure I'm in a vast minority.

That really illustrates the problem with the summoner I think. Its optimization floor starts at the best school of magic and then goes from there. You know how to optimize even further, but groups with naturally low optimization can't do what they do in the face of a class that starts at awesome.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rosc wrote:

Going to agree that some evolutions are oddly priced and the rules alloq for abuse. But these's one evolution that no one has brought up: Skilled. Some folks ditch it for raw combat power, which i can understand. But point for point? I'll go on record saying it's the best evolution in the game. It means your UMD is reliable enough to doublecast. It means you will out stealth pretty much anyone. (It is possible to make a level 1 eidolon with +23 stealth. And thanks to Evolution Surge, it means the eidolon can be serviceable (if not amazing) at just about anything. Pay the 1 point tax for boosted Perception and you have the best scout this side of an Elven druid that picked up Alertness.

I'm curious about the upcoming changes. If the eidolon is simplified into "package" builds, it might take away from the fun of customizing it. I run a summoner with a skill monkey eidolon in PFS, and i have this tiny fear that Unchained could become a new rule and throw a wrench into my build. I suppose time will tell.

But seriously. Skilled needs a nerf. There is no reason to give a walking class feature a flat +8 to whatever it wants for such a minimal investment and no prerequisites.

I totally get what you're saying, and a part of me does agree. The first skilldolon I made shocked me with how much better he could do right off the bat, especially with my summoner always assisting him. But then actually playing through several long levels made me realize that skilldolons can fall off; the bard and the ranger in the group both grew far more quickly than he did because they could wear magic items, while the summoner's magic items did not aid the eidolon. For a class that IS meant to be able to fill that support/skill monkey role, I think the Skilled evolution is very much necessary to keep the role relevant at higher levels.

It still can be very ridiculous though, and I especially agree with its absurd viability with Evolution Surge. Would a restriction that it cannot be used with Evolution Surge be enough to make it feel more fair?

Cheapy wrote:

I always liked James' idea of a set of outsiders you get to choose from. It reduces the Build Your Own Monstrosity issue we get in today's version, where people can just cherry pick the best abilities to create something that marginalizes the rest of the team. I like the idea of having a "family" of outsiders you select, and that gives you some abilities. But within that family, you get to choose one outsider, and that further specializes your abilities. And then you get a gimped version of that outsider, one that grows with you to get more power faster. Or maybe Summoners are like the Cosmic Infant Nurses, where they take nascent outsiders, and nurture them into the full thing, rather than the souls waiting <X> <timeframe> for themselves to coalesce into their full version.

Or, y'know, someone focused on actual summoning, rather than Another Pet Class.

Shared Actions would go a long way to reducing issues too.

My big fear with both these options is that the first one reduces the flavor versatility of the eidolon to "well I hope some dev at Paizo is as passionate and creative as I am"; I mean, I can get excited about RPing a summoner with a merfolk eidolon, an eldritch abomination, a fey eidolon, and a mount. I'm not saying it couldn't work, I just don't know how they could keep the packages vague enough to offer that variety while still offering structure.

The part of shared actions that scares me is the fact that it could be implemented as a class-wide nerf that crushes players like me who already actively avoid the absurd things eidolon/summons can do. In the game with the summoner I play now, my skilldolon and my summoner pretty much just play the role of a support bard, and can't even come close to the spotlight the one-shotting paladin hogs. I worry that shared action economy done indiscriminately would mean that choosing to play the skilldolon basically equates to "half your class features sit this fight out".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

i remember reading about a pirate summoner whose eidolon was a minature pirate ship that flew beside him.

he had breath weapon (cannons) he had claw attacks (a host of mini-pirates slashing through from the masts and the deck at nearby oppoenents) and etc.

it was a beautiful sight, and something that cannot be recreated if they go with standarizing summoner "packets"


Celanian wrote:

The bestiary entry is specific that monsters in the book only gets speaking for free. It trumps core rulebook mechanics since specific trumps general.

Maybe you play in your world that every single 1 year old child, child raised by wolves, barbarian ogre, dretch, etc has 100% literacy with no issues whatsoever (the real world doesn't even have close to 100% literacy even with schools vastly superior to what most of Golarion has), but actual game worlds have a mix of literacy and illiteracy.

