Unsummoner rant thread

[N. Jolly]

Dekalinder wrote:

I think monk has a higher ceeling than you give him credit for. Also, you got Sorcer an Wizard swapped. It so easy to permanently f+@$ up your sorc, while the wizard can always adjust in course.

I don't see the monk hitting the same levels of usefulness, although this is the core monk, making a chimera of archetypes probably does push its ceiling to a 5. Personally I'd probably say the fighter and rogue have a floor of 0 if I was being entirely honest.

As for Sorc/Wizard, it's subjective which is a 1 and which is a 2. As I said, it's personal opinion. I've seen a lot of sorcs get more guided in their spell selection ("Oh, just take magic missile and something else, then you always have damage!"), and with school specialization for wizards, an unaware player can dismiss conjuration and/or transmutation, which puts them at a huge disadvantage. Both can be permanently ruined, but for most people, a wizard's form of casting is so much less intuitive, making them easier to mess up, while a sorcerer's feels more correct, so with light guiding on spell selection they're easier to play. I suppose both could easily have a floor of 1 if I'm being honest.

The issue here is that the floor for the summoner was too high, and it got lowered a bit, although to clarify something, when I say the eidolon had a floor of 3, I really just meant that for combat. As a whole, it probably has a floor of 2, which is still a nice floor, but still lower. Now it'd have a floor of 2 for combat, and 1.5 overall due to its lack of evo points.

[Redjack_rose]

Lynceus wrote:

Wait so, Summoner beats Druid because you can make the Druid "fall" with a Dominate Person spell or figure out some way to make him wear metal armor?

That's...a ridiculous stance. I'm not even going to reach for the low-hanging fruit of comparing this to the Paladin (because By Arneson and Gygax, we don't need any more Paladin nonsense).

I'm going to compare this to "well, Wizards are pretty weak because all you have to do is get their spellbook".

Yeesh. Look, ANY character of ANY class can be shut down if the GM wants to be a jerk about it. It doesn't matter if they have RP restrictions or a code of ethics or whatever.

The key point of that conversation started with someone saying ''I can make a super druid that'll wreck face blah blah blah...'' My point to that posturing is; "That's nice, and I -can- end it with a chain shirt."

Whether or not a druid can end up being much better than a summoner is irrelevant, because that power comes with limitations and restrictions.

Let's take your typical murderhobo (as commonly found in PFS, where the unchained summoner is relevant). They want big crunchy numbers and little restriction. They could make a face wrecking druid, but then they have to be neutral, if they get alignment shifted it shuts down their groove, they can't wear armor or lose their powers. They have to revere nature or they lose their powers...

Then they look at the Summoner. Complete control over their own multi-armed murder pounce machine?! Awesome buff spells levels early?! No rules, no restrictions? They just get to laugh while their pet wrecks everything and makes the others at the table look terrible?! Hell yeah.

That's one of the problems I'm coming from. There are some more with the original summoner, but at least unchain fixed this one. For players that care about creativity, no one's gonna harsh your groove if you wanna call a devil a Kyton, or if your protean looks like a jabberwocky, or your robot is really an inevitable. For those that really like the pet/eidolon class, it's still a good option.

But for the powergaming, min/maxing, murdertastic people who just want to be the best at the table, go find the next best broken thing.

[Psyren]

HFTyrone wrote:

It's also ironic that you're claiming spellcasters should be stronger than martials when you were just saying the summoner needed a rebalance. If certain classes should just be objectively stronger than everything else, why would classes like the summoner need a rebalance?

Because Summoners were even better than other casters. They were a 9th-level caster pretending to be ⅔, getting wizard spells even earlier than wizards did, and because they came prepackaged with a free and fully customizable fighter, many of the obstacles that a solo caster might find challenging didn't even phase them.

As it is, the UnSummoner is still plenty strong, but with both the spell list and eidolon toned down they are not the banworthy mess they were in the APG.

Lynceus wrote:

@Psyren: yes, it is something they changed, what I meant by mentioning it was that while the Summoner spell list is disruptive, the reasons it is disruptive have less to do with it's effect on the power of the class.

My point of view is that the Summoner's power level isn't the problem so much as it's effect on the paradigm, the "metagame" if you will. I don't think most groups often deal with the things the Summoner does, even if they are things other classes can do as well. You can play a Wizard/Cleric/Druid that does what the Summoner does, but it takes investment, and those classes have other ways they can be played that are also effective and require less setup. As a result, it's my belief others don't actually do this very often.

So, yeah, they changed the Unsummoner's spell list. That reduces a potentially disruptive element, but overall, I don't believe it will have as large of an effect on the Unsummoner's potential.

Ah, I understand you now and I apologize for the snark. I still disagree however, I think changing the list was a necessary and impactful move on their part.

[HFTyrone]

Psyren wrote:

Because Summoners were even better than other casters. They were a 9th-level caster pretending to be ⅔, getting wizard spells even earlier than wizards did, and because they came prepackaged with a free and fully customizable fighter, many of the obstacles that a solo caster might find challenging didn't even phase them.

Even if summoners were better than 1-9 casters, so what? Like you said, some classes are just meant to be better than others. If casters are supposed to be better than martials, than isn't it natural that a caster + a martial should be better than casters?

You can't have it both ways, either classes are supposed to be balanced against each other or some classes are just supposed to be objectively better.

