Reading through Pathfinder Unchained, and I need to ask: Is the revised Summoner less broken then the original summoner?
I'm not seeing much difference.
Yes.
What does the new summoner spell list look like?
Yes.
** spoiler omitted **
Well, while that was a problem. The power of the eidolon - especially at lower levels - was the real issue.
Also the Unchained Eidolon is less fleixible overall in exchange for thematic templates.
Aka your demon or angel eidolons have specific evolutions they gain at certain levels and have certain evolutions theyre locked out of.
The unchained summoner has less evolution points to spend since the eidolon types come with some abilities.
Also the Unchained Eidolon is less fleixible overall in exchange for thematic templates.
Aka your demon or angel eidolons have specific evolutions they gain at certain levels and have certain evolutions theyre locked out of.
The unchained summoner has less evolution points to spend since the eidolon types come with some abilities.
Hopefully that will limit some of the most egregious abuses.
And some of the evolutions were massaged, such as Pounce not coming online too early. I do like the 'not always an evolution' ability some of them get as they go along, very flavorful.
Yes. Pounce was a huge problem.
Yes.
** spoiler omitted **
Instead of getting things one whole level early do they get them one level late compared to everyone else?
Also the Unchained Eidolon is less fleixible overall in exchange for thematic templates.
Aka your demon or angel eidolons have specific evolutions they gain at certain levels and have certain evolutions theyre locked out of.
The unchained summoner has less evolution points to spend since the eidolon types come with some abilities.
Hmmm...
This intrigues me, now I need to try & find a copy of Unchained to take a look at what they have done.
Edit: I don't suppose you could give more specifics regarding the Angel Eidolon?
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, is it ironic that the Unchained summoner is actually more "chained" than the default?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If some some could compare the way that Unchained Eidolons work with the plant ones from Heroes of the Wild, I would greatly appreciate that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must admit, I was stunned when I realized just how bad the spell list has been torn up. From level 0 to level 6, 39 spells have been removed, and SIX new ones added. Another 39'ish spells have been pushed up a level, and SIX of those have been pushed up TWO levels!
For example, "Haste and Slow" used to be available at 4th level (2nd level spells), and in "Unchained" they are not available until 7th level (3rd level spells).
Eidolon's weren't nerfed quite as badly as the spell list, but they're effectiveness is still reduced. I compared my current Eidolon as is to what he would be if I rebuilt him under the new rules. After all is said and done I figure his combat effectiveness would drop 30-40%. That's very quick rough calculations, but it's not good.
That said, the idea of sub-type's of Eidolons is indeed intriguing. I like the large variety of options available in "Unchained". I just don't like how badly they've killed the class in other ways.
Also, for what it's worth, after a quick read through the Barbarian and Rogue rebuilds look solid. I can't speak for the new Monk since I don't play one, but hopefully it's on par with the Barbie and Rogue!
Anyway, I do believe I will continue to use the APG Summoner, thanks.
Also the Unchained Eidolon is less fleixible overall in exchange for thematic templates.
Aka your demon or angel eidolons have specific evolutions they gain at certain levels and have certain evolutions theyre locked out of.
The unchained summoner has less evolution points to spend since the eidolon types come with some abilities.
Hmmm...
This intrigues me, now I need to try & find a copy of Unchained to take a look at what they have done.
Edit: I don't suppose you could give more specifics regarding the Angel Eidolon?
It's locked into Biped, has angelic resistances and eventually gets Truespeech, Wings, and Protective Aura.
Agathion Eidolons get probably the awesomest ability at 8th level which lets them Lay on Hands as a Paladin of their level(minus mercies).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I do believe I will continue to use the APG Summoner, thanks.
The changes are unnecessary to those who believe the APG Summoner was okay in any way shape or form.
For everyone else, the Unchained Summoner is far far more balanced. Gone are the days of Greater Invisibility Potions and Wands of Teleport.
Angel being locked as a biped is pretty sucky. Means you can't have the eldritch abomination style angels you see in ancient religion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as I can make my Seraphim, 6 wings yo! [probably not a wise investment of evolution points.]
Well you wouldn't have to spend any evolution points, iirc angels get flight for free and there is no reason to flavour the flight as only two wings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed with Milo! Also, note that despite the fact that they were indeed religious representations of alien angels, called angels in the source material, those guys don't really fit the Pathfinder RPG angel subtype much (heck, a lot of them, depending on their job, were pretty not-Good in alignment). My recommendation for prospective Unchainers is to make your own subtype for those and use that one!
I must admit, I was stunned when I realized just how bad the spell list has been torn up. From level 0 to level 6, 39 spells have been removed, and SIX new ones added. Another 39'ish spells have been pushed up a level, and SIX of those have been pushed up TWO levels!
For example, "Haste and Slow" used to be available at 4th level (2nd level spells), and in "Unchained" they are not available until 7th level (3rd level spells).