PCs get literacy for free because they are special snowflakes and can always write it into their background, but everyone else is a GM judgement call.

The CORE rule book is the CORE rules. They apply to monsters. IF they don't in your campaign, that's houserules. A child raised by wolves who has an INT that is not less then 3 and has a known language in Pathfinder is literate. Period. Because that's the rules.


Melkiador wrote:
A level one spell that will dismiss the eidolon? Sleep.

You have Summoners that aren't Half-Elves? Strange.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Murderous command.

Send pouncy back to give the summoner a hug.

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
A level one spell that will dismiss the eidolon? Sleep.
You have Summoners that aren't Half-Elves? Strange.

Not a single one of the summoners I have played over the years was a half-elf.


Anzyr wrote:
Celanian wrote:

The bestiary entry is specific that monsters in the book only gets speaking for free. It trumps core rulebook mechanics since specific trumps general.

Maybe you play in your world that every single 1 year old child, child raised by wolves, barbarian ogre, dretch, etc has 100% literacy with no issues whatsoever (the real world doesn't even have close to 100% literacy even with schools vastly superior to what most of Golarion has), but actual game worlds have a mix of literacy and illiteracy.

PCs get literacy for free because they are special snowflakes and can always write it into their background, but everyone else is a GM judgement call.

The CORE rule book is the CORE rules. They apply to monsters. IF they don't in your campaign, that's houserules. A child raised by wolves who has an INT that is not less then 3 and has a known language in Pathfinder is literate. Period. Because that's the rules.

Whatever general rules written in the Bestiary overrides whatever is written in the core rules for anything in the Bestiary. If you have the core rules override the bestiary, that's just YOUR PERSONAL HOUSE RULES. Period. Because that's the rules.

If you allow ordinary 1 year old kids to be literate in your campaign, I absolutely do not want to be anywhere near any campaign that you are involved in.


Celanian wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Celanian wrote:

The bestiary entry is specific that monsters in the book only gets speaking for free. It trumps core rulebook mechanics since specific trumps general.

Maybe you play in your world that every single 1 year old child, child raised by wolves, barbarian ogre, dretch, etc has 100% literacy with no issues whatsoever (the real world doesn't even have close to 100% literacy even with schools vastly superior to what most of Golarion has), but actual game worlds have a mix of literacy and illiteracy.

PCs get literacy for free because they are special snowflakes and can always write it into their background, but everyone else is a GM judgement call.

The CORE rule book is the CORE rules. They apply to monsters. IF they don't in your campaign, that's houserules. A child raised by wolves who has an INT that is not less then 3 and has a known language in Pathfinder is literate. Period. Because that's the rules.

Whatever general rules written in the Bestiary overrides whatever is written in the core rules for anything in the Bestiary. If you have the core rules override the bestiary, that's just YOUR PERSONAL HOUSE RULES. Period. Because that's the rules.

If you allow ordinary 1 year old kids to be literate in your campaign, I absolutely do not want to be anywhere near any campaign that you are involved in.

I go by the Rules. The rule that creatures in bestiary speak that language is a general rule. It does not contradict the rule in the CRB. It can both speak the language and be literate. If they wanted it to not be literate, they would have had to include language that made them illiterate, you know like they did for the Barbarian in 3.5.

Sorry but rules be rules. So if a 1 year old has 3+ INT, speaks a language, and there is no rule that they are illiterate, then the rules say they are literate. And I go by that.


Anzyr wrote:
Celanian wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Celanian wrote:

The bestiary entry is specific that monsters in the book only gets speaking for free. It trumps core rulebook mechanics since specific trumps general.

Maybe you play in your world that every single 1 year old child, child raised by wolves, barbarian ogre, dretch, etc has 100% literacy with no issues whatsoever (the real world doesn't even have close to 100% literacy even with schools vastly superior to what most of Golarion has), but actual game worlds have a mix of literacy and illiteracy.

PCs get literacy for free because they are special snowflakes and can always write it into their background, but everyone else is a GM judgement call.

The CORE rule book is the CORE rules. They apply to monsters. IF they don't in your campaign, that's houserules. A child raised by wolves who has an INT that is not less then 3 and has a known language in Pathfinder is literate. Period. Because that's the rules.