Edit: But no, in all seriousness, the summoner is not better than the Wizard. If Pathfinder was a wargame then that argument would hold merit, but the Summoner is inherently weaker than the wizard in that it actually has to make *choices*. A wizard can afford to pick up spells that might only come in handy once in a while, a summoner has to pick spells that will always be useful. The wizard can do everything well, the summoner is gob-smackingly powerful in combat and has a decent amount of utility outside of it; unless you consider combat to be the only thing that matters, then the wizard is just better.

[Redjack_rose]

HFTyrone wrote:

Even if summoners were better than 1-9 casters, so what? Like you said, some classes are just meant to be better than others. If casters are supposed to be better than martials, than isn't it natural that a caster + a martial should be better than casters?

You can't have it both ways, either classes are supposed to be balanced against each other or some classes are just supposed to be objectively better.

Well actually it be argued casters should be roughly balanced around each other, and martials around each other. Considering martials (theoretically) have an easier time at low levels and despite their "max power" being lower, they have the staying power casters don't (once out of spells for the day, casters aren't that tough).

I for one though, do think all classes should be roughly balanced around each other.

[Psyren]

HFTyrone wrote:

Even if summoners were better than 1-9 casters, so what? Like you said, some classes are just meant to be better than others. If casters are supposed to be better than martials, than isn't it natural that a caster + a martial should be better than casters?

A wizard is the ur-arcane caster. As I see it, the others should perhaps outshine it in specific situations (e.g. Witches are a little stronger when facing humanoid foes with spell resistance, because of their hexes), but in general a wizard who picks the right spells should be on top at most levels. With the APG summoner, I saw it spiking above that power curve and I considered that to be bad design.

And as Redjack noted I'm not concerned with martial vs. caster balance. I'm concerned with caster vs. caster and martial vs. martial. Specifically I'm concerned with 9/9 intercaster balance, 6/9 intercaster balance and 4/9 intercaster balance. APG Summoner broke that.

[Christopher Dudley]

Christopher Dudley wrote:

Actually the hardest thing to deal with for his eidolon was his ludicrous armor class at low level, and UnSummoner doesn't fix that, either.

I deleted the line about a player's pouncy murder-beast in my Legacy of Fire game. The "his" refers to that player. Sorry, I need to proofread more.

[Redjack_rose]

Christopher Dudley wrote:

Christopher Dudley wrote:

Actually the hardest thing to deal with for his eidolon was his ludicrous armor class at low level, and UnSummoner doesn't fix that, either.

I deleted the line about a player's pouncy murder-beast in my Legacy of Fire game. The "his" refers to that player. Sorry, I need to proofread more.

In response to your earlier post, I know the Evolution Points, when combined with the freebie stuff, are about equal [give or take a couple points]. They are also less offensive options and more thematic like resistances or immunities to specific things like poison.

As far as fixing an Eidolon's high AC it's now a balancing act. Would they rather spend their much smaller pool of points on increased natural armor, or on offensive options.

[memorax]

Psyren wrote:

I never said "casters are weaker than martials." I said there are tools out there for you to weaken casters if you wish. They are variant rules because not all of us care about almighty "balance" between those who can rearrange reality with their thoughts and those who can't.

Those tools still don't allow martials to compete anywhere close to a well run caster. Espcailly one run by a person with system mastery. I made a Wizard who spevialized in crafting. I still had a few bread and butter spells and I was still doing more than the Fighter at the table. The game was run by a very compatent DM. So was the Fighter. It was then that our table realized how the casters were more powerful than martials. It's not even about balance. It's about doing more than damage at the table. Feats don't scale with level. The rest of the Fighter abilites are boring Bravery is a joke and a bad one at that. That +4 to Will saves at high levels yeah that's really going to stop my character from easily being dominated.

Psyren wrote:

If you care, more power to you, and 4e is that way. ---->

Congratulations it's been awhile since someone used "if you don't like it you can leave " argument. You have been more polite than most but it's still not a counter argument. I consider it a copput even but that's just me.

Psyren wrote:

As for magic being stronger, that's a feature, not a bug - magic takes more system mastery to use effectively in a game (and is harder for characters to learn in-universe too) so it's supposed to be. But there are way better examples of that than the one you're using. 1d3 large summons is even worse - now you're wasting time and resources throwing out three CR 5 foes to fight a CR 15 encounter. Even with Augment Summoning they are speedbumps at best. A Fire Yai is hitting them on a 2 and dropping one with a single full-attack, if he even bothers to fight them at all instead of just flying over them to smash you in the face.

I don't consider part of a rpg that overshadows another class a feature. When all it takes is one spell to take a Fighter out of game session like Dominate Person. Or that a Summoned creature ends up doing more damage than the class designed to do more damage. Again it's not a feature. Before anyone brings it up. It'as never been about balance. It's giving Fighter something interesting to do at the table. Outside of combat. As well as something to look forward as one levels. I look at both the Paladin and Barbarian class. At least with both I see interesting class abilites and more options to do stuff outside of combat. I don't see it with the Fighter.

As for system mastery and magic. It requires some at first. After awhile it's easy to see what spells one should and should not be taking. Affect a large group of lesser enemies cast Glitterdust. Wany to shut down a bbeg cast blidness. Unlike feats. With most of the ones desgigned by Paizo not worth the paper their printed in imo. Unlike casters who can switch out spells as they go up in levels. A player stuck with a lousy feat has to spend the absurd cost to retrain it. Or get a friendly dm who allows them to switch it out.

