Unsummoner rant thread


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Psyren wrote:


Master Summoner is banned because of the sheer mass of bodies it can clog a combat with, and you'll note that they are also the one archetype that gets to have summons and an eidolon out at the same time to boot.

First World Summoners could do so as well, but it was a half-strength Eidolon and Summon Nature spells instead of Summon Monster.


The Pugwampis with a First World Summoner are utterly insane.

And will drive your GM to madness.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Tentacle Monster?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Tentacle Monster?

Mmmmh... I wonder about what you do in your spare time... :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rogar Valertis wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Tentacle Monster?
Mmmmh... I wonder about what you do in your spare time... :P

Best not concern yourself. Also, stay out of my shed.

Still, tentacled horror is something I wanted to do with the Eidolon, but not sure if it's still doable with the UnSummoner.


Daemons, demons, and proteans can be tentacled horrors, though if the tentacles are primarily aesthetic than any eidolon can be a tentacled horror.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Personally.... i hate the class... it lost a lot, gained nothing, amd has forced RP tied to it (has Paizo not learned that Alignment restrictions are NEVER popular?).

If you don't like what you mistakenly call "forced RP," then you don't really like the D&D class system - it's integral to the game (as are alignment restrictions where appropriate). All these classes are based on archetypes from myth and legend, and the mechanics are just a secondary vehicle for bringing them to life. This is and always has been the bedrock way of thinking in D&D, which is why I hate the "cruch/fluff" belief system so much. You're talking about a completely different game when you think like that. That's fine if that's what you want to play, but it's not D&D. If you want to play D&D/Pathfinder, you have to understand that, since it is a game of the mind, there is indeed a right way and a wrong way to think about it or else you're not playing the same game as the rest of us.

My opinion of the Unchained Summoner, for what it's worth: I specifically like the fact that you're now consorting with a specific actual outsider rather than some kind of nonsensical Frankenmonster, but I don't like how they hobbled the spell list. Bards get higher-level spells early to compensate partially for their stunted spellcasting, it only stands to reason that Summoners should.

Except you can easily reflavor stuff normally. Ninajs are not all guys in pajamas. Not all wizards wear point hats, ect.

WHen I say forced RP I mean things like say... a Paladin. A Paladin is more of a Prestige Class than a Base class. It is forced into certain tropes ad has little wiggle room. The Unsummoner forces certain RP tropes with required alignments and such. You can't do things like the Evil Guy who bound an angel or something, or the Crazy gnome who rides around in a machine. Or a celestial mount? PFFFF, but you can for sure ride around on a bipedal devil..... Alignment restrictions are generally pretty dumb...


You know, I'm surprised people are annoyed with Unchained Summoner's "restrictive flavour" but I haven't seen many threads complain about the restrictive flavour of druids....


Milo v3 wrote:
You know, I'm surprised people are annoyed with Unchained Summoner's "restrictive flavour" but I haven't seen many threads complain about the restrictive flavour of druids....

Order of operations is important here. If there had been a proto-druid which was better and less restricted in flavour and it was replaced with the current one, you better bet there'd be a storm of complaints.


Mostly it seems like people wanting to complain about the nerf but finding something that might seem like a legitimate claim, cause complaining about the nerf really has no basis.


Redjack_rose wrote:
Mostly it seems like people wanting to complain about the nerf but finding something that might seem like a legitimate claim, cause complaining about the nerf really has no basis.

I haven't heard many complaints about the crunch based nerfs, like spells being increased in level or evolutions like pounce having increased costs. Most of this thread is about how a major restriction that used to not exist in the class was suddenly tacked on with little good reason. It's like if the unrogue can only use daggers, since that's what rogues in fiction use. Or if the unbarbarian can only attack his closest enemy when raging because he's too furious to use strategy. Those restrictions make flavorful sense, but reduce the fun and versatility of the class.

Dark Archive

HFTyrone wrote:


I'm sure a lot of other people love alignment restrictions, that doesn't make it good.

Hopefully you realize that "good" is subjective. And again, just use the old one if it bugs you that much.