Whatever general rules written in the Bestiary overrides whatever is written in the core rules for anything in the Bestiary. If you have the core rules override the bestiary, that's just YOUR PERSONAL HOUSE RULES. Period. Because that's the rules.

If you allow ordinary 1 year old kids to be literate in your campaign, I absolutely do not want to be anywhere near any campaign that you are involved in.

I go by the Rules. The rule that creatures in bestiary speak that language is a general rule. It does not contradict the rule in the CRB. It can both speak the language and be literate. If they wanted it to not be literate, they would have had to include language that made them illiterate, you know like they did for the Barbarian in 3.5.

Sorry but rules be rules. So if a 1 year old has 3+ INT, speaks a language, and there is no rule that they are illiterate, then the rules say they are literate. And I go by that.

The section on intelligence specifically states "your character" can read. It specifically says any "creature" with int 3+ can understand its language, showing a clear distinction between "characters" and "creatures". Monsters are not "characters"

Sorry but rules be rules. You are flat out wrong.


Monsters are characters. And characters are monsters. Everyone is in the Bestiary somewhere. Or can Orcs not read Orcish in your campaigns? Are Demons illiterate as well? I guess all those Angels can't speak Celestial either. Sorry no the Core rules apply to everyone character or not. You are literally the only I've ever seen try to argue that elementals aren't literate.


Show me where it says that monsters are characters. Some orcs and some demons can read, but others can't just like some humans can and some can't.

You are literally the only one I've ever seen try and argue that ordinary one year olds are literate.


I'm arguing that the Rules say anything that 3+ INT and knows a language is literate because that is the rule. I always argue what the rules are, not what I want the rules to be (unless I note otherwise). For what you are arguing to be true, there would have to be special text indicates which creatures are or are not literate. Since that text does not exist, you go by the Core rules. It's not a "GM picks" thing.


Nope, only "characters" with 3+ int can automatically read. Not "anything".


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
A level one spell that will dismiss the eidolon? Sleep.
You have Summoners that aren't Half-Elves? Strange.
Not a single one of the summoners I have played over the years was a half-elf.

I've only played one summoner, a halfling. I'm having fun with my little serpentine water spirit. I can't think of any instances where a barbarian has felt threatened by it. The Celestial Eagles are likely more of a combat threat than it.

Shigaun:

Female serpentine
CG Medium outsider
Init +3; Senses darkvision 60 ft., scent; Perception +4
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 17, touch 13, flat-footed 14 (+3 Dex, +4 natural)
hp 19 (+3)
Fort +2, Ref +6, Will +3
Defensive Abilities evasion
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft., climb 30 ft., swim 30 ft.
Melee bite +6 (1d8+1), tail slap +1 (1d6)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 13, Dex 17, Con 13, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 11
Base Atk +3; CMB +4; CMD 17 (can't be tripped)
Feats Combat Reflexes, Weapon Finesse
Skills Acrobatics +7 (+9 to balance), Climb +13, Knowledge (nature) +2, Perception +4, Sense Motive +4, Stealth +9, Survival +6, Swim +10
Languages Common
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Climbing (30 feet) You have a Climb speed.
Combat Reflexes (4 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Evasion (Ex) No damage on successful reflex save.
Gills (Ex) Breate underwater.
Magic Attacks (Ex) Your natural attacks are magic.
Scent (Ex) Detect opponents within 15+ feet by sense of smell.
Swimming (30 feet) You have a Swim speed.
Tail (Ex) Tail grants +2 Acrobatics checks for balance.

I believe that the half-elf FCB to summoner is too powerful. It would be about like giving 1/2 or more of a feat to an animal companion as a FCB.


Generally summoning is one of the most broken things in the game I feel an action limit is something which should be imposed on all pets and summoner users not just summoners. If it is only put on summoners it would be unfair.

It seems the spiritualist is probably where they are going with the un-chained summoner.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

i remember reading about a pirate summoner whose eidolon was a minature pirate ship that flew beside him.

he had breath weapon (cannons) he had claw attacks (a host of mini-pirates slashing through from the masts and the deck at nearby oppoenents) and etc.

it was a beautiful sight, and something that cannot be recreated if they go with standarizing summoner "packets"

I love you, and this post.

