| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say thank you to the RPG development team. I perma-banned the summoner for being broken. I felt it was a 9 level caster smashed into 6 levels. Thank you for actually making it a 6 level caster class.
No perma-ban on the unchained version. In fact, I might be bringing one as a pregen character to PaizoCon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained summoner fails to fix a lot of the core issues with the class while also making it a lot more boring.
probably the biggest failure of the entire book.
What would be the core issues with the Summoner, if not the Eilodon and the Summoner spell list?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really do like the unchained summoner. The spell list was always a tough sell for me, and I didn't like the weird way eidolons didn't exist in the context of the Great Beyond.
Now I can actually play an angel summoner. :)
I've already drafted up a BMX Bandit archetype!
Contributor
|
I've already drafted up a BMX Bandit archetype!I really do like the unchained summoner. The spell list was always a tough sell for me, and I didn't like the weird way eidolons didn't exist in the context of the Great Beyond.
Now I can actually play an angel summoner. :)
I don't really understand that reference.
:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've already drafted up a BMX Bandit archetype!I really do like the unchained summoner. The spell list was always a tough sell for me, and I didn't like the weird way eidolons didn't exist in the context of the Great Beyond.
Now I can actually play an angel summoner. :)
:D
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would be the core issues with the Summoner, if not the Eilodon and the Summoner spell list?Unchained summoner fails to fix a lot of the core issues with the class while also making it a lot more boring.
probably the biggest failure of the entire book.
What they could have done.
1) Limited the number of EP that could be used for damage dealing attacks. Give these evolutions a "combat" designation.
2) Made the "chassis" archetypes rather than a required element. I resent having to work this baggage into my backgrounds. I get that others see it as a useful skeleton to build upon.
3) Added some evolutions to make the class more customizable, such as a 2 pts for additional feat.
4) Revised some evolutions to make them more attractive, such as the spell like ability evolutions from UM and weapon use, again, creating more options without increasing the power of the class.
5) Added archetypes/starting forms with higher mental ability scores in exchange for lower physical ability scores.
6) Limit the Summon monster ability to 1+cha per day.
What they did right.
1) Revised the spell list.
2) Weakened the eidilon.
Analysis: On a Meta level, they should, in designing the NERF, have considered the aspirations of APG summoner fans as well the outcry for a Nerf. Basically, there was desire to play the eidilon as something other than a dpr monster (something non fans could understand). This not only ignored, but pointedly so.
That to me is why the rewrite is a great disappointment.
Had they listened better, the result would have been a nearly united fan base singing the praises of Paizo yet again. This is unfortunate, because the Paizo staff in most cases has been uncommonly good at listening. This time, that process fell apart, perhaps because the nerfers were too loud or perhaps people on the design teams became too entrenched it their opinions. All I 'll say to this is, keep it mind for the future.
All the Best,
Kerney
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would be the core issues with the Summoner, if not the Eilodon and the Summoner spell list?Unchained summoner fails to fix a lot of the core issues with the class while also making it a lot more boring.
probably the biggest failure of the entire book.
What they could have done.
1) Limited the number of EP that could be used for damage dealing attacks. Give these evolutions a "combat" designation.
2) Made the "chassis" archetypes rather than a required element. I resent having to work this baggage into my backgrounds. I get that others see it as a useful skeleton to build upon.
3) Added some evolutions to make the class more customizable, such as a 2 pts for additional feat.
4) Revised some evolutions to make them more attractive, such as the spell like ability evolutions from UM and weapon use, again, creating more options without increasing the power of the class.
5) Added archetypes/starting forms with higher mental ability scores in exchange for lower physical ability scores.
6) Limit the Summon monster ability to 1+cha per day.
What they did right.
1) Revised the spell list.
2) Weakened the eidilon.
Analysis: On a Meta level, they should, in designing the NERF, have considered the aspirations of APG summoner fans as well the outcry for a Nerf. Basically, there was desire to play the eidilon as something other than a dpr monster (something non fans could understand). This not only ignored, but pointedly so.
That to me is why the rewrite is a great disappointment.
Had they listened better, the result would have been a nearly united fan base singing the praises of Paizo yet again. This is unfortunate, because the Paizo staff in most cases has been uncommonly good at listening. This time, that process fell apart, perhaps because the nerfers were too loud or perhaps people on the design teams became too entrenched it their opinions. All I 'll say to this is, keep it mind for the future.