Psyren wrote:

1e and 2e had all kinds of drawbacks for magic, sure. They were also boring as hell to have a single arrow shut down any spell. If you want to go back to that, be my guest.

I don't like what they did with magic either. Except those who like casters forget. Magic was more powerful. Not to mention Fighters actually had something that made them stand out. Weapon specilaiztion. Sure other melee classes still did damage. The Fighter was king imo.They also had e best saves.

[memorax]

I concede that if one wants a summoner style caster. Than Summoner is the way to go. I would still take a Conjurer over it though as I feel it has more versatility.

Beyond a few early spell choices I did not and still don't see what was that broken with the class. At most the Eidolon was problamatic. Not game breaking though. As for Summoner and their summoning spells lasting longer. Well if my speciality as a class is to summon stuff. I sure as hell don't want it lasting as long as regular casters. Or what's the point. Even then I still think a well built Wizard in the hands of a experinced player can do so much more. Hell a vanilla Bard with the right feats and spells can be just as bad.

That trick with chain shirt and Druid. good luck trying to mind control the Druid with a high level Bard. A move action to sing. A immediate action to cast Saving Finale. That Druid is not putting on that shirt. Not to mention while a validate tactic to use against a Druid it's still a dick move to do. Might as well put a big sign around your neck that says "I have it in for the party Druid". Valid tactic sure. If I was a player and a DM tried that I would probably walk out.

Even with the Summoner ability to make summon spell last longer. A Wizard can still do the same. To a lesser degree to be sure. But I can still do it. To me the main feature and possible feature that might be a problem at the table is the Eidolon. It's when it can do more damage than a Fighter and with the right evolotuions it usually can. That I see it as more of a bug than a feature.

[Melkiador]

memorax wrote:

Congratulations it's been awhile since someone used "if you don't like it you can leave " argument. You have been more polite than most but it's still not a counter argument. I consider it a copput even but that's just me.

Really, other than the possibility of Pathfinder 2 some day, that's the only real response. There are far too many books written to go back and "fix" this disparity at this point. Martial-caster disparity is part of the very design of the game, and to do anything about it would require such a rework as to be a different game anyway.

So, saying, "If you don't like it, play something else.", is a fairly valid argument in this case.

[Envall]

People play Pathfinder because their local community plays it in many cases.
So it can be either play Pathfinder or nothing at all.

[Kerney]

All this thread has shown is that Paizo failed to get a near consensus on a toned down Summoner.

Since most people, including big summoner fans like myself, felt that a toned down summoner would be good thing, this should have been easy.

Instead we have an even more fractured base.

Lesson to game designers: Don't ignore existing flavor/cannon etc when revising a class, even if you wish you had done it differently the first time.

[memorax]

Melkiador wrote:

So, saying, "If you don't like it, play something else.", is a fairly valid argument in this case.

Their a difference between saying play something else. Another when a poster says "don't like it. Leave and go play something else with a arrow drawn pointing me to the door in a post.

I have decided to make PF and to a lesser extent 2E my versions of D&D. It does not mean that because I like something that I don't notice or ignore the flaws. If the devs truly wanted to they go do a proper fix for the Fighter. That's the thing though if they truly want too. Which imo they don't. I was all excited for 5E until I noticed the brought back needing specialty weapons to fight certain creatures. I vastly prefer DR as a mechanic. While having a magic weapon helps one can still fight a creature with DR and survive. Under the other syste monsters are immune to damage or highly resistant. Making the magic mart a necessity imo. Need a silver and magic weapon. Well you better have one or your not taking out the Werewolf terrorizing the countryside.

I don't mind need specific weapon types in 2E because it adds to me at least to it nostalgic charm. I REALLY did not want to see any modern version of D&D going back to adventuring groups having to carry a bunch of extra stuff along or they face a tpk or having to run away. Not to mention Wotc poor release schedule and shutting down of their game forums did no help matters either.

[Redjack_rose]

memorax wrote:

I concede that if one wants a summoner style caster. Than Summoner is the way to go

...vanilla Bard with the right feats and spells can be just as bad.

...A Wizard can still do the same. To a lesser degree to be sure. But I can still do it.

Okay, not trying to be antagonistic, but you can't concede something, then turn around and pretty much say what you've said all along.

memorax wrote:

That trick with chain shirt and Druid. good luck trying to mind control the Druid with a high level Bard. A move action to sing. A immediate action to cast Saving Finale. That Druid is not putting on that shirt.

The chain shirt is in response to a post about ''How much of a super druid'' someone else could make in attempt to show summoner's weren't broken. My response was essentially ''That's nice, and I could beat it with a chain shirt.''

Stepping away from the chain shirt example, what about the fact druids must revere nature? Or maintain a neutral alignment? These are all restrictions on the supposed ''more broken'' class that can stop it in it's tracks... which is basically my point of why the summoner roleplay restrictions are good.

memorax wrote:

Not to mention while a validate tactic to use against a Druid it's still a dick move to do. Might as well put a big sign around your neck that says "I have it in for the party Druid". Valid tactic sure. If I was a player and a DM tried that I would probably walk out.

Is it really that dickish of a move? If I was a villain out to take down a party, I would definitely try and disable the druid with such a glaring weakness. Maybe I can't kill them in their sleep but I could definitely replace their armor with a glammer chain shirt.

[memorax]

I think you are being antagonistic at this point Redjack. Yes when it comes to Summoning Magic Summoners are the class to choose. Wizards especially one with Conjuration as a specialty while a little weaker can also do it to a lesser degree. It's not like what I said was false. It's like saying that just because I don't like eating liver and said I liked eating meat. That I can't I like meat because I refuse to eat one type of meat.