My personal feelings on the Summoner aside, I want more fun things like this. I love when somebody comes up with a concept like this, completely out of left field, that just makes me smile and say "that person's mind went to an amazing place."


Celanian wrote:
Nope, only "characters" with 3+ int can automatically read. Not "anything".

Good thing monsters are characters then. Oh they are not *player characters*. You might even call them non-player characters. Or NPCs. And the rule does not say "player characters". Just characters.


Celanian wrote:
Nope, only "characters" with 3+ int can automatically read. Not "anything".

look up the definition of character. They aren't objects, places, or ideas.


Celanian wrote:
Nope, only "characters" with 3+ int can automatically read. Not "anything".

Nothing specifically states Dragon, angels, devils, orcs, ect are literate. According to your definition of the rules those monsters are never literate under any circumstances except houserules.


My interpretation of the rules is as follows:

Some humans are literate and some humans are illiterate

Some orcs are literate and some orcs are illiterate

Some demons are literate and some demons are illiterate

Etc.

Your interpretation of the rules is as follows:

Some language fairy is waiting around Golarion. Everytime a human, orc, ogre, troll etc toddler starts speaking, she hits them with her literacy wands and they can immediately start reading and writing.

I know which interpretation makes the most sense to me and fits the written material better.

Basically you're saying that there is not a single being on Golarion or any of the outer planes surrounding it with 3+ int and a language that is not literate.

Have fun playing with your language fairies.


Celanian wrote:

My interpretation of the rules is as follows:

Some humans are literate and some humans are illiterate

Some orcs are literate and some orcs are illiterate

Some demons are literate and some demons are illiterate

Etc.

Your interpretation of the rules is as follows:

Some language fairy is waiting around Golarion. Everytime a human, orc, ogre, troll etc toddler starts speaking, she hits them with her literacy wands and they can immediately start reading and writing.

I know which interpretation makes the most sense to me and fits the written material better.

Basically you're saying that there is not a single being on Golarion or any of the outer planes surrounding it with 3+ int and a language that is not literate.

Have fun playing with your language fairies.

That's not an interpretation of the rules. That's what the rules are. Creatures that have 3+ INT and speak a language are literate. Full stop. Games are abstractions, rules are rules, and it doesn't have to make any more sense then giant insects or half elves.


That's definitely an interpretation of the rules. Where does it say that all monsters or all toddlers learning to speak are characters? It's just an interpretation on your part.

I guess if I find one single illiterate character in any of the books or published materials that it would prove your interpretation to be absolutely wrong.


If a monster isn't a character, then what is it?


this is why... dealing with rules lawyering gets to be incredibly unfun (though, I will say, can other times be quite helpful). The rules are meant to aid with storytelling and combat, and especially to have a means by which to resolve conflict where the outcome is not a sure success, and to add an element of randomness to the game. Their purpose is not to be so obtrusive that they cause a setting to get incredibly non-nonsensically silly. I can think of very few settings in which a literacy rate of 100% or near it makes sense, especially not pre-modern fantasy settings.

When fluff and crunch clash in a way that is that silly, fluff should dominate and crunch should move over, at least to enough of a degree that there's some cohesion between rules and setting (and story).

Currently I'm running a game in late 1400's earth, if I stuck strictly by RAW (which I am staying away from the debate of whether this is even RAW or not and just going to assume it is) then, suddenly the setting changes in a way that just doesn't jive at all with how it should be.

Even Paizo's own setting Golarion having a 100% literacy rate or very very close to one seems hard to swallow, but, I almost never use it so it really doesn't matter to me at the moment (though this could change).

However, Pathfinder rules aren't strictly meant to JUST depict Golarion, they are meant to depict fantasy, and increasingly different varieties of fantasy, and to do that and keep a certain feel to the world and a certain logic to it and stay true to genre, some rules can't be kept in such a black and white way that they stop making sense.

Maybe by RAW if you are a critter with 3+ int and have a language listed you can read it unless otherwise is noted but... it just seems to go against the spirit of pre-modern fantasy settings, and, I have to wonder if the intent was really to avoid making characters have to spend extra points to both read and speak a language (as some other games do) and to keep it simple (which, unfortunately sometimes attempts to keep certain things simple only results in more debate over what really was the intent). If so, saying that an ogre barbarian is generally going to be illiterate (just for example) isn't really breaking anything and furthermore makes more sense (when one considers how both ogres and barbarians are generally depicted in fantasy) than assuming they can.