Milo v3 wrote:


Quote:
clockwork warhorse

This actually highlights my only issue with unchained summoner, they limited the body types to a ridiculous degree. This should be fine to do as a quadreped inevitable, but no.... all inevitables have to be bipeds (despite the fact one of the major inevitables are quadrepeds and one has no legs at all).

I think a feat chain or expensive evolution to use a different body type base would be a welcome addition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really do think that alignment restrictions are a really weird complaint when the same book gives options that remove alignment restrictions from the game.

Sovereign Court

Melkiador wrote:
It's like if the unrogue can only use daggers, since that's what rogues in fiction use.

Actually - there was a thread a few weeks back complaining that U-rogues were 'forced' to be dex based because that particular player liked the idea of str based rogues.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Still, tentacled horror is something I wanted to do with the Eidolon, but not sure if it's still doable with the UnSummoner.

I will say - there's a good reason that no land animals don't have tentacles. They're not combat effective out of the water. (creepy - but not combat effective)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Actually - there was a thread a few weeks back complaining that U-rogues were 'forced' to be dex based because that particular player liked the idea of str based rogues.

.... but... it ... doesn't make it any harder to play a Str rogue.... just makes dex rogues better... @_@

Sovereign Court

Milo v3 wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Actually - there was a thread a few weeks back complaining that U-rogues were 'forced' to be dex based because that particular player liked the idea of str based rogues.
.... but... it ... doesn't make it any harder to play a Str rogue.... just makes dex rogues better... @_@

I didn't say that it was a logical thread - just that it existed. The OP of it was very against the idea of playing a Slayer or Ninja instead too.


Redjack_rose wrote:
Mostly it seems like people wanting to complain about the nerf but finding something that might seem like a legitimate claim, cause complaining about the nerf really has no basis.

Only people with any need to complain about it are PFS players and their claim is valid based solely on the fact that are forced into the unchained version while the other classes can pick. When everybody is forced on the unchained then it would be reasonable to do with the summoner.

Outside PFS i dont see why someone would complain , you speak with the GM , if he forbids summoners (something that already happened before) or only allows unchained (which is pretty much the same) you can either just leave the table or play something else in case you are feeling like it. Results didnt change for home games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do NOT like it. I also don't like that people banned the summoner before I got a chance to play one in a home game.

I only had 2 eidolons I wanted to build, both were ridiculously subpar but fantastically cool. No improved damage or natural armor or anything, and not a whole hell of a lot of attacks like I kept hearing about with summoners.

1: Huge sized Shadow-blended Cerberus with Swallow Whole.

2: Scorpion-spider. Huge, 8 legs, tail + sting, bite, web, poison on bite, poison on sting, 2 pincers.

I can no longer play them because of UnSummoner's silly restrictions on the eidolon subtypes.

That said, I initially liked the "subtype" eidolon restriction idea. It seemed nifty... Then I realized the evolution point nerf, and the inability to make Cerberus or my Spidorpian. Makes me a very sad and very angry panda.

Besides... I've DMed for several basic summoners... I never really had that much problem taking out their pounce-death-machine eidolons that they cookie-cuttered, nor did the standard action summon spells imbalance things in comparison to the rest of the party. Then again, I play home games.

And yet people still try and convince me that Paizo doesn't let their organized play PFS dictate rules and errata...

Grand Lodge

Milo v3 wrote:
You know, I'm surprised people are annoyed with Unchained Summoner's "restrictive flavour" but I haven't seen many threads complain about the restrictive flavour of druids....

you mean the utter lack of any?

My animal compainon doesn't change based on what flavor of neutral I am. nor what I can turn into, or summon, or cast.

the fact that building a "nature mage" outside of a druid is rather difficult helps to.

Sovereign Court

Artemis Moonstar wrote:
And yet people still try and convince me that Paizo doesn't let their organized play PFS dictate rules and errata...

1. Why shouldn't they? It's a pretty decent chunk of the player base, and the part that they get to hear from the most.

2. If it's not PFS - what's keeping you from just using the old summoner? (actually asking - not meant to be sarcastic)

Silver Crusade

Nox Aeterna wrote:
.Outside PFS i dont see why someone would complain.