Eidolon's weren't nerfed quite as badly as the spell list, but they're effectiveness is still reduced. I compared my current Eidolon as is to what he would be if I rebuilt him under the new rules. After all is said and done I figure his combat effectiveness would drop 30-40%. That's very quick rough calculations, but it's not good.
That said, the idea of sub-type's of Eidolons is indeed intriguing. I like the large variety of options available in "Unchained". I just don't like how badly they've killed the class in other ways.
That's the whole point.
The unchained version of the summoner is to make it less stupidly broken to the point of absolutely unplayably powerful.
Why should the summoner get haste at level 4 before the wizard? How does that make a lick of sense?
I felt there were only two legitimate issues with the original summoner. The spell list gave buff spells too early. And the eidolon overly favored multiple attack monstrosities. It sounds like the first was addressed. I'm not sure how the second shakes out.
I do hope they didn't slow down the conjuration spells. The summoner should be good at summoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so is the summoner still a 6 level caster?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't stand the fact that if my 20th-level unchained summoner makes his eidolon huge, and increases a single ability score by 2 points, he only has 1 evolution point left over.
They cut the evolution points in half, but didn't adjust the evolution prices at all.
That means every single huge eidolon is going to be DAMN BORING. Large ones too.
Very happy about the spell list changes. Still absorbing the rest but feels like a version of summoner I'd actually allow at my table.
I for one am incredibly happy to hear about the changes to the spell list. That is exactly what needed to happen.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
There wasn't much wrong with the original spell list. A few amateur GMs just didn't know how to handle it and decided to raise hell about it long enough for the developers to take note.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. The spell list had no business having early access to buffing spells. It has thematically nothing to do with summoning. If anyone got that it should be the bard.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
There wasn't much wrong with the original spell list. A few amateur GMs just didn't know how to handle it and decided to raise hell about it long enough for the developers to take note.
*Raises hand*
I don't think it was mechanically wise for a class that has a better-than-fighter pocket fighter to also have early access to spells.
I would go so far to say that I would rather the summoning SLA was tweaked than for summoners to have early access to summon monster spells.
There wasn't much wrong with the original spell list. A few amateur GMs just didn't know how to handle it and decided to raise hell about it long enough for the developers to take note.
How should the spell list have been handled by those GM's? I personally just did not allow their spellist to decide when an spell into a wand or potion. I just went by the core classes for that. I also never GM'd for a summoner who made full use of spells, so I never got to find out if it would have been an issue for me in an actual game.
I can't stand the fact that if my 20th-level unchained summoner makes his eidolon huge, and increases a single ability score by 2 points, he only has 1 evolution point left over.
They cut the evolution points in half, but didn't adjust the evolution prices at all.
That means every single huge eidolon is going to be DAMN BORING. Large ones too.
This is quite a wretched thing to find out...
I can't stand the fact that if my 20th-level unchained summoner makes his eidolon huge, and increases a single ability score by 2 points, he only has 1 evolution point left over.
They cut the evolution points in half, but didn't adjust the evolution prices at all.
That means every single huge eidolon is going to be DAMN BORING. Large ones too.
Im not too worried. Extra Evolution Pool is a thing and the subtypes have their own evolutions too.
What if you just don't have a huge eidolon?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few amateur GMs just didn't know how to handle it and decided to raise hell about it long enough for the developers to take note.
I've been playing D&D -> Pathfinder since 1979, but I guess I need to file myself under your "amateur GMs" list, since I felt like raising hell about the summoner.
I'm glad they nerfed it. I hope PFS will grandfather all existing summoners but then make the unchained summoner the exclusive summoner class from here on out.
Also, discounting a problem because it's only an issue for amateur GMs is never a good argument, since in order to keep the game growing it will constantly need to cater to amateur GMs. A tabletop RPG that can only be run well by pro GMs is a very poorly designed game, IMHO. So... sure, maybe you're right that amateur GMs couldn't handle it, but that reveals a flaw of the game, not the GMs. So expect garbage like that to be fixed again and again.
What about keeping the APG summoner but switching out the spell lists and leaving pounce as a 3 point evolution?
The current state of the game, all Paizo material, can easily require a "pro" GM as is. That shipped sailed with Ultimate Combat. All the optional systems, spells, class options, and feats were myriad then.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't stand the fact that if my 20th-level unchained summoner makes his eidolon huge, and increases a single ability score by 2 points, he only has 1 evolution point left over.
I hate when my 20th-level characters get nerfed. I feel like I have nothing left to strive towards any longer.
I can't stand the fact that if my 20th-level unchained summoner makes his eidolon huge, and increases a single ability score by 2 points, he only has 1 evolution point left over.
They cut the evolution points in half, but didn't adjust the evolution prices at all.
That means every single huge eidolon is going to be DAMN BORING. Large ones too.