Animal Archive wrote:

One of the surest ways to complicate the relationship between an adventurer and her animal companion is to cast
awaken on the beast. The moment the spell takes effect, an animal companion ceases to be a class feature, and instead
becomes a person-an NPC whose Intelligence has increased by 3d6 (potentially making it as smart as or smarter than
the caster), and who has an increased Charisma score and knows at least one spoken language.

From the animal archive. An awakened animal has 3+ int and only automatically knows at least 1 spoken language. It specifically states "spoken language", and not "language"

So much for the theory that 3+ int automatically gives literacy to everything in existence.


Johnico wrote:
If a monster isn't a character, then what is it?

The animal archive quote that I wrote specifically states that an animal companion only becomes a character if awakened. This shows that living entities can have another status besides "character".


Celanian wrote:
Animal Archive wrote:

One of the surest ways to complicate the relationship between an adventurer and her animal companion is to cast
awaken on the beast. The moment the spell takes effect, an animal companion ceases to be a class feature, and instead
becomes a person-an NPC whose Intelligence has increased by 3d6 (potentially making it as smart as or smarter than
the caster), and who has an increased Charisma score and knows at least one spoken language.

From the animal archive. An awakened animal has 3+ int and only automatically knows at least 1 spoken language. It specifically states "spoken language", and not "language"

So much for the theory that 3+ int automatically gives literacy to everything in existence.

That is a specific rule. Yes, monsters that are awakened only get a spoken language. This actually proves your wrong, since that line would be unnecessary if your idea that 3+ INT and a language doesn't give literacy was correct. So thanks for that?


Celanian wrote:
Johnico wrote:
If a monster isn't a character, then what is it?
The animal archive quote that I wrote specifically states that an animal companion only becomes a character if awakened. This shows that living entities can have another status besides "character".

Animals are not normally characters and thus normally are not literate. This is working as intended.


So the animal companion specific rule trumps the CRB, but the Bestiary specific rule doesn't? Both use just about the same text. You are being wildly inconsistent.

Animals aren't normally characters. Summons aren't normally characters either. Eidolons aren't normally characters. Mounts aren't normally characters. Familiars aren't normally characters. So there appear to be a lot of things that aren't normally characters. Which makes your statement that all monsters are characters to be laughable.


well plus, looking at the entry in the Bestiary it specifically does say "The languages most commonly spoken by the creature are listed here."

I'm not seeing anything about them reading, it is safe to assume certain ones do, but, not seeing where it says they do. It also only is noting the most common ones, so, your ogre, air elemental, etc.. might not even know the language in its entry anyways. Clearly the DM can swap out what language it knows even sticking totally by RAW. Does that really mean you can't swap the language out and say "it knows this spoken language instead but not the written version" and still be sticking by RAW?


Anzyr wrote:
High level casters are immune to anti-magic fields (well Wizards/Sorcerers are and anyone who can hack their list, ie. Shamans).

How are high level casters immune to antimagic field out of curiosity? In my reading of the spell I'm not seeing anything close to that beyond certain spells being able to exist within the AMF, including instantaneous conjurations, but those still can't be made by a caster in the field himself.


Celanian wrote:

So the animal companion specific rule trumps the CRB, but the Bestiary specific rule doesn't? Both use just about the same text. You are being wildly inconsistent.

Animals aren't normally characters. Summons aren't normally characters either. Eidolons aren't normally characters. Mounts aren't normally characters. Familiars aren't normally characters. So there appear to be a lot of things that aren't normally characters. Which makes your statement that all monsters are characters to be laughable.

You can't tell the difference between general and specific? That is a specific rule since it *specifically* (that's a key word) says the awakened only get a spoken language. An Imp is a NPC. A familiar that happens to be an imp is also an NPC. I'm being extremely consistent in how I apply rules, since again anything that doesn't have specific rule that says otherwise (like the Awakened animal) follows the same rules. If it has 3+ INT and a language it is literate.