If a villuan can catch a Druid by surprise or restrain or mind control. Then it's s valid tactic. If the villians constantly keep targeting the Druid with Chain shirts them yes IMO if is a dick move imo. Once twice more than that and it's targeting a character. It's like the npcs bypassing the martial classes in a group and heading straight for the wizard. Once twice, more that and it's the DM targeting a character, the key is to use tactics in moderation.

As for the Summoner and alignment restrictions. I'm still on the fence with that.

[Redjack_rose]

@Memorax

The only reason I call it out is we've all seen people apologize, then immediately say the exact same thing they are apologizing for. Either the summoner is the best, or wizards/bards are just as bad.

As for the rest of it, I agree if the villain repeatedly targets the druid [or any class/player] that's a pretty crappy thing to do.

[Anzyr]

The chain shirt Druid thing is really really pointless. If the person has the Druid under some form of mind control/helpless, there's a hundred better things they could be doing then making them merely "Ex-druids". This is the same issue with "just steal the Wizard's spellbook". I have yet to see a single scenario that isn't just GM fiat.

[memorax]

That's ok Redjack. When it comes to Summoning, the Summoner is king. Wizards IMO are so versatile that they can also do it just less effectively. Even. Bard has access to SM as a spell. Though IMO it's not worth it to take it until they can get it SM 6. It's fine were just discussing. Disagreements happen.

[LazarX]

HFTyrone wrote:

Edit: But no, in all seriousness, the summoner is not better than the Wizard. If Pathfinder was a wargame then that argument would hold merit,

It is, and it does. Pathfinder, like D+D before it, has always been a wargame with roleplaying bolted on.

[Redjack_rose]

Anzyr wrote:

The chain shirt Druid thing is really really pointless. If the person has the Druid under some form of mind control/helpless, there's a hundred better things they could be doing then making them merely "Ex-druids". This is the same issue with "just steal the Wizard's spellbook". I have yet to see a single scenario that isn't just GM fiat.

Okay, focusing on whether or not the GM could ''really'' get the druid in a chain shirt is missing the entire point.

The point is saying a druid is just as bad/worse than the summoner in terms of brokenness is pointless, when the druid has restrictions and role-play flavor that the original summoner never had.

[Psyren]

@ memorax - if you want to make a fighter that does things besides fighting (why you wouldn't play a different class at that point is beyond me, but anyway) you absolutely can. Go Lore Warden and be the random knowledge guy. Pick up Master Craftsman and be a smith of legend. VMC into any of the dozen options there. Get an animal companion or familiar. Play AS the familiar while the fighter character is actually your dull but well--meaning sidekick/bodyguard. PrC into something. Ask your GM to let you be a monster race fighter, like a Minotaur. You have options besides "I hit it" and they aren't hard to find, but the designers can't hold your hand every step of the way, they can only provide you rules and say "try this and see if you like it." Throwing your toys out of the pram won't help anyone, least of all yourself.

Envall wrote:

People play Pathfinder because their local community plays it in many cases.

So it can be either play Pathfinder or nothing at all.

And I feel for those people, but that's a problem they have to solve. And with tools like roll20 and MeetUp, it's easier to solve than ever before in the history of the hobby.

[Anzyr]

Redjack_rose wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

The chain shirt Druid thing is really really pointless. If the person has the Druid under some form of mind control/helpless, there's a hundred better things they could be doing then making them merely "Ex-druids". This is the same issue with "just steal the Wizard's spellbook". I have yet to see a single scenario that isn't just GM fiat.

Okay, focusing on whether or not the GM could ''really'' get the druid in a chain shirt is missing the entire point.

The point is saying a druid is just as bad/worse than the summoner in terms of brokenness is pointless, when the druid has restrictions and role-play flavor that the original summoner never had.

It's not missing the point. The point is that if a "limitation" is not really a limitation, then you can't claim a class is balanced by the not-an-actual-limitation. If *anyone* would be screwed in a particular situation then that isn't a limitation for the Druid, it's a limitation for *everyone*. Therefore, the Druid has no particular limitations, in much the same way a Wizards spellbook is not a limitation. The limitation you speak of simply is not one.

As to roleplay flavor, this too is no real limitation on a Druid as the Druidic codes imposes basically no restrictions outside of having to be Any Neutral and not teaching people a language you get for free. If you think that's in some way "limiting" within the actual scope of playing the game you are quite mistaken.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Kerney wrote:

All this thread has shown is that Paizo failed to get a near consensus on a toned down Summoner.

Since most people, including big summoner fans like myself, felt that a toned down summoner would be good thing, this should have been easy.

Instead we have an even more fractured base.

Lesson to game designers: Don't ignore existing flavor/cannon etc when revising a class, even if you wish you had done it differently the first time.

I figured that it was more of a -

Lesson to message board posters: No one ever agrees on the internet!

[captain yesterday]

I never agreed to that.

[Nox Aeterna]

Heh , it would take a miracle to get people to agree to just piss all over their favorite class for no particular reason.

[Psyren]

Kerney wrote:

All this thread has shown is that Paizo failed to get a near consensus on a toned down Summoner.

Since most people, including big summoner fans like myself, felt that a toned down summoner would be good thing, this should have been easy.

Instead we have an even more fractured base.