Because the unSummoner precludes any other official fix for people who wanted a revised summoner and think that the unchained changes don't actually fix anything?

Dark Archive

Artemis Moonstar wrote:

I do NOT like it. I also don't like that people banned the summoner before I got a chance to play one in a home game.

I only had 2 eidolons I wanted to build, both were ridiculously subpar but fantastically cool. No improved damage or natural armor or anything, and not a whole hell of a lot of attacks like I kept hearing about with summoners.

1: Huge sized Shadow-blended Cerberus with Swallow Whole.

2: Scorpion-spider. Huge, 8 legs, tail + sting, bite, web, poison on bite, poison on sting, 2 pincers.

I can no longer play them because of UnSummoner's silly restrictions on the eidolon subtypes.

That said, I initially liked the "subtype" eidolon restriction idea. It seemed nifty... Then I realized the evolution point nerf, and the inability to make Cerberus or my Spidorpian. Makes me a very sad and very angry panda.

Besides... I've DMed for several basic summoners... I never really had that much problem taking out their pounce-death-machine eidolons that they cookie-cuttered, nor did the standard action summon spells imbalance things in comparison to the rest of the party. Then again, I play home games.

And yet people still try and convince me that Paizo doesn't let their organized play PFS dictate rules and errata...

If you're at home, houserule it. If you're in PFS, please understand that their choices were to make a nerfed Summoner, or ban the damn thing entirely. It was that disruptive to the meta.


The only part of the revised summoner that will see use in my games will be the option to choose form/type locked Eidolon. This will allow players who don't want to have to build entirely from scratch to try the class.

Otherwise, the original summoner was fine, if a little underwhelming, in my games.


9mm wrote:

you mean the utter lack of any?

My animal compainon doesn't change based on what flavor of neutral I am. nor what I can turn into, or summon, or cast.

the fact that building a "nature mage" outside of a druid is rather difficult helps to.

How about the fact that to be a nature mage you have to be part of a secret order with a secret language, you have to be neutral, and have to follow a code of conduct that doesn't actually make much sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Psyren wrote:

If you're at home, houserule it. If you're in PFS, please understand that their choices were to make a nerfed Summoner, or ban the damn thing entirely. It was that disruptive to the meta.

Their poor adventure design is more disruptive to the meta than the summoner ever was.

Grand Lodge

Milo v3 wrote:


How about the fact that to be a nature mage you have to be part of a secret order with a secret language, you have to be neutral, and have to follow a code of conduct that doesn't actually make much sense.

an order that basicly never exists, a secret language that never comes up, and what code of conduct? the metal armor you won't be wearing? and oh no neutral meaning near guaranteed immunity to a whole host of effect?

Psyren wrote:
If you're in PFS, please understand that their choices were to make a nerfed Summoner, or ban the damn thing entirely. It was that disruptive to the meta.

So let's review.

A: it wasn't even close to being disruptive.
B: they didn't touch the most powerful ability of the summoner anyway.
C: existing summoners got grandfathered

meaning exactly 0 effect on the meta in grand total. high-op summoners will run around throwing birds at yetis for years to come. everyone else who didn't want to high-op gets screwed.


9mm wrote:


A: it wasn't even close to being disruptive.

It disrupted quite a lot of games, there is no other definition of being disruptive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me take a moment to remember everybody that the APG summoner was actually a nerfed version of the playtested one, and that half the playtest people argued that the APG summoner was close to useless.
The dark side of the bias has found his champion.


Isonaroc wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
.Outside PFS i dont see why someone would complain.
Because the unSummoner precludes any other official fix for people who wanted a revised summoner and think that the unchained changes don't actually fix anything?

In PFS i can understand the issue , but to me the fact that they forced only the summoner to be used in the unchained form is already ridiculous enough that people have any and all right to be pissed about it.

In a house game the GM is just forbidding the summoner , that already happened before , the response is pretty much the same also, people can just get up , thank others for the invite and then leave the table.

I can understand the frustation when it comes to PFS, outside PFS it is just like so many other houserules.

Silver Crusade

Nox Aeterna wrote:

In a house game the GM is just forbidding the summoner , that already happened before , the response is pretty much the same also, people can just get up , thank others for the invite and then leave the table.

