Hahaha... Sigh,
Steve Austin as a high level martial. Whew, thanks for the laughs. Can you imagine how hard he would crap himself when confronted by almost any cr appropriate foe? Good times.
I was too busy imagining a world where WWE had gotten so desperate to boost their ratings that they started genetically engineering manticores and hydras for their wrestlers to "subdue". Which actually sounds like it could be really easily adapted into an adventure set in Absalom where the party is hired to investigate a rash of disappearing athletes.... Also of some note, a hydra is only CR 4, so those who think that Steve Austin (the myth, not the man) is about Brawler 3 / Ranger 1 are also assuming that he could pretty easily subdue a hydra, which is only a low CR 4 monster.
Seriously though, ignoring the various flirtations with the "Guy at the Gym" fallacy, how often do you ever see someone who could be described as "mundane" actually take down high level monsters, in any medium? In the game itself, the last time Fighters were actually up to dealing with high level challenges was back in 2nd edition and earlier, when he had the best saves in the game (other than a few packages or "Prestige Class" type options like Paladins) and could basically walk through a beholders storm of eye-beam death and punch its central eye out. In the D&D inspired books, your "martials" are guys like Drizzt Do'Urden, the guy with a race that wouldn't be allowed in most games, a slew of powerful magic weapons and items including a potent artifact that he's had since early levels (seriously, that cat is obviously more than just a summoned panther when it's going mano a gato with powerful demons and winning), and plot armor so thick you couldn't crack it by destroying the world (twice). Or martials like Bruenor Battlehammer, who can basically make one phone call and have an entire army of dwarves at his command, and who is so in tune with the dwarven gods that they invested him with the strength to break a...
Since you brought up Glen Cook novels, look at the Instrumentality of the Night series. Pure mundane dude cheats real good and kills a gd.
Conversely, when people want to talk about how powerful a pathfinder character should be, it's nice to have a literary reference that we are all familiar with.No. I don't think Thulsa Doom is what a Pathfinder BBEG should be. I don't think Thulsa Doom is a Pathfinder character at all. That's my point. He doesn't fit in the game system.
Hell, if you squint just right, Morgoth would be a lousy PF BBEG. PF wizards can do all kinds of stuff that he never even touches, even when he's at power levels when he can shape and corrupt the whole planet.
Both of them are working in entirely different paradigms. Not low-level Pathfinder. Not high level Pathfinder. Something.
Right. There are often attempts to shoe horn super heroes and literary characters into Pathfinder's rules and they don't fit, not really. There are people that nod knowingly and say that a character is obviously this class and that level when in reality it's a matter of opinion and a lot of squinting and compromising.
Characters in books are difficult to pin down with stats. You can make something that emulates some aspects of the idea, but more often than not they are hinting at the flavor and that's about it.
It's nice, but often skewed by the opinion of person trying to make the point. It's a lot of "Batman can beat anyone" that you get on the comics boards; you can make a case if you try for a high or low level character depending on what you believe.
And for me, a lot of this is based off supporting some broken rules. If you enjoy people falling from orbit and walking away unscathed and swimming for recreating in lava then of course you are going to think most fantasy characters are pitifully low leveled in power.
I see what you're saying, but for me, it's not even those "broken" rules (even though they are cool). I mean, I want to at least do stuff like what Boewolf did in the movie: swim for 5 nights and six days upon a dare and then defeat a dozen giant sea serpents buck naked in a raging storm with nothing but a long knife - and he's not even spec'd for aquatic adventures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
]I think the point is that if pathfinder spellcasters are of a different standard than other fantasy spellcasters, so holding martials to the standards of other fantasy martials is silly.
If that's his point, which it well may be, and I am a full-fledged believer in the Caster/Martial disparity, he's doing some serious beating around the bush to put it that way. You cannot use Pathfinder Wizards to really judge much of anything, except possibly Clerics, Oracles, Arcanists, Druids, and Sorcerers, due to the inordinate amount of power that has been foolishly put into their grasp. Hell, logically nothing else except for those classes should exist, due to the fact that they would have been wiped out entirely by the above.
Martials need a leg-up, and bad. They will NEVER get there if the focus is on 'Well, X Wizard can do this, which (insert character from another cosmology which operates nothing like D&D) can't.'