Lesson to game designers: Don't ignore existing flavor/cannon etc when revising a class, even if you wish you had done it differently the first time.

Expecting consensus around a nerf is pretty silly. People will protest just on principle or out of perception that other toys will be taken away if they agree to losing even one. Hell, there were a number of people saying Paragon Surge was totally fine and that Paizo shouldn't touch it.

Meanwhile, there is near consensus around the Unchained Rogue being an improvement, because it was a straight buff and compatible with all the existing archetypes.

So if consensus is (clearly) impossible to achieve, they may as well forge on and do what they have to do for the health of the game as a whole. A toned down option for GMs who want that, and then a requirement to use that toned down option in sanctioned play.

[Redjack_rose]

Anzyr wrote:

It's not missing the point. The point is that if a "limitation" is not really a limitation, then you can't claim a class is balanced by the not-an-actual-limitation. If *anyone* would be screwed in a particular situation then that isn't a limitation for the Druid, it's a limitation for *everyone*. Therefore, the Druid has no particular limitations, in much the same way a Wizards spellbook is not a limitation. The limitation you speak of simply is not one.

As to roleplay flavor, this too is no real limitation on a Druid as the Druidic codes imposes basically no restrictions outside of having to be Any Neutral and not teaching people a language you get for free. If you think that's in some way "limiting" within the actual scope of playing the game you are quite mistaken.

Have you missed that a druid must also revere nature and can't wear metal. It is a restriction. Munchkins hate restrictions.

Also, has no one seriously been hit by a glammered shirt before?

[Bob Bob Bob]

Redjack_rose wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

It's not missing the point. The point is that if a "limitation" is not really a limitation, then you can't claim a class is balanced by the not-an-actual-limitation. If *anyone* would be screwed in a particular situation then that isn't a limitation for the Druid, it's a limitation for *everyone*. Therefore, the Druid has no particular limitations, in much the same way a Wizards spellbook is not a limitation. The limitation you speak of simply is not one.

As to roleplay flavor, this too is no real limitation on a Druid as the Druidic codes imposes basically no restrictions outside of having to be Any Neutral and not teaching people a language you get for free. If you think that's in some way "limiting" within the actual scope of playing the game you are quite mistaken.

Have you missed that a druid must also revere nature and can't wear metal. It is a restriction. Munchkins hate restrictions.

Also, has no one seriously been hit by a glammered shirt before?

As in real life, my characters do not make a habit of wearing clothes that are not their own. Or magical clothes that they haven't identified yet. Or clothes that are heavier than anything else except the clothes of freaking royalty (and that's assuming mithral). In case you missed "The armor retains all its properties (including weight) when it is so disguised." So no, I've never played a wisdom-based casting class with low enough wisdom to fall for "try this 25 pound shirt, I swear it's normal clothes". Have you?

Edit: Sorry, unless you were talking about making the chain shirt look like their armor. Then I'd direct you to the first line: "Upon command, a suit of glamered armor changes shape and appearance to assume the form of a normal set of clothing." Bolding mine.

[Redjack_rose]

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

As in real life, my characters do not make a habit of wearing clothes that are not their own. Or magical clothes that they haven't identified yet. Or clothes that are heavier than anything else except the clothes of freaking royalty (and that's assuming mithral). In case you missed "The armor retains all its properties (including weight) when it is so disguised." So no, I've never played a wisdom-based casting class with low enough wisdom to fall for "try this 25 pound shirt, I swear it's normal clothes". Have you?

Edit: Sorry, unless you were talking about making the chain shirt look like their armor. Then I'd direct you to the first line: "Upon command, a suit of glamered armor changes shape and appearance to assume the form of a normal set of clothing." Bolding mine.

Because things like Lighten Object and Magic Aura also don't exist. A lightened mithral parade armor has a weight of 5 lbs, most outfits range from 2lbs [monk's outfit] to 10lbs [noble's outfit] with 5 lbs being the average.

After a long day of adventuring you're tired, so your shirt is a pound heavier, maybe your muscles are just damn sore from all them orcs last night.

-Shrugs- or maybe I'm just a much more creative GM then most.

[Snowblind]

Redjack_rose wrote:

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

As in real life, my characters do not make a habit of wearing clothes that are not their own. Or magical clothes that they haven't identified yet. Or clothes that are heavier than anything else except the clothes of freaking royalty (and that's assuming mithral). In case you missed "The armor retains all its properties (including weight) when it is so disguised." So no, I've never played a wisdom-based casting class with low enough wisdom to fall for "try this 25 pound shirt, I swear it's normal clothes". Have you?

Edit: Sorry, unless you were talking about making the chain shirt look like their armor. Then I'd direct you to the first line: "Upon command, a suit of glamered armor changes shape and appearance to assume the form of a normal set of clothing." Bolding mine.

Because things like Lighten Object and Magic Aura also don't exist. A lightened mithral parade armor has a weight of 5 lbs, most outfits range from 2lbs [monk's outfit] to 10lbs [noble's outfit] with 5 lbs being the average.

After a long day of adventuring you're tired, so your shirt is a pound heavier, maybe your muscles are just damn sore from all them orcs last night.

-Shrugs- or maybe I'm just a much more creative GM then most.

Why on god's earth is a druid taking off their clothes or armor(which is probably Light) in an area when their life is still at danger of ending violently?

