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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Dump stats are a player creation. Nothing in the game requires them. Holding tightly to the concept creates cookie-cutter builds as well. The universal recommendation is 15% of wealth toward disposables. Because you two don't spend it for that is not the system's fault. The point is that no one should be in want for access to magic, any magic including summons, even fighters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

That's right. And that means every other class has the same UMD utility as the fighter, except Cha is his dump stat.

Which means its not a fighter discussion point at all. It's just a skill discussion. Nothing to do with being a fighter has any interaction with UMD.

==Aelryinth

In fact, Fighters might very well be the worst class to use wands/scrolls with... Everyone else either has more skills, better return for Cha investment, spells of their own and/or a bonus to skill checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
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.

Ah the old "only an (amateur|moron|whiner) -- very clearly in minority -- could possibly not agree with my opinion" gambit. And about such an important topic too.

Stay classy.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Dump stats are a player creation.

Uhm....no? The game was designed to reward players for putting high scores into certain attributes, then switched from a random generation system to a point buy (meaning those high scores are a scarce, hard-to-expand resource.) The label 'dump stat' is arguably a player-made one. You are, of course, free to do what you want with your resources, but the idea that "If you're playing class X, putting points into Y won't reward you so it's a questionable choice" is baked solidly into the game at a number of points.


Did I assert they won't? Investing in one ability score doesn't require you to tank another. That is a player creation.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Did I assert they won't? Investing in one ability score doesn't require you to tank another. That is a player creation.

By that same logic, simply investing in an ability is a player creation as well.

If my character has no use for Cha, because he is a Fighter with zero ranks in any social skills and zero class feature dependent on the attribute... Why the hell would I not dump Cha?


As if you're locked into charisma? That's all your choice to make. However, you're making a very conscious choice to prevent that character from taking part in other aspects of the system. Don't complain when you do that and can't participate in that which you've opted out.


Buri Reborn wrote:
As if you're locked into charisma? That's all your choice to make. However, you're making a very conscious choice to prevent that character from taking part in other aspects of the system. Don't complain when you do that and can't participate in that which you've opted out.

Considering he wouldn't be much better even with Cha 16 (see the "no skill ranks and no Cha-related class features part), that's not really a big loss...

Hell! Even with Cha 7 you can still be a damn good party-face! That makes dumping Cha even less of an issue.


If you raise charisma to the point where you can take advantage of having UMD, you have dumped intelligence to the point where you can't take ranks in it anyways. Or you've dumped wisdom to the point where the lich king just got a bunch of free wands.


The no ranks in charisma based skills is a conscious design decision for the character. Don't do it and claim you had no choice or take a "woe is me" attitude when you're 100% reliant on others for your magical needs.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately, most of us don't play with a 50 point buy and have to make sacrifices somewhere when building our characters. For Fighters, who pretty desperately need a 14 or more in every other ability in the game, that is going to be charisma.


Buri Reborn wrote:
The no ranks in charisma based skills is a conscious design decision for the character. Don't do it and claim you had no choice or take a "woe is me" attitude when you're 100% reliant on others for your magical needs.

Just out of curiosity, what would be the stat array you would purchase as a UMD focused fighter with a 15 or 20 pt buy?


Buri Reborn wrote:
The no ranks in charisma based skills is a conscious design decision for the character. Don't do it and claim you had no choice or take a "woe is me" attitude when you're 100% reliant on others for your magical needs.

It's not an woe me attitude. It's a simple fact that Cha is simply not a good investment for Fighters... And since Fighters don't have infinite money, infinite skill ranks and infinite attribute points, they are really bad at UMD.


Arachnofiend wrote:
If you raise charisma to the point where you can take advantage of having UMD, you have dumped intelligence to the point where you can't take ranks in it anyways. Or you've dumped wisdom to the point where the lich king just got a bunch of free wands.

What games do you play that locks UMD to charisma? If you need int then use int. One of the games strengths is its options. This "I had no choice"/"fighters can't/shouldn't do that" line of reasoning is really nonsensical. The point remains: if you want magic, you have it. By the games own recommendation, you should have it. If you disregard that, you're intentionally weakening your overall capability.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Seriously guys, let it go this tastes like trolling.


Lemmy wrote:
It's not an woe me attitude. It's a simple fact that Cha is simply not a good investment for Fighters... And since Fighters don't have infinite money, infinite skill ranks and infinite attribute points, they are really bad at UMD.