All...
It didn't need fixing it was fine the way it was. You can't use your Eidolon and the summon monster at the same time, and sharing magic items become a big deal the higher up in level you get. The higher level you get the less effective a summoner is. Druids get all the advantages of the summoner all the times with none of the weaknesses.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked some of the new Summoner - the spell list especially seems well refined, and many of the abilities are better costed - but I dislike forcing an Eidolon into one of a handful of specific builds. My Kitsune character with an Eidolon had a bidepal fox-like Eidolon. Another player I saw played an Aasimar with an Angelic-appearing Eidolon...in Way of the Wicked.
It feels needlessly limiting to lock Eidolons into only those outsiders (you can't even do the classic Dragon-Like monster) listed, nor do I like having to be within a certain alignment step to get them.
So far, the only class I really like from Unchained is the Rogue. The Summoner removes too much choice, the Monk fixes some things but breaks other and the Barbarian felt pretty much the same, just a little simpler...if you haven't been playing the old way for a decade or so. But some of the other stuff, like Variant Mutliclassing, is awesome.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the required alignment steps is silly and will happily handwaive it away if a player dislikes it, but while there's been a lot of talk in this direction, I'm not sure that there are all that many 'flavor' Eidolons that are actually disabled here.
There are a lot of secret limitations within the subtypes and evolutions restrict you. Azatas are the only Chaotic Good subtype, and they can't gain access to natural attack evolutions. Protean are the only CN subtype and they have an extremely focused mentality that will likely clash with many things not designed for it. Lawful Good Summoners can't get anything legal for Mount, and even a LN character can't get one unless you count the writing to allow the humanoid Devils to service as rides.
We seriously need errata on that one, btw.
I'm really happy that PFS let us keep our APG Summoners, since my current Eidolon's personality and relative physical appearance would never translate. But funny enough, the half dozen other ideas that I've had kicking around actually fit really well into the rather specific roles subtypes laid out for us. But yes, I too feel like the entries are leaning a little towards "telling me how to roleplay my character" instead of "let your imagination run wild, isn't this rad."
Overall I'm conflicted but generally happy with it. Heck, I'm expecting hoping for additional support in the future, with more subtypes added on for variety's sake. That way we'll get more variety in something that really needs it, and the Unchained Monk won't be an archetype-free island.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've already drafted up a BMX Bandit archetype!I really do like the unchained summoner. The spell list was always a tough sell for me, and I didn't like the weird way eidolons didn't exist in the context of the Great Beyond.
Now I can actually play an angel summoner. :)
:D
I thought he meant this..Nicole Kidman's first movie
My PFS summoner I had yet to get in to a game (shortage of table availability issues) was a LG Halfling on a weird horselike thing going around thinking that he is a paladin. Agathion does horselike fine but nothing available to LG can take the Mount evolution.
The new rules preventing a LG Summoner access to the Mount evolution killed the whole character concept, at least for PFS.
Very minor point- Angels are "any good", so Azata isn't the only CG subtype. Summoner definitely seems to encourage avoiding the corner alignments, since a neutral component lets you get the extremely versatile elemental on top of the alignment-related options. One proposed house rule is allowing elementals to work with any alignment, opening up more LG/CG/LE/CE options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in agreement with those who are disappointed by the Chained Summoner, and for me, it's largely based on the introduction of subtypes. It's like they assigned three different people to the task and told each of them that the summoner had a different problem.
But I said it elsewhere so I shan't repeat myself.
Unchained Summoners alignment woe's disappear completely if you remove alignment all together like with the subjective mortality option.... Fixes a hell of a lot of things actually. Though, not an option for PFS obviously.
They fixed it? Damn, there goes my ace-in-the hole XD. Seriously though, I don 't mind that they nerfed it. They could have done a better job in my opinion, but I was never one to exploit the summoner that much. I just liked having an extraplanar ally that I didn't have to take the risk of having my soul consumed or being burned up in holy fire to employ.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem I have is that Draconic Eidolons are impossible with the Unchained summoner, as are Lovecraftian horrors. My campaigns will allow the Unchained Summoner, and if someone wants to make a Draconic or Lovecraftian Eidolon, they'll be allowed to use the old Eidolon instead.
Oh! And What about Sarkorian God-Callers? They are cannon Summoners, and none of the descriptions of their Eidolons fit with the Unchained Summoner...