Even if that's the case, for your idea to work an NPC would need to:
a)possess or acquire a roughly 5000gp piece of enchanted mithril armor.
b)Know where the PCs are when they camp for the night
c)Cast magic to hide or alter the magic aura, and lighten the armor. Oh, and they have to do this minutes before swapping the armor, since Lighten Object is minutes/level
d)Know that the druid takes off their armor at night despite there being no mechanical reason to do so and it being a stupid decision in-universe for any experienced adventurer OR somehow make the druid decide to take off their armor (Suggestion?)
e)Know when the druid is getting up, so they can swap their armor minutes before the druid gets dressed OR observe the entire party from a distance for hours and be ready to move the moment they know the druid is about to put their armor on
f)Sneak past the sentry(s) and swap the druid's armor in the pack right next to them without anybody noticing...IF the druid puts on their armor first thing after waking up. If they don't, the NPC needs to swap it when everybody is awake...fun fact, druids tend to have high Perception checks. And they need to know which one it is before hand
g)Get their 5000gp piece of armor back, since the druid getting a 5 grand paycheck probably isn't bad compensation for 24 hours of no spells.

I am probably missing a few things, as well.

This is less an issue of "creativity" and more of an issue of "if the NPC can pull this off then they should have killed the entire party instead, because they are damn well capable of it if they can pull this off". Frankly, it's an utterly ridiculous idea for a dozen very good reasons, and reeks of using blatant GM fiat to screw players out of the blue.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Redjack_rose wrote:

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

As in real life, my characters do not make a habit of wearing clothes that are not their own. Or magical clothes that they haven't identified yet. Or clothes that are heavier than anything else except the clothes of freaking royalty (and that's assuming mithral). In case you missed "The armor retains all its properties (including weight) when it is so disguised." So no, I've never played a wisdom-based casting class with low enough wisdom to fall for "try this 25 pound shirt, I swear it's normal clothes". Have you?

Edit: Sorry, unless you were talking about making the chain shirt look like their armor. Then I'd direct you to the first line: "Upon command, a suit of glamered armor changes shape and appearance to assume the form of a normal set of clothing." Bolding mine.

Because things like Lighten Object and Magic Aura also don't exist. A lightened mithral parade armor has a weight of 5 lbs, most outfits range from 2lbs [monk's outfit] to 10lbs [noble's outfit] with 5 lbs being the average.

After a long day of adventuring you're tired, so your shirt is a pound heavier, maybe your muscles are just damn sore from all them orcs last night.

-Shrugs- or maybe I'm just a much more creative GM then most.

Since what you previously posted was this:

Redjack_rose wrote:

Maybe I can't kill them in their sleep but I could definitely replace their armor with a glammer chain shirt.

I assumed you meant chain shirt. And armor. And now you're talking about two spells, one if which has a duration measured in minutes (or 10 minutes/level for the mass version, which is a 5th level spell) that you somehow slip into a player's backpack while they're using said backpack. Also assuming they change into clothes after adventuring and don't just sleep naked (popular among druids, especially with wildshape). Snowblind covered this better.

Don't pat yourself on the back for your "creativity". You've created a series of contrived, convoluted circumstances that, in the absolute best case, deny the druid their "magical" abilities. Which is spells, Wild Shape, Thousand Faces, and that's it. Pouncy McMurder? Still faithful, loyal, and will maul the @#$% out of you.

[Redjack_rose]

Unless your PC is just gross, they are going to bathe at some point. Unless they are paranoid, they're not going to watch their clothes 24/7. So a convenient switch while they are at the tavern, or bathing in the river, or any of the other hundred times during a campaign someone would believably take off their shirt because they're not disgusting. If your PC refuses to ever take off his clothing, then you should eventually give him penalties for smell, or tattered appearance, etc...

I'm sorry you can't possibly think of someone getting tricked, but it happens all the damn time. PC's mess up, they don't think, they roll low on their perception checks. Stories are full of crafty villains [or heroes] tricking people into losing their powers or worse. Dorian Gray is tricked into looking at his painting. Superman gets ambushed by kryptonite. The Warlock is tricked into picking up the Sword of Shannara... it happens all the time in fiction and for a reason

Also yes, I am aware the druid's animal companion doesn't leave if his powers do. Not the point, since we've already proven earlier in the thread the old eidolon is better than the animal companion.

Maybe the druid had a partner last night and he/she makes the switch. Fighting orcs isn't the only thing that gives you sore muscles. There are literally 100's of ways to trick someone.

Edit;
Yes I have been saying chain shirt, but any metal armor will do for this. Even a chained shirt can be brought down to 7 lbs. Odd, but not exactly condemning.

And yes, I think I will pat myself on the back over my creativity, considering I seem to have more than anything that's been suggested so far. If you haven't had a creative GM like this before, I'm sorry to hear that.

[Milo v3]

Redjack_rose wrote:

Unless your PC is just gross, they are going to bathe at some point.

Or the could just get the sorcerer to clean them with magic. That's what my players did one campaign.

[Redjack_rose]

Milo v3 wrote:

Redjack_rose wrote:

Unless your PC is just gross, they are going to bathe at some point.

Or the could just get the sorcerer to clean them with magic. That's what my players did one campaign.

Are you speaking of another spell besides Prestidigitation, because prestidigitation works on objetcs;

Quote:

It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round.

People/creatures are not items, the character as a person would eventually begin to stink. Not to mention definitely hit them with all sorts of nasty fungus and disease for poor hygiene. That s!~@ can kill you.

[Nicos]

The scenario is ridiculously contrived and silly, and even if it works it proves nothing at all. Just let it go people.