Don't conflate non-optimization as being bad at something. They're fine with it the same as any non-charisma based caster class.

Paizo Employee Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys, take this fighter UMD digression to its own thread. This isn't relevant to Unchained summoner.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Arachnofiend wrote:
Except the non-charisma based caster classes have more skill points and usually get UMD as a class skill (I say usually but I'm pretty sure all casters get UMD).

Wizards don't, but rarely care.

---- ---- ----

Has anyone had a chance to "field test" the new summoner yet?


sunbeam wrote:
LazarX wrote:


The problem is the one YOU"RE brushing aside, the reason for the change in the Summoner, is that your conceptual/mechanically interesting eidolon is also the overpowered eidolon, when it's teamed with the Summoner's equally over powered spell list.

Geez.

Yes or no, a summoner could deal with any given situation better than a wizard or cleric.

Yes or no.

I'd also like to point you to the Beastmass threads. The only summoner I saw in those was a Synthesist.

So, let me get this straight. Even though there were a number of classes that were considered to be more effective than the Summoner (Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Witch for sure with hexes, Oracle probably, Druids even just casting), and classes that did the fighting sidekick thing just as well or better (Druid, some Inquisitors, now Hunters)...

It was necessary to nerf the Summoner. Come on Druids can overmatch melee with wildshape, or overmatch melee with animal companions (minimal spell augmentation), not to mention they are full casters.

Come on. With this system any full caster rocks the world. Heck a Bard with leadership and a cohort can buff up the cohort seriously.

And Summoners were the problem. Right.

If you have been on these boards longer the two minutes you know what the complaints were. You have not addressed them. BTW, this comment has nothing to do with your debate with Lazar, but you pretending like certain things are not commonly known issues.

If you don't know why then there are a lot of threads that list the issues, including this one.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was not a fan of the original APG summoner. Too much power came online too fast. The class felt cheesy to me. However, the new Unchained summoner adds some flavor as well as fixing some of the issues I had with the class. So I am finally going to play a summoner (ie the Unchained version).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

I don't mind a reduction in power. I DO mind that making various concepts will now be much harder, if not impossible; that every summoner is going to be a half elf (even more than before); and that every huge eidolon is going to be incredibly similar and boring to one another.

Good luck making a huge dragon mount with flight and a breath weapon!

10 EP - Huge
04 EP - Breath Weapon
02 EP - Flight
01 EP - Mount

17 EP - TOTAL

You only get 15 EP at 20th-level.

Take Elemental (Air) as your sub-type -- that gives you 1 extra evolution point at 4th level and supernatural flight at 8th level. Take the Extra Evolution feat at 1st, 5th, 11th, and 15th levels. The eidolon only needs to be Large for a medium humanoid to ride it, so you only need 9 points for your flying dragon mount. That concept can be fully realized at 9th level (7 points base, +1 from subtype, +2 from Extra Evolution feats) -- you only had to wait until that level for the Breath Weapon evolution to become available to you.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
johhov wrote:
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?

I would recommend doing that if you have an eidolon concept that doesn't work with the new rules. Although they are packaged together, the eidolon updates and spell updates are in fact independent of each other.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Melkiador wrote:

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.

The attack evolutions now have subtype requirements, so maxing out your attacks is more difficult.

On the other hand, weapon attacks (including iterative attacks) now do count against the maximum.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Alright, alright, alright. I've done it. I've statted out an Unchained Summoner. Please, by all means, pit it against a normal summoner (or heck, even an abnormal summoner or synthesist summoner) and we shall see how it stacks up.

Spoiler:
(Keep mind, I created the unchained summoner for fun, not necessarily to be used in a fair or objective comparison--it's just what I happen to have on hand.)


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In my opinion, he's much weaker than he looks. His stats are only up to par with a few other 15th-level characters when he has several spell buffs active and happens to be within reach of his eidolon. I feel that other characters of similar levels can easily reach or exceed these kinds of numbers without any spell buffs or allies. I wanted to give him a pair of wing buffets to max out his full attack option, but then I realized that you can't get wings as an air elemental because *gasp* you are forced to take the magical flight option, which doesn't have wings.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

All of the discussion in this thread just makes me glad my group agreed to swap over to Spheres of Power.