I can understand the frustation when it comes to PFS, outside PFS it is just like so many other houserules.

But, the thing is that if unchained had actually addressed the issues that made the summoner a class GMs ban outright, people might actually be able to play the class they wanted in those games. Instead, we got a class that annoys the people who liked the summoner and doesn't fix the biggest issues GMs had with it.


Except the unchained summoner did fix the things that I banned the class for. I don't care about standard action summons. I already tell my players ''if your turn takes too long, I'm going to have to ask you to switch classes'' so summoning in general is never an issue.

The thing I cared about is the multi-armed pounce machine and the fact that the Eidolon didn't make any sense. It's a creature from another plane. Great, which one? What are it's motivations outside of doing what it's summoner says?


As a GM the unchained summoner did touch some of the things I banned the original one. Less crazy spellcasting and less crazy Eidolon. No clue why paizo screwed it with absolutely pointless and useless restrictions though.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:
.The thing I cared about is the multi-armed pounce machine and the fact that the Eidolon didn't make any sense. It's a creature from another plane. Great, which one? What are it's motivations outside of doing what it's summoner says?

So you cared about an effective martial build and fluff that you and the player should have worked together to establish? Ok, then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I cared about a pet that made many of the other classes at my table look like a joke. Sure, I'm sure they could have done something better, been optimized better, etc... but the summoner player didn't even have to try.

The fluff stuff is things I can fix on my own, but honestly it's easier when you can point to rules and then make exceptions, than point to rules and make restrictive rules over them. People tend to whine about that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:

I cared about a pet that made many of the other classes at my table look like a joke. Sure, I'm sure they could have done something better, been optimized better, etc... but the summoner player didn't even have to try.

The fluff stuff is things I can fix on my own, but honestly it's easier when you can point to rules and then make exceptions, than point to rules and make restrictive rules over them. People tend to whine about that.

The better thing is to put caps on # of natural attacks, not this stupid mess.

If the only problem was massive multi limbed pounce monsters, putting a cap on natural attacks and increasing the cost of pounce would have been simple enough. There, no 100 tentacle pounce monsters.

What we got was a horrid mess.

As for the flavor thing, then I guess fighters are boring to you too right? After all, they got no real flavor built into the class. Or how about wizards? They are "guys who cast" . What other flavor do they got? Oh wait! thats right! you create it when you make your character! If a your complaint is that your player is making a bland summon, that issue is with the PLAYER. They would make a bland ANYTHING if it doesnt have pre-built flavor.


@Pixie
While a lower cap would help, the biggest issue is the Eidolon had too many evolution points to put towards whatever the heck it wanted. I -love- the reduced evolution points, and I love that they didn't just take them away, they put them towards things. Some super cool things mind you.

Also, do not presume to know what I find bland. Wizards are defined by their schools. Their familiars are defined things. Fighters are defined by either their weapon choice or their archetype.

What I find annoying is when people make things that make no sense as an outsider. Things that have never been seen ever, but the summoner some how found it and made a pact with it. Do Eidolons have their own little planes? Who knows.

Edit; Not to say I'm totally against original, creative eidolons. Just that it's easier to start from ''you can make these 10 things...'' and make exceptions to accomodate, then it is to start from ''you can make anything...'' and then restrict things down. Player feel much better when they think their getting an exception and not a restriction.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:

Except the unchained summoner did fix the things that I banned the class for. I don't care about standard action summons. I already tell my players ''if your turn takes too long, I'm going to have to ask you to switch classes'' so summoning in general is never an issue.

The thing I cared about is the multi-armed pounce machine and the fact that the Eidolon didn't make any sense. It's a creature from another plane. Great, which one? What are it's motivations outside of doing what it's summoner says?

APG Eidolons carried just as much variety as he Summoners who called them, which was one of the biggest draws for the class. Heck, it was my favorite part. It is entirely possible to make up a detailed creature (see my earlier post) and even the least fluffed Eidolons invite speculation with their unusual anatomy.