The only problem I have is that Draconic Eidolons are impossible with the Unchained summoner, as are Lovecraftian horrors. My campaigns will allow the Unchained Summoner, and if someone wants to make a Draconic or Lovecraftian Eidolon, they'll be allowed to use the old Eidolon instead.
Oh! And What about Sarkorian God-Callers? They are cannon Summoners, and none of the descriptions of their Eidolons fit with the Unchained Summoner...
Well, you can use elemental for draconic pretty easily, and lovecraftian can easily by made with daemon, demon and protean.
|
Contributor
|
The only problem I have is that Draconic Eidolons are impossible with the Unchained summoner, as are Lovecraftian horrors. My campaigns will allow the Unchained Summoner, and if someone wants to make a Draconic or Lovecraftian Eidolon, they'll be allowed to use the old Eidolon instead.
Oh! And What about Sarkorian God-Callers? They are cannon Summoners, and none of the descriptions of their Eidolons fit with the Unchained Summoner...
Someone in one of the other threads made a passable draconic eidolon on the Elemental (Air) chassis - I bet you could try it on the Agathion chassis as well. As Milo said, protean and others work as well - load it up with tentacles and go nuts. :)
Hopefully we'll be seeing more Eidolon subtypes in future books - with the old Summoner banned in PFS, I doubt they'll strand the Unchained version in no-update land. I still need Fey, Kytons, and a few others.
As for the god callers, they were always a kludge to fit the weird flavor of the eidolons into Golarion. For them, we still have the old method... if necessary. I suspect that you can build more of them than you think with Unchained. :)
Neither Tammerri nor Tonbarse seem to require any serious work - they're basically animals, if I remember correctly. Dyzad might take a little more work, but then, I don't know if she was any easier under the old system. I don't know of any other canonical "little gods".
|
The only problem I have is that Draconic Eidolons are impossible with the Unchained summoner, as are Lovecraftian horrors. My campaigns will allow the Unchained Summoner, and if someone wants to make a Draconic or Lovecraftian Eidolon, they'll be allowed to use the old Eidolon instead.
Oh! And What about Sarkorian God-Callers? They are cannon Summoners, and none of the descriptions of their Eidolons fit with the Unchained Summoner...
You couldn't make lovecraftian horrors in the old system as well.
Everything had to have an even number of limbs. Do you know how rare that is in lovecraft? Never mind building a creature with 1000 tentacles, or an eidolon that is a dissembodied color. Or an eidolon that can cast hideous laughter at touch range only. (Yes, there is a lovecraftian beast that disables its prey by tickling it into paralysing laughter.)
please post a lovecraftian horror built under the old system so I can understand what cannot be built in the new one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem I have is that Draconic Eidolons are impossible with the Unchained summoner, as are Lovecraftian horrors. My campaigns will allow the Unchained Summoner, and if someone wants to make a Draconic or Lovecraftian Eidolon, they'll be allowed to use the old Eidolon instead.
Oh! And What about Sarkorian God-Callers? They are cannon Summoners, and none of the descriptions of their Eidolons fit with the Unchained Summoner...
You couldn't make lovecraftian horrors in the old system as well.
Everything had to have an even number of limbs. Do you know how rare that is in lovecraft? Never mind building a creature with 1000 tentacles, or an eidolon that is a dissembodied color. Or an eidolon that can cast hideous laughter at touch range only. (Yes, there is a lovecraftian beast that disables its prey by tickling it into paralysing laughter.)
The point is not that we could or couldn't. The point is a lot of people wanted to do some things other than a dpr monster as an eidilon, including a lovecraftian horror.
We would have accepted a lowered power level as part of the trade off.
Instead they foisted this upon us.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem I have is that Draconic Eidolons are impossible with the Unchained summoner, as are Lovecraftian horrors. My campaigns will allow the Unchained Summoner, and if someone wants to make a Draconic or Lovecraftian Eidolon, they'll be allowed to use the old Eidolon instead.
Oh! And What about Sarkorian God-Callers? They are cannon Summoners, and none of the descriptions of their Eidolons fit with the Unchained Summoner...
You couldn't make lovecraftian horrors in the old system as well.