The whole summoner argument has always confused me. Synthesist was called OP when it was the weakest option via loss of action economy. Early access spells were broken because the class that had reasons to buff the summons more than a wizard "made no sense" and because some DMs didn't say No when calculating items. Then again I never had much issue there either. Heck, the spells that allow saves suck to get early because lower DC. And it made perfect sense for them to get summon SLAs up to 9th and Gate because that was their theme.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
RogueMortal wrote:

All of the discussion in this thread just makes me glad my group agreed to swap over to Spheres of Power.

The whole summoner argument has always confused me. Synthesist was called OP when it was the weakest option via loss of action economy. Early access spells were broken because the class that had reasons to buff the summons more than a wizard "made no sense" and because some DMs didn't say No when calculating items. Then again I never had much issue there either. Heck, the spells that allow saves suck to get early because lower DC. And it made perfect sense for them to get summon SLAs up to 9th and Gate because that was their theme.

This.

Eidolons weren't broken - classes that couldn't get pounce are.
Early access spells aren't a problem - a GM feeling like they're not allowed to say "no, you can't find that particular version of that magic item" is.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

As there is bucketloads of evidence to refute you on the summoner, lets just let that argument rest, shall we?

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RogueMortal wrote:

All of the discussion in this thread just makes me glad my group agreed to swap over to Spheres of Power.

The whole summoner argument has always confused me. Synthesist was called OP when it was the weakest option via loss of action economy. Early access spells were broken because the class that had reasons to buff the summons more than a wizard "made no sense" and because some DMs didn't say No when calculating items. Then again I never had much issue there either. Heck, the spells that allow saves suck to get early because lower DC. And it made perfect sense for them to get summon SLAs up to 9th and Gate because that was their theme.

Don't think optimized tier 1 classes vs optimized Summoner vs optimized Synthesist summoner.

Think Rogue, Blaster Wizard, Healbot cleric, Sword and Board Fighter and heavily buffed pouncing 5 natural attacks monster who also happens to be a pseudo full caster.

One of these is not like the others.

The thing that makes the summoner painful is that players tend to fall into a fairly well optimized build by complete accident. Piling natural attacks on the eidolen is both an obvious option and a very good option. The Summoner's spell list lacks most blasting (forcing players to avoid a massive trap) and almost completely focuses on BFC and buffing during combat(see:the two best things to be doing most of the time). When the entire table table doesn't have much system mastery Mr Pouncing Claw Monster seems so much better than the fighter(true without a high degree of optimization) and Angel Summoner looks completely broken next to the wizard (when badly played, absolutely). The synthesist is even worse in this regard, because one of the few apparent weaknesses, that there is still a "squishy" caster in the back (not really), goes away because the horrible 10 armed clawbeast is ALSO the best spellcaster in the group.

Yes, if the rogue was replaced with an archer bard, the fighter was replaced with a melee druid, the cleric learned the mantra "a pinch of prevention..." and the wizard swapped out his lighting bolts for sleet storms then yes, the summoner stops looking so amazing and the group would be partial to replacing the summoner with an enchanter sorcerer or a slumber witch or someone else who actually does a few jobs really well instead of a whole bunch of jobs ok but no more than 2 of them at once. The synthesist would be even worse to a group like this because the massive survivability boost given by wearing the eidolen shouldn't be necessary due to BFC, defensive buffs and positioning - the Summoner traded half of their actions for almost nothing.

Unfortunately most groups don't have god wizards showing up summoners. They tend to lie more towards the "blaster wizard" end of the spectrum. There the summoner looks like a monster, like AM BARBARIAN or an enchanter sorcerer or any other focused optimized build that can single handedly wreck encounters. Unlike RAGELANCEPOUNCE or Fey Kitsune DC of LOLNO sillyness, natural attack spam backed up by buffs and BFC is really easy to luck onto by an inexperienced player who then can beat the rest of the table singlehandedly. Hence the cries of "broken" that wizards never got, because wizards have to actually make an effort to destroy any illusion of balance in the game (even if they are better at it if they do put the effort in).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the answer to, "there are too many trap options," isn't removing trap options - it's nerfing the one class that managed to escape that problem?


Neo2151 wrote:
RogueMortal wrote:

All of the discussion in this thread just makes me glad my group agreed to swap over to Spheres of Power.

The whole summoner argument has always confused me. Synthesist was called OP when it was the weakest option via loss of action economy. Early access spells were broken because the class that had reasons to buff the summons more than a wizard "made no sense" and because some DMs didn't say No when calculating items. Then again I never had much issue there either. Heck, the spells that allow saves suck to get early because lower DC. And it made perfect sense for them to get summon SLAs up to 9th and Gate because that was their theme.