In my experience, I find the Eidolon to be the feature that rubs people wong more often than not. In one PSF scenario I've dropped an Augmented Celestial dinosaur that's tanked swarms of mobs and wrecked bosses elite mobs while we fought minions and the group was happy to have me.

My large size bite/claw/claw/claw/claw/rend Eidolon one-rounds a trio of minions and I get funny looks.

Player perception is a huge factor in customer satisfaction, which I'm sure is a big drive behind Unchained. It's why people hate the synthesist while master summoner is only sometimes brought up. It's why Eidolons are reworked while spammming one of the best spells in the game at all levels as an SLA is kept as is.


Man, the APG eidolon was way to confusing to make. I wanted to make one once, but designing one was just not intuitive. At least with animal companions I could look up the animal and the table to see was additional things it got based on druid level.

I thin people get too wrapped up in their own little world where everything rule has to be exactly what they want it to be, or else they take it as a personal insult. They didn't just want to tone down the power-level of an absurd class, but also to make it easier to actually build one because most people who play the game simply play the game. They don't spend hours on the forums understanding every little rule detail and interaction.

Unchained provides a rather simple progression system that still incorporates quite a bit of flexibility. But people are blinded by their own emotions to view the class for what it is, and would rather just be angry. Some people do get a lot of energy by continually finding reasons to be angry. But is that really the best way to spend your free time?


StFrancisss wrote:

Man, the APG eidolon was way to confusing to make. I wanted to make one once, but designing one was just not intuitive. At least with animal companions I could look up the animal and the table to see was additional things it got based on druid level.

I thin people get too wrapped up in their own little world where everything rule has to be exactly what they want it to be, or else they take it as a personal insult. They didn't just want to tone down the power-level of an absurd class, but also to make it easier to actually build one because most people who play the game simply play the game. They don't spend hours on the forums understanding every little rule detail and interaction.

Unchained provides a rather simple progression system that still incorporates quite a bit of flexibility. But people are blinded by their own emotions to view the class for what it is, and would rather just be angry. Some people do get a lot of energy by continually finding reasons to be angry. But is that really the best way to spend your free time?

Basically your saying there is an IQ requirement to creating an APG summoner?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

StFrancisss, I find the Unsummoner to be far more complex. One must very carefully keep track of even more limitations than before. What's more, with all of the twist and turns and arbitrary limitations, it's much harder to simply build a mechanical concept in my head like I could so with the traditional summoner.


Personally, I realize that the summoner and his eidolon can create a lot of havoc if built purely to destroy encounters, it should be up to the GM and player to make sure that doesn't happen.

I'm with Raving Dork on this. It's much easier to conceptualize and create what I want via the APG version than it is with the unsummon version.

I mean no one has ever heard of evil aasimars and good tieflings. Angels never fall. Vampires never sacrifice themselves. Evil guys are never redeemed.

Just saying.


Rosc wrote:
Redjack_rose wrote:

Except the unchained summoner did fix the things that I banned the class for. I don't care about standard action summons. I already tell my players ''if your turn takes too long, I'm going to have to ask you to switch classes'' so summoning in general is never an issue.

The thing I cared about is the multi-armed pounce machine and the fact that the Eidolon didn't make any sense. It's a creature from another plane. Great, which one? What are it's motivations outside of doing what it's summoner says?

APG Eidolons carried just as much variety as he Summoners who called them, which was one of the biggest draws for the class. Heck, it was my favorite part. It is entirely possible to make up a detailed creature (see my earlier post) and even the least fluffed Eidolons invite speculation with their unusual anatomy.

In my experience, I find the Eidolon to be the feature that rubs people wong more often than not. In one PSF scenario I've dropped an Augmented Celestial dinosaur that's tanked swarms of mobs and wrecked bosses elite mobs while we fought minions and the group was happy to have me.

My large size bite/claw/claw/claw/claw/rend Eidolon one-rounds a trio of minions and I get funny looks.

Player perception is a huge factor in customer satisfaction, which I'm sure is a big drive behind Unchained. It's why people hate the synthesist while master summoner is only sometimes brought up. It's why Eidolons are reworked while spammming one of the best spells in the game at all levels as an SLA is kept as is.

