[Unchained] "Unchained Summoner" vs "APG Summoner" FIGHT!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Having read the Unchained version, and having played two APG summoner previously (1 to 9th level and one to 12th), here's my opinion on the PU version:

Too much reduction in evolution points. The eidolon types get some abilities baked in, but the point value of them, combined with the level provided column totals, heck even extra evolution included, results in an eidolon that's pretty much on par with a druid's animal companion, especially after the animals 4th or 7th level advancement.

Now compared to the Druid: it gets 9 levels of spell casting, two strong save columns and wildshape (a very powerful ability).

Had the PU summoner been rewritten as a 9 level caster it might have been balanced against the druid (summoning SLA being IMHO of equal value to wildshape) given the now reduced power level of the eidolon. 9 level caster summoners also removed the complaint they get stuff earlier than other 9 level casters. They both get 3/4 BAB so that's a wash. The Druid still has 2 strong saves to the summoner's 1, but that could have been understood as being similar to oracle's will only save vs the cleric fort and will.

As it stands, the PU summoner comes up pretty lackluster in terms of party rolls it could fill. Lol looking at this analysis, the original one, with all its warts (overpowered eidolon, wonky 6 level spell list that was a constant source of contention) also failed to achieve anything other than allowing players to free form create eidolons in any form they could imagine, and cheat the item creation rules using the bizarro 6 level summoners spell list.

The class really deserves to have a 9 level spell list with this new reduced eidolon; I believe it would be very in line with the power levels of the other 9 level 3/4 BAB classes (shaman, cleric, druid, oracle).


I don't have the book yet but from what I am seeing in this discussion would standard summoner with the unchained spell list be an acceptable compromise?


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:
The class really deserves to have a 9 level spell list with this new reduced eidolon; I believe it would be very in line with the power levels of the other 9 level 3/4 BAB classes (shaman, cleric, druid, oracle).

I only want to focus on this statement as I haven't seen the book yet. Because the summoner is an arcane caster, keeping it at 3/4 BAB and moving to 9 levels of casting would be breaking the design rules.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Serisan wrote:
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:
The class really deserves to have a 9 level spell list with this new reduced eidolon; I believe it would be very in line with the power levels of the other 9 level 3/4 BAB classes (shaman, cleric, druid, oracle).
I only want to focus on this statement as I haven't seen the book yet. Because the summoner is an arcane caster, keeping it at 3/4 BAB and moving to 9 levels of casting would be breaking the design rules.

While I certainly see your point, I believe that design rule was broken by the design team itself when they allowed fireball as a divine spell and gave it to Druids clerics shamans and oracles. Numerous other examples abound (ice storm stoneskin spell turning etc).


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I thought that part of it being Unchained was that they could drop some of the 3.0 and 3.5 design rules.

I'll have to wait and see what is in the book. Although I think they needed to constrain the offensive abilities of Eidolons, I hope they haven't made it so you can't create some of the more imaginative designs such as the pirate ship Eidolon I heard about on these boards. It was a miniature pirate ship, with boarding parties (melee attacks) and some ranged attacks (cannons).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do agree that these changes to the eidolon were probably needed, but I don't like the fact that the decreased evolution points basically makes the half-elf favored class bonus where you get bonus evolution points *even better*.

It was already hard enough to justify running any other type of summoner.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:

The eidolon types get some abilities baked in, but the point value of them, combined with the level provided column totals, heck even extra evolution included, results in an eidolon that's pretty much on par with a druid's animal companion, especially after the animals 4th or 7th level advancement.

Now compared to the Druid: it gets 9 levels of spell casting, two strong save columns and wildshape (a very powerful ability).

Had the PU summoner been rewritten as a 9 level caster it might have been balanced against the druid (summoning SLA being IMHO of equal value to wildshape) given the now reduced power level of the eidolon.

The druid's generally considered to be at the far upper end of the power spectrum, though. In a party consisting of, say, Bard, Unchained Summoner, Alchemist & Ninja, would the Summoner seem weak?

Sovereign Court

Matthew Downie wrote:
Does using the original class instead of the 'Unchained' version constitute a houserule?