[Redjack_rose]

Nicos wrote:

The scenario is ridiculously contrived and silly, and even if it works it proves nothing at all. Just let it go people.

How is a classic trope of fantasy silly and contrived?

[Bob Bob Bob]

Well, the universal solution to cleaning I've seen is prestidigitation. It's really the most useful cantrip, by a wide margin. But for the sake of argument, let's assume a druid bathes. Where? Outdoors they'd have a guard posted (because random encounter tables). In a city same thing, except the guard would be supplied by the bathhouse and not a party member (unless they're paranoid). Either way it doesn't "just happen".

As for watching your clothes 24/7, as an adventurer I'm usually carrying everything I own 24/7, so yes, I watch it very closely.

Again, the problem isn't that you can't get to their clothes somehow. The problem is that you have to get to their clothes, swap them out, and get them to put on the new clothes while a minutes/level spell is still running. Otherwise they pick up a shirt that weighs more than their entire freaking outfit, pants, jacket, etc. included.

People absolutely do get tricked/robbed/whatever. In Pathfinder they should get a roll, and the two skills (sense motive and perception) are both based on one of the main stats for a druid. Additionally, nobody is saying that people being tricked is silly and contrived. They're saying that your scenario is silly and contrived. Because it is. You need two spells, an expensive (for NPCs) magic item, extensive knowledge of the habits of this particular druid, and the end result is "they lose spells for a day". With that same information and money you could just, you know, kill them.

You're not talking about creativity. You're talking about GM fiat. GM fiat can make anything happen and requires exactly zero creativity.

[Milo v3]

Redjack_rose wrote:

How is a classic trope of fantasy silly and contrived?

Tricking druids into wearing metal armour is not a classic trope of fantasy....

[Snowblind]

Redjack_rose wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Redjack_rose wrote:

Unless your PC is just gross, they are going to bathe at some point.

Or the could just get the sorcerer to clean them with magic. That's what my players did one campaign.

Are you speaking of another spell besides Prestidigitation, because prestidigitation works on objetcs;

Quote:

It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round.

People/creatures are not items, the character as a person would eventually begin to stink. Not to mention definitely hit them with all sorts of nasty fungus and disease for poor hygiene. That s#++ can kill you.

If there was only some easy way for the druid to generate liquid H2O that could be used to wash the grime on the druid onto the ground or into their clothes (which can be magically cleaned).

Redjack_rose wrote:

Nicos wrote:

The scenario is ridiculously contrived and silly, and even if it works it proves nothing at all. Just let it go people.

How is a classic trope of fantasy silly and contrived?

Because to actually work it requires either:

a)Lots of blatant GM fiat to handwave away all the problems
b)An NPC who is so powerful compared to the party that they could have easily caused a TPK instead of screwing with the Druid
c)The PCs to drop their guard with regards to their items, which usually cost roughly the equivalent of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars

Option a) doesn't make you creative - it just means that you are throwing out the rules whenever you feel like, even when the players would expect you to mostly abide by them. Seriously, if you pulled this in a game I was playing and acted like it's an OK thing to do then I would personally go find a different table to play at. It's like "rocks fall, you die", except it's instead "rocks fall, you don't have your powers for the next day". I don't want to play under a GM who does that, and I imagine a lot of others would agree (like the other people telling you your idea is bad).

Option b) doesn't make you creative - it just makes you a GM who is throwing high level NPCs at the party to toy with them. Exactly how they do so is irrelevant, since all you are going to provoke is a feeling of helplessness since the PCs could be murdered at any time when said high level NPCs feel like it.

Option c) doesn't make you creative - it just means that the PCs screwed up and you as the GM are pulling your punches heavily since the PCs should become poverty stricken if not actually killed if a bad guy can get easy access to their gear. That's a lot more nasty than the druid losing their powers for a day but getting 5kgp worth of gear as consolidation.

Oh yeah, and...

Milo v3 wrote:

...

Tricking druids into wearing metal armour is not a classic trope of fantasy....

Also, that.

[Redjack_rose]

1. Sleight of Hand is a thing. So is invisibility, which states an item dropped by an invisible creature becomes visible, and an item picked up becomes visible if tucked away. It's not hard to switch an item.

2. I never said someone wouldn't get a roll. As a GM who believes in fairness, I'd probably give them a roll even if they wouldn't deserve one [such as the incredibly hot boy/girl that you spent the night with pulls your shirt on for you].

3. Bad guys are notorious for wanting to do thing with their own hands. The bad guy knows the part is going to confront him, so bam takes out the druid with it's achilles heel, maybe gives the wizard a fake spell component pouch, and gives the barbarian something to make him fatigued. Then attacks them later that day.

4. Here's an idea. Same glammered armor, made to look like a shirt but hidden not as non-magical, but as something magical. Magic Aura states;

Quote:

You alter an item's aura so that it registers to detect spells (and spells with similar capabilities) as though it were non-magical, or a magic item of a kind you specify

The bad guy slaps the glammered armor on some minion he knows they'll be fighting, doesn't even need to lighten or make it mithral now since it's a magic item [though maybe he lightens just in case] and makes it look to detect magic like something the druid really, really wants. Unfettered Shirt, Snakeskin Tunic, Druid Vestments, Whatever... any ''clothing'' magic item will do.

