|
Why are they being silly. If the system has flaws it's the fault of the system. Should DMs use other options that enhance s Fighter at the table yes. They sure as hell are not forced to. The Fighter by RAW could have been so much more IMO. Saying their nothing wrong because "options" just highlight the flaws even more. Telling me that I should be taking other archetypes to compensate. Use 3pp. Hope the DMs allows it. Again does nothing to sell me the class. I have enough work to do as a DM. It's not my job to fix the flaws of a rpg.
I don't think they're being forced to. But someone isn't forced to wear a parachute if they jump out of a plane either, yet I can still think not doing so is pretty silly.
It's true that DMing is a lot of work. That's why the designers publish things like archetypes and variant rules. That's why 3PP create options too, because there is a demand. To ignore all that while complaining strikes me as counterproductive at best.
And that's also why Unchained Summoner was created, because there was demand for a weaker summoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I thought Souls games were annoyingly repetitive...
|
If your hand goes through, you can see it, you can see and feel your hand passing through the air were the wall is meant to be. That is proof that it is an illusion. Thus it auto-disbelieves.Prove that touching is sufficient proof.
You just made a be all, end all ruling. Prove it.
Touching, means interaction, which, would allow a save.
You say otherwise.
Prove it.
You don't know how Figments work, do you?
You don't know how Figments work, do you?
Yes I do... But most figments do not have a tactile element, meaning if you touch them you realise nothing is there (though something like fire can work with major image as people would likely stop before they touch it, feeling the heat as they get near). If you cast silent image, and someone walks through it, that is proof that it is an illusion, thus auto-save.
Someone has to believe they can walk through, or put their hand through.
No. If you lean on the air, mistakeningly thinking a wall is there, you don't successfully lean on the wall, you fall backwards (hopefully you catch yourself quickly and turn it into a stumble so you don't look like a giant idiot, but whatever).
How? When they touch it, they get a save to disbelieve.
Interaction, allows a save.
Interaction, does not immediately allow one to disbelieve.
What is interaction to you?
Interaction would depend on the illusion. For example, the fire via major image (I think it's major that can replicate temperature). When you start feeling the heat, hearing, or seeing the illusion, roll will save. If you walk into the illusionary fire, and not feel pain you will realise it is an illusion and auto-save.
For an illusionary wall, looking at it would be an interaction. Inspecting it really close would be in interaction. But putting your hand on it and not feeling anything would be an interaction but it is an interaction that provides proof that it is an illusion so it is an automatic save.
This is the reason Why the figment spells list what senses they fool. If they didn't then silent image would have all the same benefits of major image.
If we go with your interpretation, when someone goes near a silent image fire and don't feel the heat or hear anything they make a will save and if they fail they suddenly feel the heat and hear a fire... Making silent image much more powerful than it is.
That sounds like more than touching.
What is interaction with a wall, for you?
For an illusionary wall, looking at it closely would be an interaction. Inspecting it really close would be in interaction. But putting your hand on it and not feeling anything would be an interaction (because anything you do with the illusion is an interaction by definition, and this is the cause of the confusion of interpretations) but it is an interaction that provides proof that it is an illusion so it is an automatic success on the willsave.
This is the reason Why the figment spells list what senses they fool. If they didn't then silent image would have all the same benefits of major image.
If we go with your interpretation, when someone goes near a silent image fire and don't feel the heat or hear anything they make a will save and if they fail they suddenly feel the heat and hear a fire... Making silent image much more powerful than it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They need to do away with the auto-disbelieve altogether. It's pretty much impossible to differentiate between that and interaction anyways. All it does is cause confusion and inconsistency between tables.
Yes. You go near a Silent Image fire, you feel no heat, you get a save.
So in your games Silent Image is as powerful as Major Image... that's pretty stupid.
In your games, Illusion magic is worthless garbage.
Nope. People just use figments in ways so that people don't interact with the elements of a figment that don't exist.... because the figment doesn't make those elements.