I would say no- quite the opposite since PU is all options using the unchained version would be a house rule.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:

The eidolon types get some abilities baked in, but the point value of them, combined with the level provided column totals, heck even extra evolution included, results in an eidolon that's pretty much on par with a druid's animal companion, especially after the animals 4th or 7th level advancement.

Now compared to the Druid: it gets 9 levels of spell casting, two strong save columns and wildshape (a very powerful ability).

Had the PU summoner been rewritten as a 9 level caster it might have been balanced against the druid (summoning SLA being IMHO of equal value to wildshape) given the now reduced power level of the eidolon.

The druid's generally considered to be at the far upper end of the power spectrum, though. In a party consisting of, say, Bard, Unchained Summoner, Alchemist & Ninja, would the Summoner seem weak?

Wait, the eidolon is only on par with an animal companion now? That's kind of disappointing.


22 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh no, how unfortunate that the Summoner only gets a class feature instead of an entire other character now.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:

The eidolon types get some abilities baked in, but the point value of them, combined with the level provided column totals, heck even extra evolution included, results in an eidolon that's pretty much on par with a druid's animal companion, especially after the animals 4th or 7th level advancement.

Now compared to the Druid: it gets 9 levels of spell casting, two strong save columns and wildshape (a very powerful ability).

Had the PU summoner been rewritten as a 9 level caster it might have been balanced against the druid (summoning SLA being IMHO of equal value to wildshape) given the now reduced power level of the eidolon.

The druid's generally considered to be at the far upper end of the power spectrum, though. In a party consisting of, say, Bard, Unchained Summoner, Alchemist & Ninja, would the Summoner seem weak?

Given the power level of alchemists (very powerful, they somehow get a pass on touch attack -bombs- that gunslingers get crucified for -guns-), massive utility of bards (though I could make an argument that they should be 9 level 3/4 BAB arcane casters as well) I think a 9 level caster summoner would do well in the party you described; I have little practical experience with the ninja, although I've read the class description.

Really any class should examined on its own merits IMHO, not in a party of x,y,z...that's very difficult analysis to do given the large number of classes that PF offers.


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:

The eidolon types get some abilities baked in, but the point value of them, combined with the level provided column totals, heck even extra evolution included, results in an eidolon that's pretty much on par with a druid's animal companion, especially after the animals 4th or 7th level advancement.

Now compared to the Druid: it gets 9 levels of spell casting, two strong save columns and wildshape (a very powerful ability).

Had the PU summoner been rewritten as a 9 level caster it might have been balanced against the druid (summoning SLA being IMHO of equal value to wildshape) given the now reduced power level of the eidolon.

The druid's generally considered to be at the far upper end of the power spectrum, though. In a party consisting of, say, Bard, Unchained Summoner, Alchemist & Ninja, would the Summoner seem weak?
Wait, the eidolon is only on par with an animal companion now? That's kind of disappointing.

It time for the game: Opinion or Fact?

Eidolon's are equal to animal companions [opinion]

Druids can cast shapechange on their animal companion via the share spells ability, allowing the AC to be a Huge dragon. The druid can also invest tons of buffs spells into the AC making them far stronger than normal at all levels [Fact]

The above makes druids better than summoners [opinion]


The point of Downie's example was to compare the Unchained Summoner to classes that are already balanced well (well, except the ninja, no idea why that was included in that party). If the Unchained Summoner was as good as the Wizard or the Druid then that would be a clear sign that the fix didn't work.


That was my original intention, but it's is extremely hard to name three Pathfinder classes that are widely considered to be well balanced. Either they're able to kill bosses in one round or they're hopeless at fighting. Either they're useless out of combat, or they're super flexible casters who can do anything.

I don't know whether you think the Ninja is too powerful or too weak - I'm sure I could find many threads complaining about both - but feel free to substitute Inquisitor or something if that helps.


Ninja is pretty weak. Certainly not garbage tier like the old Rogue but I probably would have slotted in an Inquisitor or a Paladin in that last slot.