High-level martial characters have never been portrayed as being just 'mundane guys who hit hard' in the history of the game, until 3rd edition. Somehow, the notion that they had to be held to a different standard of reality came about, and they were brutally neutered of much that made them effective in comparison to spellcasters. This was a terrible decision, but it has been carried on into Pathfinder,whilst we have been told that such a thing isn't real.
High-level characters should not be held, in many cases, to what we consider physical limits of mortal men, but the limits of legend. Like the legends of the Round Table, or the stories that built up around Charlemagne, or the power of Gilgamesh and the Monkey King, these should be the kind of things martials are capable of in a world where wizards are capable of taking even the laws of magic, and telling them to sit down and shut up.
Not "Gee, I hope Gronk the Furious can Pounce on the dragon, or he's only going to get one attack this round."
I think any reference is futile. As I said the game accepts all genres of fantasy and at least some scifi.
You'd be more correct, at least in name, with Thoth-Amon. You'd be incorrect about his scale of power. He's got a serious 'One Ring' ....
Even Sauron isn't all that powerful though, at least not compared to the scale of magic as presented in Pathfinder. He's an evil Outsider who learned how to craft and influence powerful magic items and has a horde of relatively low CR enemies at his disposal. He and Thoth-Amon may be the most powerful baddies in their respective worlds, but they're still (pardon the language) punk-ass b%#*+es compared to what Pathfinder spellcasters can pull off. If Sauron had the equivalent power of even 7th level spells, the movie would have been 15 minutes long and predominantly featured a dead Ranger, a dead Gandalf, and a quartet of hobbits getting cooked like bunnies while Sauron danced on the ashes of the White Tree.
That's all I'm really trying to say, is Pathfinder is a game of heroic high fantasy. Only at the very lowest levels of play does it emulate the world some people, particularly detractors of giving anything "anime" to martial characters, seem to believe it's intended to emulate.
Sauron is an outsider of greater power than a Balrog (Balor). He was the chief lieutenant of a greater god and bossed Balrogs around. He was NOT a PC race outsider with wizard levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In your games my claim is not reasonable. The to-hit gap between rangers and clerics becomes too large.
Okay, but why? It's not because of anything like custom magic items. I'm talking normal WBL and stuff. I've even presented an explanation for why I assume you to be able to craft consumables for additional utility (which has nothing to do with a Ranger or Cleric hitting things).
I really don't want to debate if the situation in your games is very normal. I've already seen your arguments with people on that and I have nothing new to add.
Edit: "I don't have some secret optimization trick to share with you."
If your argument is "but inherent bonuses", you can drop that one real fast because Rangers and Clerics are equal in that regard (they are available to both classes). The real kicker is that the Ranger is sitting at +5-25% accuracy over the cleric at all levels due to BAB, and the Ranger can get another +70% accuracy with their class features. Divine Power is only +30% accuracy which is making up for the -25% accuracy.
It's not about optimization it's about simple math. Please explain or even make an attempt to explain how a cleric is the "best martial", or how they even keep up with a Paladin or Ranger at what they do best. Divine power, the reason you gave, is simply not enough as Paladins also have access to divine power and having divine power and +20/+15/+10/+5 BAB is just naturally superior to divine power and +15/+10/+5. There is no debating that.
So what are you talking about? I don't want optimization I want explanation. You made a declaration, all I'm asking is that you support it.
It's silly to claim that prior to Quicken Spell shenanigans [and at the cost of an entire opening round buffing] a Battle Cleric is a BETTER martial than a highly optimized ranger.
It's a nearly comparable martial, who's also a full caster.
IMO 95 times out of 100 you'll be at least as well off with the Battle Cleric as the Ranger, and at least half of that you will be better off with the Battle Cleric.
Sometimes, something just needs to die very quickly to avoid a party member death.
Our party Battle Cleric cannot do this. Our Party martial can though.
In a four man party with a
Cleric
Wizard
Skillful support
Would the 4th man be best as a strong martial class like the Ranger, Paladin, Bloodrager, ect or better off as a combat Cleric?
A Battle Cleric would not provide the umph needed to rescue his party members when something just plain needs to die fast.
It's silly to claim that prior to Quicken Spell shenanigans [and at the cost of an entire opening round buffing] a Battle Cleric is a BETTER martial than a highly optimized ranger.
It's a nearly comparable martial, who's also a full caster.
IMO 95 times out of 100 you'll be at least as well off with the Battle Cleric as the Ranger, and at least half of that you will be better off with the Battle Cleric.
Sometimes, something just needs to die very quickly to avoid a party member death.