This.

Eidolons weren't broken - classes that couldn't get pounce are.
Early access spells aren't a problem - a GM feeling like they're not allowed to say "no, you can't find that particular version of that magic item" is.

It works for my game also but the difference between us is that I dont pretend like something is ok for the game as a whole just it works for me. Also arbitrarily saying no is more of an indication of an issue than a nonissue.

Also "being thematic" does not equate to " it's fine".


One thing I have noticed is that the new monk and rogue are being discussed more like what they are which would be "house rule suggestions", but people tend to be up in arms about this summoner/eidolon as if it is some type of official errata that has to be played. Why is that?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk was a lateral move.
Rogue was an upwards move.

Summoner was a nerfage. Of course they are up in arms.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Monk was a lateral move.

Rogue was an upwards move.

Summoner was a nerfage. Of course they are up in arms.

==Aelryinth

We knew the summoner was getting nerfed or at least I thought most of us knew it. Even if you(general statement) are somehow surprised I still don't see why someone is getting upset over a house rule. It is like me getting upset over called shots or the alternate casting system that Pathfinder came up with.

If the issue is that the GM has decided to use those rules in their group then likely the GM had problems, and had no other solutions. If I was a player affected by this I would try to get a middle ground between the new summoner and the old one, or at least cut a deal for the particular build in use. For those that are GM's and won't be using the newer summoner I am still lost.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
One thing I have noticed is that the new monk and rogue are being discussed more like what they are which would be "house rule suggestions", but people tend to be up in arms about this summoner/eidolon as if it is some type of official errata that has to be played. Why is that?

As I've said before, it's because that's undoubtedly how most GMs are going to end up running it. Players are generally smart enough to know this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:
So the answer to, "there are too many trap options," isn't removing trap options - it's nerfing the one class that managed to escape that problem?

Pretty much, yes. A lot of us GM's use AP's, because we don't have time to build our own homebrewn campaigns anymore. AP's are built to a very low standard of optimization, hence the writers almost never (and then most likely purely by accident) provide opposition which actually uses the power options which are bandied about on this board. Initiative scores are low, caster DC's are low, RAGEPOUNCE is not used, even the occasional Summoner is not even using that option. Hell, I've GM'ed four AP's to completion and played in a fifth one and I think I've seen Pounce being used in one of them (by a Shadow Demon), as far as provided opposition goes.

Hence I'd vastly prefer the power combinations to remain obscure, because if they were common and easy to find, they'd break the current AP metagame. That was exactly the problem in Wrath of the Righteous... the power combinations were too obvious in Mythic Adventures and the AP was not nearly written well enough mechanically to deal with.

Not even to mention that if both sides were fully optimized all the time, the game would turn into rocket tag.


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
One thing I have noticed is that the new monk and rogue are being discussed more like what they are which would be "house rule suggestions", but people tend to be up in arms about this summoner/eidolon as if it is some type of official errata that has to be played. Why is that?
As I've said before, it's because that's undoubtedly how most GMs are going to end up running it. Players are generally smart enough to know this.

Thanks for speaking up.

1st:
I will say that me allowing the normal vs new summoner will depend on how much free time I have to alter whatever I am running.

2nd:
While I am waiting for more people to answer, if anyone does, I will put this question to the GM's. For those of you that have NO issues with the normal summoner but are going to use the new version why are you changing over?


Neo2151 wrote:
So the answer to, "there are too many trap options," isn't removing trap options - it's nerfing the one class that managed to escape that problem?

It is not exactly that simple. The problem is the "non-trap" options made things too difficult for many GM's. The summoner needs weaker "non-trap" options. Whether the new summoner took that to far I don't know. I wont have the book until the end of the month.


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
One thing I have noticed is that the new monk and rogue are being discussed more like what they are which would be "house rule suggestions", but people tend to be up in arms about this summoner/eidolon as if it is some type of official errata that has to be played. Why is that?
As I've said before, it's because that's undoubtedly how most GMs are going to end up running it. Players are generally smart enough to know this.

It was already brought up, but most likely the people who will only allow the new Summoner are probably also the people who already ban or significantly nerf the old one.

So this really shouldn't effect tables where people are already playing summoners with no issues from other players or the GM.

Sovereign Court

Will discuss with my players...but heh, it doesn't matter too much at our table. Only ever had 2 summoners.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
One thing I have noticed is that the new monk and rogue are being discussed more like what they are which would be "house rule suggestions", but people tend to be up in arms about this summoner/eidolon as if it is some type of official errata that has to be played. Why is that?