I guess the real problem with the old summoner wasn't that it was as powerful as a druid. It was that it was *easy* for it to become powerful, while druids require a considerable amount of system mastery. This caused a lot of problems with more inexperienced gaming groups.

I'm just a bit upset because the eidolon was always the real reason to run a summoner (for me at least). I would gladly give up all spellcasting on the class just to have an eidolon who was on par with a barbarian.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:

The eidolon types get some abilities baked in, but the point value of them, combined with the level provided column totals, heck even extra evolution included, results in an eidolon that's pretty much on par with a druid's animal companion, especially after the animals 4th or 7th level advancement.

Now compared to the Druid: it gets 9 levels of spell casting, two strong save columns and wildshape (a very powerful ability).

Had the PU summoner been rewritten as a 9 level caster it might have been balanced against the druid (summoning SLA being IMHO of equal value to wildshape) given the now reduced power level of the eidolon.

The druid's generally considered to be at the far upper end of the power spectrum, though. In a party consisting of, say, Bard, Unchained Summoner, Alchemist & Ninja, would the Summoner seem weak?
Wait, the eidolon is only on par with an animal companion now? That's kind of disappointing.

This is an exaggeration. The Eidolon is still much much better than an Animal Companion.

You just cant make Huge masses of natural attacks anymore.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:
The class really deserves to have a 9 level spell list with this new reduced eidolon; I believe it would be very in line with the power levels of the other 9 level 3/4 BAB classes (shaman, cleric, druid, oracle).
I only want to focus on this statement as I haven't seen the book yet. Because the summoner is an arcane caster, keeping it at 3/4 BAB and moving to 9 levels of casting would be breaking the design rules.

True. But I doubt Dr. Johnny Fever would have complained about making the Summoner a 9 level spell list if he then had to have a d6 hit die and 1/2 BAB. :)

Claxon wrote:

The problem is that it's not as grossly overpowered as it used to be.

Which is why there is all the whining.

Fixed your post for you. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest complaining about Summoner being grossly overpowered and banning it with Wizards, Clerics and Druids around feels weird.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
To be honest complaining about Summoner being grossly overpowered and banning it with Wizards, Clerics and Druids around feels weird.

It's less about summoner being grossly overpowered and more about summoner being grossly overpowered without the player explicitly making a serious effort to tone it down.

Full casters aren't too disgusting unless the players behind them are leveraging significant mastery. If the players don't have that mastery, they won't be overtly gamebreaking until fairly high level. For summoners the most obvious way of building them (the pouncing clawed death blender with a buff/BFC buddy) is really really good, and an inexperienced player is going to completely overshadow many tables by complete accident.

It isn't that hard for well played full casters to sandbag their broken BS for a rainy day. This isn't even a bad idea from a tactical point of view - the martials do their thing while the casters save their game breakers for emergencies and walk into dangerous fights with almost all of their high level slots ready to rock. The MurderDeathPounceMachine can't become any less broken without a rebuild or blatant suboptimal play (I will only take 2 of my 7 natural attacks because...???).


I think a summoner would have made a lot of sense as 1/2 BAB, d6 HD, full casting with a conjuration/abjuration-focused list in the first place. They don't have any obvious reason to be physically capable and their concept is high-magic.

Still, you could now get pretty much all of that with an occultist archetype arcanist and variant multiclass summoner. Which would IMO be quite a bit more powerful than the original summoner; sometimes whacking one mole makes another spring up.

Liberty's Edge

Entryhazard wrote:
To be honest complaining about Summoner being grossly overpowered and banning it with Wizards, Clerics and Druids around feels weird.

Seconded. If I wanted to be a jerk player. I can have a novice DM in tears with a Bard from the core rule book. With the right feats and spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Cthulhudrew wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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 said 20th-level because that's when you have the most points. The problem is much more pronounced at lower levels.

Rhedyn wrote:
What if you just don't have a huge eidolon?

Then you are still left with half the evolution points. You get more free goodies than before I suppose, but that just means half the options are now static rather than variable. Hurray for LESS options!