Farastu wrote:


well plus, looking at the entry in the Bestiary it specifically does say "The languages most commonly spoken by the creature are listed here."

I'm not seeing anything about them reading, it is safe to assume certain ones do, but, not seeing where it says they do. It also only is noting the most common ones, so, your ogre, air elemental, etc.. might not even know the language in its entry anyways. Clearly the DM can swap out what language it knows even sticking totally by RAW. Does that really mean you can't swap the language out and say "it knows this spoken language instead but not the written version" and still be sticking by RAW?

No. Summon Monster spells gets you a summoner creature that is exactly like the one in the Bestiary entry. And again, the rule is that any creature with 3+ INT and a language are literate.

chaoseffect wrote:


How are high level casters immune to antimagic field out of curiosity? In my reading of the spell I'm not seeing anything close to that beyond certain spells being able to exist within the AMF, including instantaneous conjurations, but those still can't be made by a caster in the field himself.

Aroden's Spellbane.


Ok, so we can all agree that lore wise, all Imps should be able to read right? Heck Devils in general we can all agree are literate.

Ok, now look at the statblock. Under languages they have Common and Infernal right? Ok, do we see anything that gives them literacy?

Devil subtype? Nope. Outsider Hit die? Nope.

Nothing gives Imps or Devils literacy.

I guess all Devils are illiterate.


Really, with how things are generally written in the rules, the only things definitely illiterate are goblins (in Golarion), Feral Child druids, and True Primitive barbarians. Otherwise, if it's above three intelligence, it could be either. I think it's probably safe to assume literacy in a lot of cases. But, I suppose if we really want to get nitpicky, PC races only start the game speaking certain languages. Where's your rank in linguistics to read Common, Mr. Wizard? :P
It's really a judgement call if it actually comes down to it. Some things probably aren't literate, other things probably are. And then add in circumstances and that's really all there is to. Even goblin wizards with all their intelligence may still not know how to read or write.

And going back to the thread topic at hand, while having a bunch of exploding runes and setting them off (however you might go about it) does do quite a bit assuming at least average dice, I do see a problem with comparing that to the summoner's damage at 5th level.

At fifth level as a wizard, you have probably two 3rd level slots, maybe three if you've managed a +4 headband (putting you at at least 150% of WBL) and started with 20 Int. That puts you with two sets of explosive runes per day, 12d6s. The summoner most likely does more overall with the eidolon (as he's not relying on spells for damage) and still has all his spell slots. Assuming, of course, multiple encounters in a day. He also has an easier time doing the damage.
If the wizard manages to stockpile a large number of them over an extended downtime, that's a different story. A much different story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it really important to the topic: "speculations on the unchained summoner" whether dragons or elementals can read?

Perhaps it would be better to make another topic for that discussion.


The specific rule is that bestiary monsters can only speak languages known. The specific rule is that animal companions can only speak languages known. No difference there.

Whether a demon, devil, or orc is literate is basically up to the GM and how he wants to fill out his world.

So a GM can say that village A is mostly literate because the villagers pool their money and hire a full time teacher to teach their children.

Village B has only the local priest and maybe a merchant who is literate because they don't care about book learnin'.

The Balor is literate but the 3 dretches licking his boots aren't.

The local tribe of orcs can't read because their shaman wouldn't teach them and he actively kills any who try to learn since it threatens his power.

All of these scenarios are supported by the rules and would not violate RAW.

It's just like the decision whether village A has magic items for sale or whether the mayor is male or female. Up to the GM to decide based on the needs of his world.

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:
Aroden's Spellbane.

Don't bother arguing with Anzyr.

He only plays Schrodinger's wizard. Every time somebody challenges him to generate an actual written character, he can do nothing but stutter excuses.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can you compromise, by agreeing that being literate doesn't mean you necessarily understand what you read?

Int 3 is only going to allow kindergarten level understanding.

'The. Cat. Sat. On. The. Mat.' isn't going to get you a job as a scribe.

Unfortunately for the reader, explosive runes don't require the reader 'understand' them, only that they can read them...

"Aye prep a red, prepp-a-red? prepaired? Ex-ploe-siv-eh? Ecksploesiv. Run. Run ehs? Roones? To. Day."
"Huh? What? I don't get it."
<BOOM>

Scarab Sages

Artanthos wrote:

Don't bother arguing with Anzyr.