I just don't make up rules out of nowhere and have spells do things they say they don't do. If a spell says it only affects the visual sense, it only affects the visual sense. It's how the game works.
And here i thought it was already pretty well know that these illusion spells could vary of how useful they are a lot from DM to DM.
The rules just arent clear enough.
On mine i would follow blackbloodtroll ruling and ultimately i agree with Ravingdork , it all would have been much simpler if there werent any auto pass.
The rules just arent clear enough.
No arguments on that :P
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.
If you care, more power to you, and 4e is that way. ---->
This might be a new record for cognitive dissonance in a Paizo thread.
On the one hand, the summoner totally needed to be nerfed, because it was "overpowered" so it had to be nerfed for the sake of game balance.At the same time, game balance doesn't matter in pathfinder because not everyone cares about it, and anyone who cares about game balance should go play 4e, so overpowered stuff shouldn't be nerfed.
Leaving aside arumgents about whether the original summoner is "overpowered", or whether or not the unchained summoner is "nerfed" (or nerfed in the "right way", whatever that means to you), you can't seriously believe both of those things at once without top-notch doublethink.
I think he was talking about how unchained is a variant rule. Or that summoner problems were deeper than merely balance. Perhaps he is saying they were in fun to play with or play as.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
If you care, more power to you, and 4e is that way. ---->
This might be a new record for cognitive dissonance in a Paizo thread.
On the one hand, the summoner totally needed to be nerfed, because it was "overpowered" so it had to be nerfed for the sake of game balance.At the same time, game balance doesn't matter in pathfinder because not everyone cares about it, and anyone who cares about game balance should go play 4e, so overpowered stuff shouldn't be nerfed.
Leaving aside arumgents about whether the original summoner is "overpowered", or whether or not the unchained summoner is "nerfed" (or nerfed in the "right way", whatever that means to you), you can't seriously believe both of those things at once without top-notch doublethink.
I suspect the thought process didn't go much beyond "Pathfinder perfect system! PDT perfect gods! If no love Paizo, play 4e heretic!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure of the intention of that poster, but in my opinion this game has been churning out books for a long time, that just don't care about class balance issues like caster disparity. And the game has reached an age, where try as you might, it's now so ingrained into the fiber of the game that changing this would be so monumental a task as to be a completely different version.
Meanwhile, if you want a game that is at least a little closer to balance on the caster disparity issue, then at least 4E attempted it from the beginning.
4th edition is kinda an old boogieman at this point.
Dear god, it is 2015!
4th edition is kinda an old boogieman at this point.
Dear god, it is 2015!
It's basically the same age as Pathfinder, so seams as valid as anything
|
If gamers don't like the feel of 4E one can go play 5e which does the same. The difference is its one thing to tell a poster to play a different game. Another when it's " if you don't like go somewhere else and play 5E.
The door==========================>5E
See how silly that looks.
I don't even Think it's so much " Paizo and the PDT rules". So much as the poster not liking anyone challenging him on a forum. Which his right and I can respect that. Not exactly conductive to have a discussion IMO.
|
It's basically the same age as Pathfinder, so seams as valid as anything4th edition is kinda an old boogieman at this point.
Dear god, it is 2015!
Its also mostly dead, unlike pathfinder. Kinda like any version of the summoner class.
The old version has too many places its banned, and not without reason. The new one has few if any players, at least from where I stand. At least I've not encountered any. I've seen rogues, which seem to have had a simular purpose i.e. revising a class to deal with power disparity.
The latter has been popularly embraced. The former, not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If gamers don't like the feel of 4E one can go play 5e which does the same. The difference is its one thing to tell a poster to play a different game. Another when it's " if you don't like go somewhere else and play 5E.
The door==========================>5E
See how silly that looks.
I don't even Think it's so much " Paizo and the PDT rules". So much as the poster not liking anyone challenging him on a forum. Which his right and I can respect that. Not exactly conductive to have a discussion IMO.