Our party Battle Cleric cannot do this. Our Party martial can though.
What level?
What level?It's silly to claim that prior to Quicken Spell shenanigans [and at the cost of an entire opening round buffing] a Battle Cleric is a BETTER martial than a highly optimized ranger.
It's a nearly comparable martial, who's also a full caster.
IMO 95 times out of 100 you'll be at least as well off with the Battle Cleric as the Ranger, and at least half of that you will be better off with the Battle Cleric.
Sometimes, something just needs to die very quickly to avoid a party member death.
Our party Battle Cleric cannot do this. Our Party martial can though.
I dunno, what level can a Battle Cleric actually provide strong damage on the very first round of combat?
Edit: We're level 9
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally most things that need to die quickly at this level have
1. Flight
2. Good or great saves
3. have a plethora of immunities
Our best options for the casters are to either escape or support the martials as they go to war.
In your games my claim is not reasonable. The to-hit gap between rangers and clerics becomes too large.Okay, but why? It's not because of anything like custom magic items. I'm talking normal WBL and stuff. I've even presented an explanation for why I assume you to be able to craft consumables for additional utility (which has nothing to do with a Ranger or Cleric hitting things).
I really don't want to debate if the situation in your games is very normal. I've already seen your arguments with people on that and I have nothing new to add.
Edit: "I don't have some secret optimization trick to share with you."
If your argument is "but inherent bonuses", you can drop that one real fast because Rangers and Clerics are equal in that regard (they are available to both classes). The real kicker is that the Ranger is sitting at +5-25% accuracy over the cleric at all levels due to BAB, and the Ranger can get another +70% accuracy with their class features. Divine Power is only +30% accuracy which is making up for the -25% accuracy.
It's not about optimization it's about simple math. Please explain or even make an attempt to explain how a cleric is the "best martial", or how they even keep up with a Paladin or Ranger at what they do best. Divine power, the reason you gave, is simply not enough as Paladins also have access to divine power and having divine power and +20/+15/+10/+5 BAB is just naturally superior to divine power and +15/+10/+5. There is no debating that.
So what are you talking about? I don't want optimization I want explanation. You made a declaration, all I'm asking is that you support it.
From what I can see your rangers have 12-14 higher to hit than mine. ACs are not so high that not using power attack is ever optimal except for rogues, crb monks, and dsp aegi. Furthermore rangers don't milk instant enemy, since they don't just pearl of power it back after every fight. Instead their bonuses are spread out to have +4 against most foes not +10 against all bbegs.
So cleric v ranger is a to hit gap of +7 before buffs . Divine power + trait closes the gap and brings an extra attack. Other buffs plus standard action summons, walls, animated objects, planar allies, undead if evil, and injury fixes pull the cleric way ahead. Also the cleric can divine ahead of time to take a better course of action than the ranger would.
In your world, post divine power, the cleric is still +8 to hit behind the ranger which is a massive gap. To the point that the cleric isn't really "best martial" since you need paldin levels of to hit and damage to do decent DPR, while in my games fighter DPR is fine and if you surpass that, you make a good slugger (though a fighter in your world is beating the cleric by +13 to hit instead of +9 before buffs)
A cleric with Divine Power is still not gonna compare to any of the party martials (Hunter and Anti-Paladin). It's going to take several turns of buffs to come close when instead they could pop a blessing of furvor that turns us into the murderous killing machines that can make short work of anything within 3 or 4 CR of us.
|
My 11th level Winter Oracle just had a pretty good time handling three Barbarians and an enemy Winter Oracle the other night. If the other guy hadn't gotten off an Icy Prison spell I probably wouldn't have taken quite as much damage. (Also, if I had remembered I had Freedom of Movement available to slip out of entanglement sooner.) As it was, I held things down until the rest of the party could get their dice to work right.
Could you name a few of these enemies you've had to deal with? I'm very interested to see exactly what you're referring to and curious to think of how my own all wizard party might deal with them.
Silver Dragon
Flying Superstitious BarbariansFlying Paladins
Will o Wisps
At earlier levels
Paladins
Clerics
Ice Golem
Lillend Azata
A wizard with Stoneskin, shield, and various other defenses.
Dragon is going to be Adult. We haven't fought it yet, but we know we will have to. That Spell Reflecting SR is scary man, though we don't have too much to fear from his breaths thanks to Life Bubble+resist Energy cold.