He only plays Schrodinger's wizard. Every time somebody challenges him to generate an actual written character, he can do nothing but stutter excuses.

It's hardly 'Schrodinger's wizard', to learn a counter to the few spells that would compeletely shut you down. And to cast it as soon as possible every day, since at the level you can do so, it lasts 17+ hours, and costs nothing but a dirt-cheap one-time focus cost.

If the duration were minutes, and the focus were instead materials, you could justify someone being caught with their pants down, but not how it's currently written.


Snorter wrote:

Can you compromise, by agreeing that being literate doesn't mean you necessarily understand what you read?

Int 3 is only going to allow kindergarten level understanding.

'The. Cat. Sat. On. The. Mat.' isn't going to get you a job as a scribe.

Unfortunately for the reader, explosive runes don't require the reader 'understand' them, only that they can read them...

"Aye prep a red, prepp-a-red? prepaired? Ex-ploe-siv-eh? Ecksploesiv. Run. Run ehs? Roones? To. Day."
"Huh? What? I don't get it."
<BOOM>

There really can't be any compromise. Either all creatures with 3+ int and a language can read or at least some creatures with 3+ int and a language can't.

Anzyr and Insain Dragoon seem to believe that as soon as a toddler speaks his first words, he can immediately read an explosive rune and blow himself up.

I believe that the toddler after speaking his first words, still hasn't learned how to read and still must be taught. The toddler probably won't learn to read until age 4-5 at least, and possibly a lot longer depending on access to education. There is at least some gap between learning to speak and learning to read.

There really isn't any middle ground between these viewpoints.


Snorter wrote:
Artanthos wrote:

Don't bother arguing with Anzyr.

He only plays Schrodinger's wizard. Every time somebody challenges him to generate an actual written character, he can do nothing but stutter excuses.

It's hardly 'Schrodinger's wizard', to learn a counter to the few spells that would compeletely shut you down. And to cast it as soon as possible every day, since at the level you can do so, it lasts 17+ hours, and costs nothing but a dirt-cheap one-time focus cost.

If the duration were minutes, and the focus were instead materials, you could justify someone being caught with their pants down, but not how it's currently written.

It's always a Schrodinger's wizard until you see the build.


Builds make for poor comparisons, due to the system mastery of the builders, it's better to discuss abilities and acknowledge the costs of having such abilities. Unfortunately, the cost of having Aroden's Spellbane is low and its duration is so long that when extended you can have cast it yesterday. You don't need a build to realize this spell makes high level casters immune to Anti-magic fields and that a high level caster would likely always have it up. The only things they give up for this is a 9th level spell known (or a small amount of gold) and a spell slot from yesterday. And when the questions is "Do you want to be immune to anti-magic fields all day and tomorrow?" I think the answer is a resounding yes.

Scarab Sages

Snorter wrote:
Artanthos wrote:

Don't bother arguing with Anzyr.

He only plays Schrodinger's wizard. Every time somebody challenges him to generate an actual written character, he can do nothing but stutter excuses.

It's hardly 'Schrodinger's wizard', to learn a counter to the few spells that would compeletely shut you down. And to cast it as soon as possible every day, since at the level you can do so, it lasts 17+ hours, and costs nothing but a dirt-cheap one-time focus cost.

If the duration were minutes, and the focus were instead materials, you could justify someone being caught with their pants down, but not how it's currently written.

One comment, no.

History of posts, yes.

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:
Builds make for poor comparisons, due to the system mastery of the builders, it's better to discuss abilities and acknowledge the costs of having such abilities. Unfortunately, the cost of having Aroden's Spellbane is low and its duration is so long that when extended you can have cast it yesterday. You don't need a build to realize this spell makes high level casters immune to Anti-magic fields and that a high level caster would likely always have it up. The only things they give up for this is a 9th level spell known (or a small amount of gold) and a spell slot from yesterday. And when the questions is "Do you want to be immune to anti-magic fields all day and tomorrow?" I think the answer is a resounding yes.

Always assuming all possible spells and class abilities are always available to all wizards is no comparison at all. Choices made define the wizard and what he is capable of.

201 to 250 of 432 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Speculation on the unchained summoner All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.