Everything had to have an even number of limbs. Do you know how rare that is in lovecraft? Never mind building a creature with 1000 tentacles, or an eidolon that is a dissembodied color. Or an eidolon that can cast hideous laughter at touch range only. (Yes, there is a lovecraftian beast that disables its prey by tickling it into paralysing laughter.)
The point is not that we could or couldn't. The point is a lot of people wanted to do some things other than a dpr monster as an eidilon, including a lovecraftian horror.
We would have accepted a lowered power level as part of the trade off.
Instead they foisted this upon us.
You appear to be under the impression that the primary purpose of the added subtypes was to decrease the class's power level. I can assure you that this is not the case. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I perma-banned the summoner for being broken. I felt it was a 9 level caster smashed into 6 levels. Thank you for actually making it a 6 level caster class.
So, I take it you ban all 9th level casters in your game as well?
|
|
The point is not that we could or couldn't. The point is a lot of people wanted to do some things other than a dpr monster as an eidilon, including a lovecraftian horror.
We would have accepted a lowered power level as part of the trade off.
Instead they foisted this upon us.
Umm... no, that *was* his point
My campaigns will allow the Unchained Summoner, and if someone wants to make a Draconic or Lovecraftian Eidolon, they'll be allowed to use the old Eidolon instead.
Anyway, you can build a whole lot of lovecrafts horrors with the new system.
Flying Biped Psychopomp gets you a night gaunt. (well, okay, you still have to figure out the tickling...)
Protean gets you a bunch of his space horrors.
Daemon should get you his frog folk that want to kill and enslave all humans pretty easily.
Actually, the more I think about it. "We would have accepted a lower power level if it meant we could make lovecraftian horrors" is a contradiction, because most of his horrors were *more* powerful than the old eidolons.
|
|
Actually, now that I think about it, the biggest problem with summoning a draconic or a lovecraftian, is that one is a dragon, and the other is an abberation. Neither is an outsider, or, for that matter, an extraplanar fey. Therefore, without an archtype that lets you call a dragon or an aberation, you are out of luck on the old system. The summoner class is designed to only call outsiders.
If your complaint was that when they rewrote the class they didn't add a whole new set of archtypes, that is what the new summoners guide coming out in two months is about. Since Neither Dragon nor Abberation would be subject to banishment or dismissal, you would have to give up something for that extra power.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, now that I think about it, the biggest problem with summoning a draconic or a lovecraftian, is that one is a dragon, and the other is an abberation. Neither is an outsider, or, for that matter, a fey. Therefore, without an archtype that lets you call a dragon or an aberation, you are out of luck on the old system. The summoner class is designed to only call outsiders.
If your complaint was that when they rewrote the class they didn't add a whole new set of archtypes, that is what the new summoners guide coming out in two months is about. Since Neither Dragon nor Abberation would be subject to banishment or dismissal, you would have to give up something for that extra power.
At least fey can come from the First World. Plus, there's precedent with the First Worlder archetype.
I always wondered why people were creating non-outsider creature concepts, though, and how they fit into the "summoner" flavor. That's the biggest reason why we got the subtypes - to reduce the Build-a-Beast flavor, which wasn't what they wanted out of the class. And for those who do, we'll always have the APG version*. :)
*I know, I know, not in PFS. I want to play my changeling paladin in PFS, too. (Sympathetic tone, not sarcastic.) :)
|
|
A hound of tindelos is, I think, one of the few extra planar lovecraftian critters, so I could see trying to summon that. But given it's movement type, they would have to add a greater teleport evolution and a swift power evolution, which again just seems to break the power curve.
Or you could just build it as a daemon and say that the same ccontract that binds it to come when you call and not tear your face off while you sleep prevents it from moving in and out of angled space at will.
(Okay, seriously, given how lovecraftian summoning always ends, why is anyone trying to summon lovecraftian horrors?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously your problem with the summoner was him being a 9-level caster? Do you ban Druids too?
The summoner may have had problems but the spell list wasn't the first one to ban it for (if at all)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I take it you ban all 9th level casters in your game as well?I perma-banned the summoner for being broken. I felt it was a 9 level caster smashed into 6 levels. Thank you for actually making it a 6 level caster class.