Unchained is using optional rules. If your GM has no problem with your current character then he has no reason to use the optional rules. It is basically Pathfinder's version of unearth arcana.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
There wasn't much wrong with the original spell list. A few amateur GMs just didn't know how to handle it and decided to raise hell about it long enough for the developers to take note.
Pffft!
Aside from the issue of casting gratuitous aspersions on anyone who doesn't agree with you, there's a lot to be said for the changes I'm reading about here. It really sounds like great stuff and may even make the summoner reasonable enough that I'd consider un-banning it in my games. I get the vibe that a lot of folks are in the same general area as I am.I must admit, I was stunned when I realized just how bad the spell list has been torn up. From level 0 to level 6, 39 spells have been removed, and SIX new ones added. Another 39'ish spells have been pushed up a level, and SIX of those have been pushed up TWO levels!
For example, "Haste and Slow" used to be available at 4th level (2nd level spells), and in "Unchained" they are not available until 7th level (3rd level spells).
These sound like exactly the changes we need. The worst thing about the summoner's old spell list was the effect on magic item creation, especially for non-summoners. It threw quite a number of time-honored limitations on magic items out the window.
What's amazing to me is that these problems slipped past the editor's cudgel in the initial release. More power to the folks at Paizo for having stepped up to rectify their mistakes!
For many of us, the power level of eidelons was simply dialed up too high. They had too high a budget of evolution points and too many ways to cheese the system into becoming outrageous killing machines.
I get the fact that folks like Ravingdork prefer the old system. But that doesn't make those of us who prefer a more limited and measured version of the summoner "amateur GMs".
What if you just don't have a huge eidolon?
"Look, there's nothing wrong with this option being totally nerfed and turned into a trap. Just, y'know, don't use it!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a copy of the big book yet and can't speak to actual facts. I'm just saying, "It's not a trap if you don't fall for it" is a Circular Reasoning fallacy at the core.
GLaKObold: "Why don't you try the door?"
Adventurer: "It looks trapped."
GLaKObold: "Oh, it's not. Believe me. It's not trapped. It only kills test subjects who attempt to open it."
*BZAAAP*
GLaKObold: "Oh. Would you look at that."
EDIT: Or maybe it's, like, spiral reasoning. I have no clue. I'm too tired to place the fallacy right now. It doesn't make sense, is what I'm saying.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, is it ironic that the Unchained summoner is actually more "chained" than the default?
Thinking that many GMs just banned the summoner for obvious reasons the new summoner with just a leash is much less chained than the caged version that could not be played at all.
What if you just don't have a huge eidolon?
Assuming it's part of a concept a player desired; the response to it being bad of "why not just not play that character" isn't exactly helpful. Or nice.
Unchained is using optional rules. If your GM has no problem with your current character then he has no reason to use the optional rules. It is basically Pathfinder's version of unearth arcana.
As I have said elsewhere, and will reiterate here however, the problem with the response "your GM can houserule it" misses certain realities of playing TRPGs:
1) That the base rules are what one can expect looking for a new gaming group, and will subsequently use when considering a character.2) GMs assuming "the designers know what is best" and hence, when something is changed, they go with it.
Both of those are things that present large barriers to simply being able to shrug off a design decision with houserules.
Still, since I have yet to actually look at the thing, I sadly can't offer any mechanical arguments to RD's complaint.
Does using the original class instead of the 'Unchained' version constitute a houserule?
What if you just don't have a huge eidolon?Assuming it's part of a concept a player desired; the response to it being bad of "why not just not play that character" isn't exactly helpful. Or nice.
Unchained is using optional rules. If your GM has no problem with your current character then he has no reason to use the optional rules. It is basically Pathfinder's version of unearth arcana.As I have said elsewhere, and will reiterate here however, the problem with the response "your GM can houserule it" misses certain realities of playing TRPGs:
1) That the base rules are what one can expect looking for a new gaming group, and will subsequently use when considering a character.
2) GMs assuming "the designers know what is best" and hence, when something is changed, they go with it.
Both of those are things that present large barriers to simply being able to shrug off a design decision with houserules.Still, since I have yet to actually look at the thing, I sadly can't offer any mechanical arguments to RD's complaint.
But it's not a change anymore than unearth arcana changed the rules.
I also don't get if your points are supposed to support mine or go against it since the "new" summoner is really the houserule version. It is just a houserule presented by Paizo, just like called shots in Ultimate Combat.
As I have said elsewhere, and will reiterate here however, the problem with the response "your GM can houserule it" misses certain realities of playing TRPGs:
I would normally agree, but the whole purpose of Unchained is variants and houserules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if you just don't have a huge eidolon?"Look, there's nothing wrong with this option being totally nerfed and turned into a trap. Just, y'know, don't use it!"
Who said it is nerfed?
It's still really really good, but now you actually have to give things up for it.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that it's not as strong as it used to be.
Which is why there is all the whining.