Doesn't matter how many Paladins there were because he had such high AC the only people who had a hairballs chance of hitting him were me with my Hunter Outflank cheese and the smiting Anti-paladin.
The Barbarian had enough HP and diehard to survive 2 full attacks before getting last hit by our Cleric. If it had been a battle cleric then I can only imagine how another round or two of the Barbarian full attacking would have ended.
I see you don't disagree with them have ridiculous saves.
yOU MIGHT.
Bane Weapon doesn't, it's not 'you'.
Old argument, Kryt :). Pretty much came down to, it doesn't work with Bane Weapon, because a magic sword is not you.
That IS an interesting find with Gnoll Killer, however. Now we just need to re-align it to Undead.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to take a moment to again reiterate that battle clerics are my favorite type of cleric and if I make a battle cleric they are going to be damn effective at rocking encounters from a variety of ways and buffs and support spells will be their bread and butter (and they will probably command a number of undead meat-shields).
However, battle clerics typically either have poor saving throw DCs or they are poor battle clerics. There is almost never any in between unless you're rolling for stats and the RNG gods love you.
Now Clerics can frequently fulfill certain purposes that people ascribe to martials (such as portable meat shield) much better than martials. This much is true, because "meat shield" is not what you want a martial for. Undead and summons can fill this role while also being entirely expendable or recyclable.
They are most impressive in terms of actually beating things down at low levels where BAB and buffs have not come online yet, where their high Strength scores and low-level buffs can easily allow them to generate worthwhile hit and damage bonuses. For example, a 3rd level cleric who has an 18 Strength and casts bull's strength on themselves swings at +9 to hit and +9 to damage (assuming masterwork weapon). Other classes (save Barbarian) can't easily reach these numbers as their abilities haven't come online yet (even Paladins don't have the big damage with smite because it scales with their level).
It quickly falls off however as staple buffs are overtaken by assumed magic items like +Str items, boots of speed, and so forth. Martials get their own buffs (Paladins start getting the same buff spells that Clerics were using earlier but with a full BAB to boot). By mid levels, it's over. It's done. Martials win the war in that regard, especially for Rangers and Paladins.
no, it's because gnolls are a very uncommon standard enemy to pick, and Undead are a very COMMON FE to pick.
I'd've said 'humans', but that might be even worse ;)
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi I was reading a while ago and some things popped up:
Wizards are buffed from 3.5 not nerfed. Better HP, skill consolidation helped them a lot, broken spells and feats make them invincible.
I think saying every paladin has 13 int and unsanctioned knowledge is not really an apt comparison to a core cleric spell.
The tier list was not invented by jeronk lol, its older than that.
My experience as a battle cleric was I never casted a spell that had a save. I'm probably the most powerful character in my party of druid, atcanist, fighter/living monolith because I am the most knowledgeable. I feel like I would outdo a ranger at damage because of the crazy amount of spells I can stack, but it dies take a couple rounds.
I think paladins and rangers are tier 4. Tier three gets some pretty b$**&~** stuff, like teleport or anything magus. Having resist energy is all well and good but it doesn't compare IMO.
Would you consider permanent access to flight at high speeds to be a feature useful in tier three? Rangers can achieve this through smart animal companion selection. The tier system assumes a level of competence that can bring out a classes potential, hence why Wizards are tier one since an incompetent Wizard is nothing but a useless pile of flesh. So assuming competence the Ranger is tier three due to Item crafting, animal companion utility, useful skill bonuses from multiple class features, and a decent spell list.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I can see your rangers have 12-14 higher to hit than mine. ACs are not so high that not using power attack is ever optimal except for rogues, crb monks, and dsp aegi. Furthermore rangers don't milk instant enemy, since they don't just pearl of power it back after every fight. Instead their bonuses are spread out to have +4 against most foes not +10 against all bbegs.
The only time not using PA is ever a sure thing is if you can do so and still retain a 95% hit rating. Likewise, to have the best Instant Enemy, you can spread your favored enemies out as long as you keep one as the dominant one (since each time you get +2 to your main you get a +2 to a secondary one which you can stack into a few +4s or a few +2s across multiple groups).
But you can't make a claim that a cleric is better rangers at fighting if your argument is "badly played and badly built rangers" and you don't actually note that. Well sure, if a Ranger is playing against their strengths and actively making themselves worse, not using their equipment that enhances their class features, etc...well, what do you expect?