No. The problem with the summoner being a 9 level caster in 6 levels is that you only need a 16 in Cha to access 9th level spells. That means you can give your halfling the 14 and never, ever use a single ability score increase or magic item that increased ability scores and still have access to 9th level spells. Instead you can spend all your gold and ability bumps on things that let you hit better, dodge better, gave you better hp. You hit with weapons better than a wizard, had more hp than a wizard, and got access to spells like haste and dominate monster before the wizard did, all without using a single gp on your magic and using a single ability bump. And that is no counting the eidolon.
Its spell list was just broken.
Now it is a 6th level caster, it gets haste, greater invisibility, and slow the same time as the bard instead of 3 levels earlier, and access to mass ability buff spells, the same time as the bard instead of 6 levels earlier. If anything, the bard should get these spells before the summoner, not the other way around. Yes there are some differences between their spell progressions (i.e. bard gets heroism earlier and summoner gets summon monster 4+ spells earlier), but they're thematically appropriate. It had access to spells that should have only been available to a 9 level caster like binding, dominate monster, maze, protection from spells.
If a character is going to have a spell list of a 9 level caster, you should be dumping all your money and energy into making it a powerful caster. The summoner, being a 6 level caster has to do neither. He has everything he needs to one day have access to 9th level spells at 1st level.
That ain't right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The offensive spell are still stifled by having a lower DC and counting as spells of lower level for counterspelling/spell turning/globes of invulnerability and whatnot. The fact that in the end you need 3 less in a mental score is mostly inconsequential.
Plus, since the summoner is so buff-heavy, he doesn't even have to worry about DCs unless he wants to. In my experience, bards' spell list is a little more save-dependent. :)
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I take it you ban all 9th level casters in your game as well?I perma-banned the summoner for being broken. I felt it was a 9 level caster smashed into 6 levels. Thank you for actually making it a 6 level caster class.
No. The problem with the summoner being a 9 level caster in 6 levels is that you only need a 16 in Cha to access 9th level spells. That means you can give your halfling the 14 and never, ever use a single ability score increase or magic item that increased ability scores and still have access to 9th level spells. Instead you can spend all your gold and ability bumps on things that let you hit better, dodge better, gave you better hp. You hit with weapons better than a wizard, had more hp than a wizard, and got access to spells like haste and dominate monster before the wizard did, all without using a single gp on your magic and using a single ability bump. And that is no counting the eidolon.
Its spell list was just broken.
Now it is a 6th level caster, it gets haste, greater invisibility, and slow the same time as the bard instead of 3 levels earlier, and access to mass ability buff spells, the same time as the bard instead of 6 levels earlier. If anything, the bard should get these spells before the summoner, not the other way around. Yes there are some differences between their spell progressions (i.e. bard gets heroism earlier and summoner gets summon monster 4+ spells earlier), but they're thematically appropriate. It had access to spells that should have only been available to a 9 level caster like binding, dominate monster, maze, protection from spells.
If a character is going to have a spell list of a 9 level caster, you should be dumping all your money and energy into making it a powerful caster. The summoner, being a 6 level caster has to do neither. He has everything he needs to one day have access to 9th level spells at 1st...
I think that the sharing of magic items is often forgotten on a summoner every item he gets to hit/live/awesomeness better means the eidolon is -1 item to that same stuff. Also bards is a 9th level caster hidden in a 6th level caster. Druid has all the same traits as you listed for the summoner yet gets better spells (subjective) doesn't have to worry about magic item sharing, and I feel the animal companions have more potential than eidolons.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always wondered why people were creating non-outsider creature concepts, though, and how they fit into the "summoner" flavor. That's the biggest reason why we got the subtypes - to reduce the Build-a-Beast flavor, which wasn't what they wanted out of the class. And for those who do, we'll always have the APG version*. :)
*I know, I know, not in PFS. I want to play my changeling paladin in PFS, too. (Sympathetic tone, not sarcastic.) :)
Go back to my first post on this thread were I outlined what I kinda wanted in a Summoner. And basically, things like a 13 intelligence at first level (or a few other such options) were things that didn't exist not because the APG summoner was anathema to this, but because Paizo did a sub par job of supporting the class, leaving the only practical options dpr monster or skill monkey.
Everything I've heard of the unchained summoner is that the outsider types are what we've been given instead of real choice to build something other than the dpr monster. In addition, our options to deviate from the dpr monster model is even more curtailed.