(And please don't say this actually expands the available options since it's an optional rule; I imagine most GMs will go solely with one or the other and the player will just have to deal with it.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:

I think a summoner would have made a lot of sense as 1/2 BAB, d6 HD, full casting with a conjuration/abjuration-focused list in the first place. They don't have any obvious reason to be physically capable and their concept is high-magic.

Still, you could now get pretty much all of that with an occultist archetype arcanist and variant multiclass summoner. Which would IMO be quite a bit more powerful than the original summoner; sometimes whacking one mole makes another spring up.

Thought.

Take a sorcerer.
Remove all non-conjuration or abjuration spells from the list
Adds unchained summoner only spells to the list.
Remove blood lines and other class features.
Add unchained eidolon class features.

Bam! Done. 9th level casting summoner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
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!"

The whole point of unchained summoners is to have a summoner that don't get banned. In my games there were not be huge eidolons because summoners were banned, now perhaps with the unchained there is a chance for them


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


(And please don't say this actually expands the available options since it's an optional rule; I imagine most GMs will go solely with one or the other and the player will just have to deal with it.)

Well, in a lot of games, the options before was "no, you can't play a summoner".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ha! Now I know the fallacy: False Dilemma!

"Paizo only had two choices—make one that has terrible huge eidolons, or make one that's insanely overpowered."

Again, I haven't read the book, but these aren't valid dismissals of a complaint. As-is, Huge sounds like a trap option—use up all but one EP on a Strength/Con increase and then you don't get to do any more. Saying "just don't make it huge" or "well, it's still better than the old summoner" doesn't address the issue.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Ha! Now I know the fallacy: False Dilemma!

"Paizo only had two choices—make one that has terrible huge eidolons, or make one that's insanely overpowered."

Again, I haven't read the book, but these aren't valid dismissals of a complaint. As-is, Huge sounds like a trap option—use up all but one EP on a Strength/Con increase and then you don't get to do any more. Saying "just don't make it huge" or "well, it's still better than the old summoner" doesn't address the issue.

If your huge Eidolon is a big DPR tank then what is the trap?, And I'm talking hypothetically since I have not read the book.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Saying "just don't make it huge" or "well, it's still better than the old summoner" doesn't address the issue.

The issue being that not every single option in Pathfinder is of equal value, and therefore some of them are trap options, and Paizo ought to fix this?


Well, it sounds like what they've done by not adjusting the Evolution costs is make it so you can only grab one high-tier evolution, and nothing more. So that's not just a problem with a single option.

Nicos wrote:
If your huge Eidolon is a big DPR tank then what is the trap?, And I'm talking hypothetically since I have not read the book.

Oh, great. This is an argument between two people hypothetically discussing a book they haven't read. Mmkay. XD

Anyways, the question is if it is a DPR tank. High strength and high Con alone don't pull that off.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Nicos wrote:
If your huge Eidolon is a big DPR tank then what is the trap?, And I'm talking hypothetically since I have not read the book.

Oh, great. This is an argument between two people hypothetically discussing a book they haven't read. Mmkay. XD

Anyways, the question is if it is a DPR tank. High strength and high Con alone don't pull that off.

If the huge Eidolon end to be a very weak choice then that would be a very valid point, If not then there is no problem.

Only people testing/building it will show what is closer to the truth.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

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.

It was against. I personally appreciate its houserules (and houserules that for my complaint, I'll probably snap up) but my problem mostly arises in people seeing it as an update, errata and revision. Since I'd have to posit that, assuming less things are available concepts subsequently, there's a problem in the approach.

Then again, from what I'm reading in this thread, there's not a massive trade-off in numbers of options between the two.

Claxon wrote:

The problem is that it's not as strong as it used to be.

Which is why there is all the whining.

Yes. All complaints that exist are due to a weaker iteration of summoner existing. No one, anywhere, could have a legitimate issue with it.

Everyone who has an opinion that dissents from appreciation is a filthy-powergamer.
Sarcasm aside, I am highly skeptical no one has a legitimate concern.