5. I've thrown out a number of creative options, all in line with classic fiction and all reasonable unless your a paranoid super-munchkin, that hammer on the druids Achille's heel. If you still think these are GM fiat I don't know what to say, other than if a player pulled this I'd probably give him a pat on the back for creativity and roll to see if the bad guy noticed [just like I'd see if the player noticed].

[Redjack_rose]

Milo v3 wrote:

Redjack_rose wrote:

How is a classic trope of fantasy silly and contrived?

Tricking druids into wearing metal armour is not a classic trope of fantasy....

... Did you miss the ''Tricking people to lose their powers'' part?

Getting demons to stand in holding circles.
Vampires with dead man's blood.
Superman with kryptonite.
Dorian Gray and his painting.
Fairies and cold iron.
Bad guy drinks something to give him power, takes powers instead..
etc...

[Milo v3]

Redjack_rose wrote:

... Did you miss the ''Tricking people to lose their powers'' part?

Getting demons to stand in holding circles.
Vampires with dead man's blood.
Superman with kryptonite.
Dorian Gray and his painting.
Fairies and cold iron.
Bad guy drinks something to give him power, takes powers instead..
etc...

Except it was done in a silly and contrived manner of "trying to trick druids into wearing metal armour", where so far none of your described methods would have worked on any player I have GM'd...

I'd have been much easier to just cast an enchantment on the firggin druid and order them to put the armour on.

[Redjack_rose]

Snowblind wrote:

How is a classic trope of fantasy silly and contrived?

Because to actually work it requires either:

a)Lots of blatant GM fiat to handwave away all the problems
b)An NPC who is so powerful compared to the party that they could have easily caused a TPK instead of screwing with the Druid
c)The PCs to drop their guard with regards to their items, which usually cost roughly the equivalent of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

A. Do you know what GM fiat means? Everything I've said is possible within the rules.

B. Lighten Object mass is 5th level, which makes it a 9th level wizard. All other spells I've mentioned are 1st level.

Generally speaking a big bad guy is going to be about 2-3 levels higher than the PC's. So a bad guy for a party of 4 level 6-7's could pull this of ability wise.

So it's about 5,000 [so 2,500 if they sell it] for the item. At 6th level, the 4 person party's combined wealth by level should be about 64,000 [16,000 x 4]. This item is roughly between .039 to 0.78 percent of their loot. In return, it takes out roughly 25 percent of their effective fighting force.

Why is this so unbelievable that a APL appropriate bad guy could/would pull this off?

C. Sure they might guard their shiny stuff, but are you really going to guard you 1 gp clothes you left hanging up to dry like a hawk, on the off chance a theif might want your knickers? Are you serious?

[Redjack_rose]

Milo v3 wrote:

Except it was done in a silly and contrived manner of "trying to trick druids into wearing metal armour", where so far none of your described methods would have worked on any player I have GM'd...

Have you tried it? Seriously, I've had people say run through modules checking every corpse for undead by zapping it, only to forget about it in the last room where there's an undead hiding as a corpse. It was a pfs module, I couldn't have b~%*!+!#ted "that's the undead one!'' it if I wanted to.

Unless you've actually tried to trick a player into something like this before, you don't have room to swing a cat talking about it here. I on the other hand, have pulled similar tricks before... it's easier than you think.

On another note; I once had a player go 4 levels before they realized their ring of protection was cursed and was giving them negatives. It was amusing despite the hints I kept dropping and rolls I kept letting them take to notice they were getting hit when they shouldn't.

Edit;

As for prestidigitation/create water ''I never take off my clothes!'' That's just being a munchkin. I would make you wear cut offs under your clothes out of general principle.

[Milo v3]

To be completely honest I'm still wondering how you're getting metal to feel like cloth or hide. I also still don't get why you would try an elaborate plot when a simple single casting of a spell can accomplish it.

[Redjack_rose]

Milo v3 wrote:

To be completely honest I'm still wondering how you're getting metal to feel like cloth or hide.

Glammered.

If takes on the appearance of a normal pair of clothes but keeps the properties [like weight/armor penalty] of the armor.

Smell, Feel, Taste, and Sight and Sound are all aspects of appearance.

[Milo v3]

Redjack_rose wrote:

Glammered.

If takes on the appearance of a normal pair of clothes but keeps the properties [like weight/armor penalty] of the armor.

Smell, Feel, Taste, and Sight and Sound are all aspects of appearance.

... That's a very different definition of appearance you have their. Appearance: "The way that someone or something looks."

Going by the definition of appearance, glammered does not do what you suggest. Also, it's very very obvious sound is still like the normal outfit, you still take a penalty to sound based stealth checks with a glamoured full-plate.

[Redjack_rose]

Milo v3 wrote:

... That's a very different definition of appearance you have their. Appearance: "The way that someone or something looks."

Going by the definition of appearance, glammered does not do what you suggest. Also, it's very very obvious sound is still like the normal outfit, you still take a penalty to sound based stealth checks with a glamoured full-plate.

So when you make an illusion of a wall and someone fails their will save, to they feel a wall or do they feel nothing but still believe it's a wall?

Edit; Taken from the Illusion section of magic.

Quote:

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

[Milo v3]

Redjack_rose wrote:

So when you make an illusion of a wall and someone fails their will save, to they feel a wall or do they feel nothing but still believe it's a wall?

"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw." They don't believe it's a wall.

Quote:

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Glammered the special armour is not a spell of the glamer subschool. Even if it was, it says or. The look part is what happening, not any of the others. Are you suggesting that invisibility makes you silent and scentless as well?