Perception is extremely powerful, yes. On more than one occasion I've had my players balk at the barbarian ripping apart encounters like a hate-powered blender, but were seemingly unimpressed by the wizard shutting enemies down by farting glitter at them. Both basically accomplish the same thing in the end, but the barbarian's impact is immediately obvious and is getting big numbers in addition.

The Eidolon is incredibly powerful to be sure, but it's only a small part of the package that made the summoner so powerful. Having them play as a synthesist solves 90% of the issues the class causes in my games, as the stat dumping thing isn't a concern when summoners do that anyway.

Dark Archive

Ravingdork wrote:
Their poor adventure design is more disruptive to the meta than the summoner ever was.

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man. :P

9mm wrote:


So let's review.
A: it wasn't even close to being disruptive.
B: they didn't touch the most powerful ability of the summoner anyway.
C: existing summoners got grandfathered

meaning exactly 0 effect on the meta in grand total. high-op summoners will run around throwing birds at yetis for years to come. everyone else who didn't want to high-op gets screwed.

a) Clearly the folks with actual data on this disagree with you.

b) What, you mean Gate? I would argue that has much less disruption potential in most campaigns than the likes of Planar Binding and Simulacrum, because it comes so late. And it never even gets seen in PFS.

c) If they could have banned the existing ones without causing an uproar they likely would have. As it is, they're hoping those folks get bored and retire their summoners, gradually cleaning up the meta for them over time without a mutiny. Not the neatest solution but it works.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyren wrote:

a) Clearly the folks with actual data on this disagree with you.

b) What, you mean Gate? I would argue that has much less disruption potential in most campaigns than the likes of Planar Binding and Simulacrum, because it comes so late. And it never even gets seen in PFS.

A) You think they used some sort of objective data? That's cute.

B) Pretty sure they're talking about summon monster as an SLA.

Dark Archive

Isonaroc wrote:


A) You think they used some sort of objective data? That's cute.
B) Pretty sure they're talking about summon monster as an SLA.

a) Given that you have nothing to go on except "I personally dislike this decision" then I'd say the burden of proof that they didn't is on you.

b) Summons are useful, don't get me wrong, but they're not nearly as disruptive in practice. It takes system mastery to make them remotely useful - knowing the right ones for the job, having the right feats to even begin making them competitive with foes of equal CR, dealing with the many enemy counters out there (Even a 1st-level buff can shut down many summons, or a 3rd-level no-save removal spell etc.) Compare to Eidolons, which get feats, can wear gear, bypass many of the counters summons have to deal with, and are just generally CR-competitive out of the box. They may lack the raw utility of a SM spell but I can easily see how they are more problematic than summon monster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm inclined to agree with Psyren.

I'm personally offended that some on this thread have tried to claim ''oh it's just your perception that the eidolon was blah...'' No, not it's not. In PFS, one of the most annoying thing I have had to deal with is a flying, multi-armed pounce machine. Their easy to make, put most other classes to shame unless that player has flawless system mastery and the summoner does not, and they dominate encounters. Sure, a barbarian can dominate encounters, but he tends to do so by making 1-2 big attacks a round. An Eidolon does it by making 4-5 attacks that do just about as much damage [don't forget the badly written rend!]

Even if by some miracle you manage to kill the Eidolon, you then get introduced to the Summone Eidolon spell that says ''This spell allows you to summon your eidolon even if it has been returned to its home plane due to damage.''

Summon Monster, though it can be powerful at lower levels, isn't nearly as bad as the eidolon. It can be countered, the things you summon aren't nearly as tough as what you're fighting, and honestly it makes the summoner about par with other classes.

And yes, I'm inclined to believe Dev's have a little more access to data than Joe Schmoe arguing on the internets.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Redjack_rose wrote:

I'm inclined to agree with Psyren.

I'm personally offended that some on this thread have tried to claim ''oh it's just your perception that the eidolon was blah...'' No, not it's not. In PFS, one of the most annoying thing I have had to deal with is a flying, multi-armed pounce machine. Their easy to make, put most other classes to shame unless that player has flawless system mastery and the summoner does not, and they dominate encounters. Sure, a barbarian can dominate encounters, but he tends to do so by making 1-2 big attacks a round. An Eidolon does it by making 4-5 attacks that do just about as much damage [don't forget the badly written rend!]