And by Erastil, I want to play my changeling Paladin too.
|
Contributor
|
I always wondered why people were creating non-outsider creature concepts, though, and how they fit into the "summoner" flavor. That's the biggest reason why we got the subtypes - to reduce the Build-a-Beast flavor, which wasn't what they wanted out of the class. And for those who do, we'll always have the APG version*. :)
*I know, I know, not in PFS. I want to play my changeling paladin in PFS, too. (Sympathetic tone, not sarcastic.) :)
Go back to my first post on this thread were I outlined what I kinda wanted in a Summoner. And basically, things like a 13 intelligence at first level (or a few other such options) were things that didn't exist not because the APG summoner was anathema to this, but because Paizo did a sub par job of supporting the class, leaving the only practical options dpr monster or skill monkey.
Everything I've heard of the unchained summoner is that the outsider types are what we've been given instead of real choice to build something other than the dpr monster. In addition, our options to deviate from the dpr monster model is even more curtailed.
And by Erastil, I want to play my changeling Paladin too.
While I generally support subtyped eidolons (as long as they fill in some of the holes), I'm also disappointed that we didn't get different options for a more mentally acute eidolon, and that the sub-par SLA evolutions were not only not buffed, but are utterly absent.
I just tend to dwell on the positive. :)
Also bards is a 9th level caster hidden in a 6th level caster.
I just double checked. There is not a single spell in the core rulebook that the bard has access that is a sorcerer/wizard 9 spell. There are a few 7 and 8 level spells, but they are very thematically appropriate. All of those spells are: mass charm monster, irresistible dance, project image, greater scrying, and greater shout. If the bard gets access to 9th level sorcerer/wizard spells, they are not from the core rulebook. Those spells should be revised.
The spells I listed for the summoner were just the ones I knew of off the top of my head while looking at the spell list. I am willing to bet there are more chained summoner spells that are not level appropriate and not as tightly thematically appropriate than the bard.
Druid has all the same traits as you listed for the summoner yet gets better spells (subjective) doesn't have to worry about magic item sharing, and I feel the animal companions have more potential than eidolons.
Druid is also 9 level caster. This means they have to the dwarf would have to put his 15 in Wisdom and then use 2 ability bumps to get access to the 9th level spells. An halfling druid would have to use 4. If the same thing was done as the summoner (14 placed in the spellcasting stat and no ability bumps given) this would mean that the dwarf would not gain any new spell levels once he reaches 11th level. The halfling stops gaining new spell levels as a 7th level druid.
Meanwhile, the chained summoner can put the second best ability stat in the spell casting ability and use nothing to increase it to get 9th-level spellcasting ability.
This is why the unchained summoner's spell list is not broken. Its top spells top out at a power level more appropriate for a 6 level caster.
Can someone post an actual eidolon concept/build that is now impossible, so we have something to work with rather than "Lovecraft thing"?
It is impossible to make a 'beast type' eidolon who can be ridden because agathions can't take the mount evolution. Sure, there are other outsider types that can be quadrupeds, but the agathions are kind of iconic. That you can ride a devil but not THE beast type outsider kind of baffles me. I'm hoping that it is just an error that will be fixed with an errata later.
The best a good aligned character can hope for right now is to ride an elemental or protean, and Lawful Good characters can't get an eidolon with the mount evolution at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, now that I think about it, the biggest problem with summoning a draconic or a lovecraftian, is that one is a dragon, and the other is an abberation. Neither is an outsider, or, for that matter, an extraplanar fey.
To me, this sounds like the unchained summoner needs more eidolon subtypes, which is the perfect thing for a Pathfinder Compatible Publisher to work on.
[/shameless Pathfinder Compatible Publisher plug]
Actually, now that I think about it, the biggest problem with summoning a draconic or a lovecraftian, is that one is a dragon, and the other is an abberation. Neither is an outsider, or, for that matter, an extraplanar fey.
Techically, primal dragons are all extraplanar and are valid targets for Gate spells even if they aren't outsiders. Thematically they work just fine as eidolons. Luckily we can kind of mimic them with elemental eidolons, but it isn't a perfect fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just double checked. There is not a single spell in the core rulebook that the bard has access that is a sorcerer/wizard 9 spell. There are a few 7 and 8 level spells, but they are very thematically appropriate. All of those spells are: mass charm monster, irresistible dance, project image, greater scrying, and greater shout. If the bard gets access to 9th level sorcerer/wizard spells, they are not from the core rulebook. Those spells should be revised.