In addition to the points already made, I think it sets a bad precedent. Nerf a class that is too easy to create a good build in rather than making it easier to create an effective character in the other classes.

From what I've heard of it, the change to number of attacks and removing the weapon proficiency end-run on that limit is a good change. I can't tell how bad the spell changes are but some of the spells were a strange fit for summoner. Not being able to get the top summoning spells except via SLA is a bit wonky, especially given the large gap between when they get the SLAs and the spells.

I would have rather had a separate pool for the thematic evolutions rather than having a fixed set of themes, but this solution is easier to test the balance of.

I'm still curious about some of the details in the new summoner, but in the end I doubt it will have a large direct effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
For those of you [GMs] that have NO issues with the normal summoner but are going to use the new version why are you changing over?

In my case, it's because it is something new and fun to try out, something that, provided you don't restrict access to the old summoner, expands the players' overall options.

(But since I'm technically planning on allowing both, I guess it's not much of a "change over.")


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this was from a long way back but--

Haste being granted to Summoners as a 2nd level spell was the biggest problem with the class before. . . a caster who specializes in Summoning shouldn't get a really powerful Transmutation effect early.


Could some one with the book answer a few questions for me . Dose the unchained summoner eidolon get feats , stat increase's, skills as they level like the regular summoner eidolon dose ? Could some one post what the baked in abilities for a azata sub type are ? Also how hard would it be for me to recreate a eidolon as similar as I could to a vendenopterix from the inner sea gods book feats, skills powers and stats . I know that last question might be a bit much . I just want to be able to recreate my favorite summoner and that was his eidolon . Thanks for any and all info

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Changing the appearance of an eidolon to match what you want should be possible with any eidolon.

For instance, above the 'dragon' is nigh impossible to make, since it gives magical flight as an air elemental.
Well, GIVE IT WINGS. It's magical flight comes from wings! they don't count for future 'upgrades' (if wings upgrade to something), but there's no reason it can't have wings it doesn't even need to flap (very angelic or elementalish) to fly.

==Aelryinth


BretI wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
One thing I have noticed is that the new monk and rogue are being discussed more like what they are which would be "house rule suggestions", but people tend to be up in arms about this summoner/eidolon as if it is some type of official errata that has to be played. Why is that?

In addition to the points already made, I think it sets a bad precedent. Nerf a class that is too easy to create a good build in rather than making it easier to create an effective character in the other classes.

I saw it as a summoner vs monsters issue since the eidolon kills them too easily. If you raise every class to give it the same floor as the summoner then all of the monsters have to come up also. If you drop the summoner's floor then you only need to fix a few classes.


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
One thing I have noticed is that the new monk and rogue are being discussed more like what they are which would be "house rule suggestions", but people tend to be up in arms about this summoner/eidolon as if it is some type of official errata that has to be played. Why is that?
As I've said before, it's because that's undoubtedly how most GMs are going to end up running it.

Right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
One thing I have noticed is that the new monk and rogue are being discussed more like what they are which would be "house rule suggestions", but people tend to be up in arms about this summoner/eidolon as if it is some type of official errata that has to be played. Why is that?
As I've said before, it's because that's undoubtedly how most GMs are going to end up running it. Players are generally smart enough to know this.

Thanks for speaking up.

1st:
I will say that me allowing the normal vs new summoner will depend on how much free time I have to alter whatever I am running.

2nd:
While I am waiting for more people to answer, if anyone does, I will put this question to the GM's. For those of you that have NO issues with the normal summoner but are going to use the new version why are you changing over?

I haven't had a chance to read the new classes, but I imagine that I'll keep the old summoner (and spell list) and allow players to choose the new edilon packages in exchange for using the unchained evolution points progression.


Summoner has been one of my favorite classes for a while, and the changes I'm seeing are causing me to worry about having them in my games. If I let any of my players roll a summoner, I already have house rules limiting things like pounce abuse. But Unchained just flat out seems unfair.
I like the new Eidolon packages, but that EP progression will never make it into any of my games, under any circumstance.


wraithstrike wrote:
One thing I have noticed is that the new monk and rogue are being discussed more like what they are which would be "house rule suggestions", but people tend to be up in arms about this summoner/eidolon as if it is some type of official errata that has to be played. Why is that?

I suspect alot of people think that PFS is going to switch completely to the new version.

201 to 250 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.