A general note I do have on the reduction in evolution points: I do fear that approach, rather than making things cost more, does bring a bit of a rich-get-richer scenario to the factor that Half-Elves already made good summoners.
In a paradigm where a primary complaint to the SLA ruling was about certain races being significantly better for a class, it does strike as a weird move.

Paizo Employee Designer

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Well, it sounds like what they've done by not adjusting the Evolution costs is make it so you can only grab one high-tier evolution, and nothing more. So that's not just a problem with a single option.

No, RD stated a particular combination he was considering, which used quite a lot of points. Unintentionally, I'm sure, but it was highly misleading to those who aren't looking right at their APG summoners (while most people probably remembered that Huge has always cost 10 points, fewer people may remember that the +2 Strength evolution from the APG costs 4 points instead of 2 for a Large or Huge eidolon, which is why few people took it in the first place: RD's formula indicates that you have 15 evolution points, which is enough for plenty of high tier evolutions if you don't take Huge and +2 Str)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Then you are still left with half the evolution points. You get more free goodies than before I suppose, but that just means half the options are now static rather than variable. Hurray for LESS options!

(And please don't say this actually expands the available options since it's an optional rule; I imagine most GMs will go solely with one or the other and the player will just have to deal with it.)

Fewer options for the eidolon is the unchained summoner working as intended. Both simplifying and nerfing the summoner was the goal from the get-go. Deal with it.

Dark Archive

I am very interested in the reach evolution. It is why I loved playing summoners before. The ability to attack adjacent or reach with out the restriction of reach weapons. Would someone please be kind enough to update me on how unchained summoners & eidolons use reach?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:
The class really deserves to have a 9 level spell list with this new reduced eidolon; I believe it would be very in line with the power levels of the other 9 level 3/4 BAB classes (shaman, cleric, druid, oracle).
I only want to focus on this statement as I haven't seen the book yet. Because the summoner is an arcane caster, keeping it at 3/4 BAB and moving to 9 levels of casting would be breaking the design rules.

True. But I doubt Dr. Johnny Fever would have complained about making the Summoner a 9 level spell list if he then had to have a d6 hit die and 1/2 BAB. :)

Fixed your post for you. ;)

The balancing factor here is that, in a world where 3/4 BAB arcane casters had 9 spell levels instead of 6, those spell lists would be much more limited than the wide open list available to 1/2 BAB arcane casters: wizards, sorcerers and witches.

Summoners would have summoning and buffing spells. Bards would have mind control, utility and buffing spells. Magus' would have direct damage and little else (buffing too probably).

Just to bring it back around to the topic of this thread: I didn't particularly like the APG summoner (eidolon left itself open to troublesome levels of min-maxing and a spell list that led to item creation loop holes and spells gained earlier than on the wizard list) but PU results in something worse...a class whose mechanics don't seem to adequately fill a niche in the stable of available PF classes.


So two questions.

1. Is the new summoner in everyway weaker? There is nothing that it does better?

2. Forget power...is it less fun? To me less evolution points/fixed points seem less creative and thus less fun.


Lemartes wrote:

So two questions.

1. Is the new summoner in everyway weaker? There is nothing that it does better?

2. Forget power...is it less fun? To me less evolution points/fixed points seem less creative and thus less fun.

From what people have so far mentioned, it seems to be a 100% unabashed no holds barred nerf. Whether it was needed or not is debatable (most vocal people on the boards hated it, from the looks of things.)


Brotato wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

So two questions.

1. Is the new summoner in everyway weaker? There is nothing that it does better?

2. Forget power...is it less fun? To me less evolution points/fixed points seem less creative and thus less fun.

From what people have so far mentioned, it seems to be a 100% unabashed no holds barred nerf. Whether it was needed or not is debatable (most vocal people on the boards hated it, from the looks of things.)

Actually, it seems that the outsider types come with unique powers. The Agathon gains lay-on-hands for example. Some of them seem pretty nice.


Brotato wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

So two questions.