The spells I listed for the summoner were just the ones I knew of off the top of my head while looking at the spell list. I am willing to bet there are more chained summoner spells that are not level appropriate and not as tightly thematically appropriate than the bard.
I feel this is really disingenuous because the summoner isn't even core, if you mean extended core then yes bard has 9th level spells. Heck even a few of the bard only 6th level spells are upwards of 9th level power, magnifying chime is the only uncapped diced damage spell I know of.
Druid is also 9 level caster. This means they have to the dwarf would have to put his 15 in Wisdom and then use 2 ability bumps to get access to the 9th level spells. An halfling druid would have to use 4. If the same thing was done as the summoner (14 placed in the spellcasting stat and no ability bumps given) this would mean that the dwarf would not gain any new spell levels once he reaches 11th level. The halfling stops gaining new spell levels as a 7th level druid.Meanwhile, the chained summoner can put the second best ability stat in the spell casting ability and use nothing to increase it to get 9th-level spellcasting ability.
This is why the unchained summoner's spell list is not broken. Its top spells top out at a power level more appropriate for a 6 level caster.
Or you could be any other race like human, half-life/PRC, etc..., choosing bad/less optimal races does not for your argument. You also didn't comment on any of the other weaknesses of the summoner nor overwhelming strength of the druid. Btw I'll trade a few stat points for a class that can use all of my features at the same time with zero down sides.
The only reason summoner was considered "broken" is because pfs' stat generation for characters is so low of a point buy that the free stats of any pet class will out class martials in that context. A better solution was to make pets stats dependent on the parent or as a function of the campaign, eg. If the pc point buy is 15 the pets get 10. See look I've fixed 99% of the problems while opening up build options.
As an aside Hunter's have way more brokenness potential than summoners ever will in pfs style campaigns, people will be crying about them as soon as the munchkin realize it's potential.
I feel this is really disingenuous because the summoner isn't even core, if you mean extended core then yes bard has 9th level spells. Heck even a few of the bard only 6th level spells are upwards of 9th level power, magnifying chime is the only uncapped diced damage spell I know of.I just double checked. There is not a single spell in the core rulebook that the bard has access that is a sorcerer/wizard 9 spell. There are a few 7 and 8 level spells, but they are very thematically appropriate. All of those spells are: mass charm monster, irresistible dance, project image, greater scrying, and greater shout. If the bard gets access to 9th level sorcerer/wizard spells, they are not from the core rulebook. Those spells should be revised.
The spells I listed for the summoner were just the ones I knew of off the top of my head while looking at the spell list. I am willing to bet there are more chained summoner spells that are not level appropriate and not as tightly thematically appropriate than the bard.
Some spells in the Core Rulebook are clearly the best of their spell level. ... when designing a new spell you should always compare your spell to the benchmark spells. If your spell is better than the benchmark spell, you should reduce its power or increase its spell level. ... If you create a spell and it’s better than a comparable benchmark spell, your spell is too powerful.
No, I do not mean "extended core." I was only looking at the spells that were in the core rulebook. And from that, the chained summoner is broken.
And you are correct, Paizo has published some spells that are clearly overpowered. In my home game, I never allowed anything beyond the core rulebook without reading it first.
No 6 level caster class should be able to cast spells a spell that any 9 level caster class from its top level.
The only reason summoner was considered "broken" is because pfs' stat generation for characters is so low of a point buy that the free stats of any pet class will out class martials in that context.
I don't play PFS. I saw it in my home game. Once was enough for me. It was clearly better than everything else at the table, and everyone else weren't slouches. Hence why the APG version got the perma-ban.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can someone post an actual eidolon concept/build that is now impossible, so we have something to work with rather than "Lovecraft thing"?It is impossible to make a 'beast type' eidolon who can be ridden because agathions can't take the mount evolution. Sure, there are other outsider types that can be quadrupeds, but the agathions are kind of iconic. That you can ride a devil but not THE beast type outsider kind of baffles me. I'm hoping that it is just an error that will be fixed with an errata later.
The best a good aligned character can hope for right now is to ride an elemental or protean, and Lawful Good characters can't get an eidolon with the mount evolution at all.
And again, you couldn't make an agathian mount with lay on hands in the old system, because there *was* no lay on hands.
Granted, I don't understand why none of the quad good outsiders can take mount, and I'm hoping that is an error that gets fixed.