Even if by some miracle you manage to kill the Eidolon, you then get introduced to the Summone Eidolon spell that says ''This spell allows you to summon your eidolon even if it has been returned to its home plane due to damage.''

Summon Monster, though it can be powerful at lower levels, isn't nearly as bad as the eidolon. It can be countered, the things you summon aren't nearly as tough as what you're fighting, and honestly it makes the summoner about par with other classes.

And yes, I'm inclined to believe Dev's have a little more access to data than Joe Schmoe arguing on the internets.

Too bad the unsummoner did almost nothing to fix any of the problems you mentioned.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


Too bad the unsummoner did almost nothing to fix any of the problems you mentioned.

If it kicks exactly as much ass as before as easily as before, then what in Hades are you folks complaining about? Continue to stomp PFS with the UnSummoner until they both get banned (or "clarified" into oblivion), then.

But I for one don't think your assertion is adequately supported. Just looking at the two Eidolons side by side, I see the Unchained one's EP were nearly cut in half, which makes certain evolutions (like Huge) comparatively much more expensive to obtain. Pounce, generally seen as a must-have evolution, was also made more expensive. And the Unchained one's "alignment and ethos" line gives the GM more leeway to step in if a summoner is doing something abusive or disruptive with their pet and make it say "no." Either way, I disagree with your "almost nothing" stance.


@Raving

I disagree. The evolution point restriction was a huge step in the right direction. As was the 3 pt pounce increase and level restriction. You have to be level 7 to take pounce. Level 7 is over half-way in pfs and get's into modules better equipped to deal with Eidolons. There are only 5 forms at the moment that actually let you take pounce too...

At level 7, the most evolution you can have is 10 [6 normal, 2 feats, half elf, elemental subtype]. This is equal to the vanilla summoner, but cost a race/subtype/feats [ie. more system master].

Finally the Eidolon has alignment restrictions. While I personally don't like ''alignment infractions'' a player now has to pay attention to how they play depending on their character. Their pouncing-death-machine [assuming they had the system mastery to make one] actually has an opinion on their actions.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyren wrote:


a) Given that you have nothing to go on except "I personally dislike this decision" then I'd say the burden of proof that they didn't is on you.

b) Summons are useful, don't get me wrong, but they're not nearly as disruptive in practice. It takes system mastery to make them remotely useful - knowing the right ones for the job, having the right feats to even begin making them competitive with foes of equal CR, dealing with the many enemy counters out there (Even a 1st-level buff can shut down many summons, or a 3rd-level no-save removal spell etc.) Compare to Eidolons, which get feats, can wear gear, bypass many of the counters summons have to deal with, and are just generally CR-competitive out of the box. They may lack the raw utility of a SM spell but I can easily see how they are more problematic than summon monster.

A) You're the one who claimed they used data.

B) SM is incredibly disruptive for several reasons. First and formost, every time someone busts out a summon, unless they both have amazing information recall or premade monster stat reference cards, the phones come out and both the player who cast it and the GM have to look up what the dang thing can do and how well it can do it (or sort through the books to take longer to find the same info). After that, it extends the round as each summoned monster takes their turn (likely with more PRD referencing), adding minutes to each round. And, keep in mind, the summoner can drop that as a standard that lasts minutes instead of rounds. Only after dealing with all that disruption can we discuss how disruptive their actual actions and abilities are.

EDUT:

Psyren wrote:
If it kicks exactly as much ass as before as easily as before, then what in Hades are you folks complaining about? Continue to stomp PFS with the UnSummoner until they both get banned (or "clarified" into oblivion), then.

Because maybe some of us hate the flavor (alignment/build locking) restriction that didn't actually do anything? Maybe some of us wanted a real fix that we'll never get now (Unchained Unchained Summoner)? Maybe some of us were hoping for something LESS complicated than the original summoner? I can think of a number of reasons.

201 to 250 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Unsummoner rant thread All Messageboards