1. Is the new summoner in everyway weaker? There is nothing that it does better?

2. Forget power...is it less fun? To me less evolution points/fixed points seem less creative and thus less fun.

From what people have so far mentioned, it seems to be a 100% unabashed no holds barred nerf. Whether it was needed or not is debatable (most vocal people on the boards hated it, from the looks of things.)

The net is nerfed*, but it seems like eidolons are more interesting (when not borking for Huge).

*As in many of the game breaking tactics were lost

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brotato wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

So two questions.

1. Is the new summoner in everyway weaker? There is nothing that it does better?

2. Forget power...is it less fun? To me less evolution points/fixed points seem less creative and thus less fun.

From what people have so far mentioned, it seems to be a 100% unabashed no holds barred nerf. Whether it was needed or not is debatable (most vocal people on the boards hated it, from the looks of things.)

I've also seen a bunch of vocal people who liked it. It seems like a wash. The people who didn't like it have posted more times each, though, whereas the people who liked it expressed their opinion and then usually that was it. Given the cool new powers you could never get before (like lay on hands for agathions, one of my favorites!), it's more of redirecting the eidolon, rather than a "100% unabashed no holds barred nerf." Certainly it reins in the most powerful options, but some options weren't changed, so depending on what you wanted to do, you might find that one of the eidolons is actually more effective for it now (with the unique powers).


Mark Seifter wrote:
Brotato wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

So two questions.

1. Is the new summoner in everyway weaker? There is nothing that it does better?

2. Forget power...is it less fun? To me less evolution points/fixed points seem less creative and thus less fun.

From what people have so far mentioned, it seems to be a 100% unabashed no holds barred nerf. Whether it was needed or not is debatable (most vocal people on the boards hated it, from the looks of things.)
I've also seen a bunch of vocal people who liked it. It seems like a wash. The people who didn't like it have posted more times each, though, whereas the people who liked it expressed their opinion and then usually that was it. Given the cool new powers you could never get before (like lay on hands for agathions, one of my favorites!), it's more of redirecting the eidolon, rather than a "100% unabashed no holds barred nerf." Certainly it reins in the most powerful options, but some options weren't changed, so depending on what you wanted to do, you might find that one of the eidolons is actually more effective for it now (with the unique powers).

I don't disagree, the unique options people have mentioned have me cautiously optimistic for my current Jade Regent character (whose Eidolon was always intended to be an emissary of Desna) since they seem less "pouncing natural attack is 100% the most optimal way to go." I suppose I'm more worried that there's still very little room to make a "support" eidolon (ie, one that isn't so heavily weighted towards the physical ability scores). I'll just have to wait and see when I get the PDF on the 29th.

Scarab Sages

For what it's worth: I love the Unchained Summoner. It does two things:

1. Adjusts the Spells to be more in line with other classes.
2. Nerfs the Eidolon. No question here, it's a nerf, but I think one that was needed. The Eidolon was the strongest pet out of all, hands down. The nerf forces some evolution choices now, but the eidolon is still *powerful*. Just not as much as before. :)


What are some other cool unique options? Agathion sounds amazing. (Now my Synthesist will be even more tanky!)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Ha! Now I know the fallacy: False Dilemma!

"Paizo only had two choices—make one that has terrible huge eidolons, or make one that's insanely overpowered."

Again, I haven't read the book, but these aren't valid dismissals of a complaint. As-is, Huge sounds like a trap option—use up all but one EP on a Strength/Con increase and then you don't get to do any more. Saying "just don't make it huge" or "well, it's still better than the old summoner" doesn't address the issue.

Str/con increase with all that entails (More hp better fort save etc) an increase in damage dice, a better reach for things like AoO a better Ac and a better cmb/cmd due to size increase dosent sound much like a trap option to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Most of the eidolon type-specific abilities I like, with the exception of the devil. Bonus' to bluff and diplomacy, while tying nicely into the devil theme of conniving tempter, lends itself to the eidolon now being the face of the party. Anything that takes away from the players actually communicating to NPCs using their own skills feels <weird?/not good?> to me.

Certainly it could be house ruled into being something else, and/or the GM could very reasonably expect that the player directly speaks as the eidolon during these times, but a different non-social interaction based ability would have worked better for me out of the box. Skill focus (UMD) maybe (edit: can eidolons use wands/scrolls w UMD...I forget)?