The problem is that you are complaining about things, where you have to face the reality that they aren't going to change. Martial-Caster disparity is here to stay. And you can complain about it all you want, but it won't change anything, because that's just the game. And if you don't like the game, then you should find something you like better.
|
|
I suspect the thought process didn't go much beyond "Pathfinder perfect system! PDT perfect gods! If no love Paizo, play 4e heretic!"
I've never once claimed Pathfinder is perfect, but that's a lovely strawman, did you build it all by yourself?
This might be a new record for cognitive dissonance in a Paizo thread.
On the one hand, the summoner totally needed to be nerfed, because it was "overpowered" so it had to be nerfed for the sake of game balance.At the same time, game balance doesn't matter in pathfinder because not everyone cares about it, and anyone who cares about game balance should go play 4e, so overpowered stuff shouldn't be nerfed.
Leaving aside arumgents about whether the original summoner is "overpowered", or whether or not the unchained summoner is "nerfed" (or nerfed in the "right way", whatever that means to you), you can't seriously believe both of those things at once without top-notch doublethink.
It's only 'doublethink' if you live for false dichotomies. "Magic-using classes should be generally stronger than the ones that don't" and "the APG summoner was too easy to break the game with" are not mutually exclusive concepts. Hopefully that is clearer.
I don't even Think it's so much " Paizo and the PDT rules". So much as the poster not liking anyone challenging him on a forum. Which his right and I can respect that. Not exactly conductive to have a discussion IMO.
I'm perfectly fine with being challenged. But having words put in my mouth is distinctly unsporting.
|
|
The problem is that you are complaining about things, where you have to face the reality that they aren't going to change. Martial-Caster disparity is here to stay. And you can complain about it all you want, but it won't change anything, because that's just the game. And if you don't like the game, then you should find something you like better.
Well there is nothing stopping the devs if they truly wanted too. To try and fix the martial-caster disparity. I'm sure they could do it in a such way that does not invalidate casters nor make the game unrecognizable. The thing is if they want and imo they truly don't. So I see no reason why fans of the game should be happy. let alone accepting of the disparity.
I know some it's a hard concept to understand for some. We are fans. That does not mean we have to be happy about every element of a rpg. I think 5E is the better rpg. One element of it bothers me so much that I'm probably never going to play it. I can still recommend both 5E and PF to a interested fellow gamer
I like the majority of Pathfinder. A few elements I don't. Telling myself and other like myself to leave if we don't like it completely. Is both a galaxy sized cop-out and asking for a echo chamber style forum. If that's what the fans who like the system completely want tell me.It's be a pretty boring place though. Quiet. But boring imo.
|
|
Well there is nothing stopping the devs if they truly wanted too. To try and fix the martial-caster disparity. I'm sure they could do it in a such way that does not invalidate casters nor make the game unrecognizable.
But this is what I don't understand. If you can't even get your GM to try the lightweight variant rules they've published that help to do this, what makes you think you could get your GM to try out an entirely redesigned and overhauled system? Where is the data that this would be feasible, or even desirable to attempt?
You're asking them to take a lot on faith, with very little to gain and a great deal to lose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure of the intention of that poster, but in my opinion this game has been churning out books for a long time, that just don't care about class balance issues like caster disparity. And the game has reached an age, where try as you might, it's now so ingrained into the fiber of the game that changing this would be so monumental a task as to be a completely different version.
Meanwhile, if you want a game that is at least a little closer to balance on the caster disparity issue, then at least 4E attempted it from the beginning.
Wow, it's been awhile since I've seen that one. Obviously, it is utterly impossible to fix C/M disparity. Thus, any published fixes clearly never happened. Yep, Path of War, Strange Magic, Ultimate Antipodism, Spheres of Power, Nice Things for Fighters...nope, none of those were ever written, let alone published.
|
|
You're asking them to take a lot on faith, with very little to gain and a great deal to lose.