So cleric v ranger is a to hit gap of +7 before buffs . Divine power + trait closes the gap and brings an extra attack. Other buffs plus standard action summons, walls, animated objects, planar allies, undead if evil, and injury fixes pull the cleric way ahead. Also the cleric can divine ahead of time to take a better course of action than the ranger would.
Depends on what sort of diving we're talking. When a Cleric is still competitive in the area, most of their divinations are of the augury or divination sort which aren't ideal for a lot of pre-planning.
In your world, post divine power, the cleric is still +8 to hit behind the ranger which is a massive gap. To the point that the cleric isn't really "best martial" since you need paldin levels of to hit and damage to do decent DPR
Decent? No. Clerics, Bards, and a host of other 3/4 classes are just fine at putting out decent physical offense. However, you claimed that they are the best, and that was the claim that I challenged. I have noted repeatedly that clerics are better at problem solving but that Paladins and Rangers (apparently when not gimping themselves) do in fact outpace Clerics when using their class features.
There's a reason battle clerics are my favorite cleric. They are versatile and they are decent at combat and I feel very comfortable wading into combat just like martials, but I would pause and consider my tactics very carefully if I was going to wade into combat against such a martial character because that is a trade that I will undoubtedly lose.
while in my games fighter DPR is fine and if you surpass that, you make a good slugger (though a fighter in your world is beating the cleric by +13 to hit instead of +9 before buffs)
Fighter DPR sucks ass. Bards routinely outdo Fighters in being competent beatsticks. Fighters only get +4/+4 over 20 levels (+6 with gloves). Even full specialized with a weapon they cap at +6/+10 and their trick is tied to their weapon. Every martial outpaces fighters in DPR. Fighters are passable at beatsticking. They are far from an adequate benchmark.
This is why fighters are frequently considered tier 5 instead of 4 (since you brought up tiers before). They do almost nothing besides this one thing and what they actually do is frequently outshone by other classes, often as an afterthought.
And again, for future reference, if you're going to talk about the weaknesses of class X vs class Y, you need to talk about it within the context of the rules as they are in the game. Not the rules as filtered through your unique GM. Your GM may be fine and dandy but hate magic items, your ranger players may be incompetent, but we're talking about balance in a game that assumes you get appropriate treasures for your time and classes are being played competently.
If you're going to make a claim outside of the established norms of the game you need to note that as opposed to making it as a sweeping statement. It will prevent these sorts of arguments in the future from ever cropping up.
PS: Your GM may not realize but less WBL is more of a problem than too much WBL in almost all cases. Further, the more wealth is restricted the better full-casters are. In a game where you cannot buy magic items and have less time to craft magic items, full casters simply win. There is no way around it aside from cheating because they are now a monopoly on magical stuff and can replicate the effects of most any magic items you want with the knowledge that their enemies cannot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi I was reading a while ago and some things popped up:
Wizards are buffed from 3.5 not nerfed. Better HP, skill consolidation helped them a lot, broken spells and feats make them invincible.
I think saying every paladin has 13 int and unsanctioned knowledge is not really an apt comparison to a core cleric spell.
The tier list was not invented by jeronk lol, its older than that.
My experience as a battle cleric was I never casted a spell that had a save. I'm probably the most powerful character in my party of druid, atcanist, fighter/living monolith because I am the most knowledgeable. I feel like I would outdo a ranger at damage because of the crazy amount of spells I can stack, but it dies take a couple rounds.
I think paladins and rangers are tier 4. Tier three gets some pretty b++~+#$! stuff, like teleport or anything magus. Having resist energy is all well and good but it doesn't compare IMO.
Wizards were definitely nerfed in the change to Pathfinder in much the same way Fighters were nerfed from 3.0 to 3.5 (here's a funny thing, Fighter the class didn't change at all). In fact, wizards, clerics, and druids have all been drastically nerfed from their status in 3.5.
Giving wizards an invisible "Toughness" feat and class features to encourage single-classing (all casters in 3.5 were only 5 levels long as they say) does not by any means result in a net gain for them.
Honestly Ashiel, I think your games are ridiculous and brimming with subtle houserules that drastical removes your results from normal play.
Next to no one has problems with fighter damage, the issue tends to be being able to do that damage or damage not being the answer.
I never said clerics were best damage, I said best martial because they handily fill the role and bring fullcasting to the party. I also believe that being a martial is more than just doing damage.
Just looked up the Malkonvoker and immediately knew I would never want to GM for someone playing one in my entire life.