But overall the rest of the type-specific powers for all the types seemed pretty useful and logical.


I don't have this book (is it out yet?), but after reading this thread...

Why would anyone bother to play a summoner using this book?

I mean you can just play a regular wizard and be ... well what wizards always have been.

It was an excellent class, but it wasn't a tier one class (well Master Summoner may have been worthy).

Why handicap a class that really wasn't all that anyway?

Is there any redeeming value to this new version at all? If confronted with this nerfed version, I'd imagine most people would just play another class.


Kevin Mack wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Ha! Now I know the fallacy: False Dilemma!

"Paizo only had two choices—make one that has terrible huge eidolons, or make one that's insanely overpowered."

Again, I haven't read the book, but these aren't valid dismissals of a complaint. As-is, Huge sounds like a trap option—use up all but one EP on a Strength/Con increase and then you don't get to do any more. Saying "just don't make it huge" or "well, it's still better than the old summoner" doesn't address the issue.

Str/con increase with all that entails (More hp better fort save etc) an increase in damage dice, a better reach for things like AoO a better Ac and a better cmb/cmd due to size increase dosent sound much like a trap option to me.

The T-rex is about as strong and tough as it gets. A single attack can only do so much at 20th level.


avr wrote:
I think a summoner would have made a lot of sense as 1/2 BAB, d6 HD, full casting with a conjuration/abjuration-focused list in the first place. They don't have any obvious reason to be physically capable and their concept is high-magic.

Here's the way I see it. Druids are high magic as all get out, but they have a strong connection to the wild that allows them to embody the fury of nature itself, through Wild Shaping. It wouldn't make sense for them to have d6 and 1/2 BAB despite their powerful casting and their combat capable animal companion.

Clerics are high magic as all get out, but they have a strong connection to the divine that allows them to embody the prowess of powerful war gods, through weapon proficiencies, domains and amazing buff spells. It wouldn't make sense for them to have d6 and 1/2 BAB despite their powerful casting.
Likewise: Summoners are high magic as all get out, but they have a strong connection to the strange powers that created their Eidolon that allows them to embody the power of the planes, through Aspect and the fusion/copy abilities later on. It wouldn't make sense for them to have d6 and 1/2 BAB despite their powerful casting and their combat capable Eidolons.

Rhedyn wrote:
The net is nerfed*, but it seems like eidolons are more interesting (when not borking for Huge).

While I disagree with your opinions and your general outlook on this class, I will still love you for linking Huge Quest, and nothing will ever change that.

All this said, looking at the PU Summoner on it's own, it looks like a really fun class. My two biggest concerns are as follows:
1) Is the Aspect ability still there to some degree? It's my favorite part about the class, for both amazing flavor/RP potential, and the fun build possibilities.
2) I'm guessing once the dust settles and people get a handle on the new PU Summoner, there's going to be a stigma against people who go with the option of the APG version and that could end up being a net loss for the community.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sunbeam wrote:

I don't have this book (is it out yet?), but after reading this thread...

Why would anyone bother to play a summoner using this book?

I mean you can just play a regular wizard and be ... well what wizards always have been.

It was an excellent class, but it wasn't a tier one class (well Master Summoner may have been worthy).

Why handicap a class that really wasn't all that anyway?

Is there any redeeming value to this new version at all? If confronted with this nerfed version, I'd imagine most people would just play another class.

The trouble is Old Summoner had so much variety that it was just as easy to make a fun, flavorful summoner that was completely balanced, or even weak, as it was to make one that was insanely overpowered. The Tier had a lot of variability, even by the standards of most powerful classes. That's why this nerf is struggling to find traction—the same system that is blocking the crazy Pounce abusers is also likely going to impede the creative but harmless concepts like this one. It's a shame, but I'm not sure there's a perfect solution.

But I haven't read the book yet. :P

51 to 100 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / [Unchained] "Unchained Summoner" vs "APG Summoner" FIGHT! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.