That's a PrC for NPCs, not players.
Also some of the later Paizo casters have pretty cool and useful class features, like the Shaman, Oracle, and Witch.
What level?It's silly to claim that prior to Quicken Spell shenanigans [and at the cost of an entire opening round buffing] a Battle Cleric is a BETTER martial than a highly optimized ranger.
It's a nearly comparable martial, who's also a full caster.
IMO 95 times out of 100 you'll be at least as well off with the Battle Cleric as the Ranger, and at least half of that you will be better off with the Battle Cleric.
Sometimes, something just needs to die very quickly to avoid a party member death.
Our party Battle Cleric cannot do this. Our Party martial can though.
I dunno, what level can a Battle Cleric actually provide strong damage on the very first round of combat?
Edit: We're level 9
Cmon you're smarter than to ask that kind of silly question. Because the answer is always 1st.
Largely I'd say it depends strictly on build. AM BARBARIAN will easily out damage most if not all not so much falchion Fred.
At that level am evangelist of gorum is truly terrifying to deal with.
I have to say I really dislike the overall flatness of the enemies you describe. When everyone has great saves and immunities every fight feels like a grindfest.
That's not everyone we fought, just the targets I described as the type we wanted martials for.
Sometimes, something just needs to die very quickly to avoid a party member death.
Our party Battle Cleric cannot do this. Our Party martial can though.
A Battle Cleric would not provide the umph needed to rescue his party members when something just plain needs to die fast.
The enemies I listed were the "something that needs to die very quickly to avoid a party member death." Why does it need to die quickly? Because it can kill someone, is difficult to CC, and is usually high mobility.
We've also had numerous encounters with large groups of grunts, undead, low magic heroic adventurers, Knights, animals, and aberrations.
Everyone has had plenty of moments to shine and one of the martial moments to shine is when we need to deal with enemies with great saves and immunities.
If you rarely encounter enemies with strong saves and immunities then I'd say your encounters are the odd ones, not ours.
Why?Just looked up the Malkonvoker and immediately knew I would never want to GM for someone playing one in my entire life.
That's a PrC for NPCs, not players.
Not fun for the other players. Though I guess if you're one of those rare gamers who does one on ones with a DM it could be cool.
Oooh, ok. Gotcha man.
Because it summons too much? Because that seems only issue with it.
Because it summons too much? Because that seems only issue with it.
If you roleplay every bluff check it takes a lot of time.
Slight correction Ashiel.
It's far less the class features that keep casters from prestiging in pathfinder as it is the lackluster prestige classes.
I can count on one hand the number of prestige classes I've noticed that are even worth considering [most of them for full casters ironically] and they mostly require rather specific niches from their practitioners.
Now sure there are handy things in the base classes that make them marginally more difficult to give up, but I'd certainly do it for something awesome like a Malconvoker or an Incantatrix.
Not to mention the big changes to how polymorphing worked. In 3.5 a wizard with 7 strength and 1/2 BAB could still kick ass in melee by just shapeshifting into something with 50+ strength. Though they wouldn't actually have 1/2 BAB because after level 5 a wizard that wanted to punch faces would just take a couple of the PrCs that had full casting progression and full BAB.
Oooh, ok. Gotcha man.No, seriously. I'd like to understand what you think about this class is unfun for the other players.
None of the people at the table when I played it seemed to have any problems with it whatsoever.
Except the GM who teased me a bit about giving his Knight GMPC nothing to do. But that was good-natured ribbing and he was the GM who didn't care much about the spotlight his character got anyway.
Had games become one man circus acts due to abuse of planar binding mechanics and summon monster mechanics on a similar PrC, the Diabolist. Though one case it was just a straight sorcerer abusing planar binding.
The turns take forever, the character and his circus steps on way too many toes around the table, and due to the strong narrative power of the circus the player becomes the "main character."
Literally Angel Summoner and BMX bandit.
Most everyone at our table is pretty fast, but generally the creatures summoned usually had complex or multi target abilities that took time to hash out on the field. Supposing every player is equally skilled at planning and performing then the Planar binder/summoner is going to still take longer simply because they're working with 2-10 creatures at one time.
Narrative power thing is generally associated with casters, but it's exacerbated when the group dynamic becomes the party, then the second party being led by one player.
In general with my group that I usually play with, both as a player and GM, we have a soft ban on planar binding and summoning tactics. Our groups are generally tier 3, with the occasional tier 2.