You mean like they did with Unchained and the Advanced Class guide. The second one was already unpopular somewhat because of the poor editing. The 9 page errata that replace a large chunk of the book did not help the situation. Every book they publish runs the risk of being unpopular. Or popular. We gamers are a fickle bunch. I mean their those in the hobby who act like every new book will spell the doom of the game because it adds more rules.
Advanced Class guide gets announced the predicatable more rules the sky is falling from some of the fans. Advance race guide rinse and repeat.
I get that your good with the status quo. Not everyone is. I hardly doubt one book and probably a optional one at that is going to make them lose a great deal. All they have to do is say that it is optional material. Forcing no one to use them. If you don't want martials to get nice things says so. Telling me that a attempt to fix the disparity is going to be for little gain and a big loss is a load of BS.
@ Sarcasm Dragon. While the products you listed are fixes I think he meant official not 3pp. I could be wrong.
I think Melkiador is right. The time to argue and complain was like 3-4 years ago. What we have now, for good or bad or whatever, is what the devs wanted for pathfinder.
True but the fans lose the right to be offended when others in the hobby says that Paizo refuses to give martials nice things. you can't have it both ways. You can't tell people no to say anything. Then get offended when they criticize a rpg company you like.
|
|
I get that your good with the status quo. Not everyone is. I hardly doubt one book and probably a optional one at that is going to make them lose a great deal. All they have to do is say that it is optional material. Forcing no one to use them. If you don't want martials to get nice things says so. Telling me that a attempt to fix the disparity is going to be for little gain and a big loss is a load of BS.
So then you are good with optional variants? So am I! So what the heck are we arguing about?
True but the fans lose the right to be offended when others in the hobby says that Paizo refuses to give martials nice things. you can't have it both ways. You can't tell people no to say anything. Then get offended when they criticize a rpg company you like.
You can say whatever you want, I'm not stopping you. I'm just more a fan of actually doing something. Like using Unchained and even 3PP if it has something I like.
|
|
So then you are good with optional variants? So am I! So what the heck are we arguing about?
I never said I was against optional variants. Except that unless a DM is willing to use them at a table. It's a fix a viable one. Except no everyone maybe willing to use it. It requires DM approval to use. Having to spend extra money on 3pp. Which not every gaming group can do. As well as learn more rules. Again not every group whether it be DM or players want to do. One can't say "No your not allowed to be unhappy because their are solutions to the flaws in PF. By god your going to use them whether you want too or not." That's not how life works. Nor how people do things.
Even then their should be no need to have to go outside of core. To fix the issues with the system. The Fighter could have been so much more without invalidating backwards compiability. Nor reducing what caster could do at the table. Or the power level of caster. If anything 3pp kind of shows what they could have tried to do. If they wanted too imo. The devs chose to do what they did. I can live with it. Does not mean I'm happy with it. I can still play and enjoy PF. I'm probably never ever going to take a Fighter. At least the regular version.
|
|
So, as a fair number of you guys have said, the Unsummoner (I really like that nickname) suffers from a bit of straight jacketing with restricted subtypes and alignments. I am in this camp. However, things are looking up.
I'm getting the impression that Paizo has more elbow room to expand upon the class. More archetypes, more feats, and more subtypes. I wouldn't be surprised if they already had a few more types of eidolons in the works for a book in development. Heck, just look at Monster Summoner's Handbook. The Morphic Savant is one of the nicest things to happen to the class since release. It even works, both functionally and optimally, for both iterations of the class.
So! I dare say we put a positive spin on the thread and talk about content we'd love to see in the future, now that Paizo has...
B-)
Unchained themselves from the Advanced Summoner. Personally, I'd love to see a (possibly) weaker, two-level version of Boon Companion to keep your BFF up to snuff if you want to dip into a different class.
I find it hard to see much of anything positive about the future of summoners when the Unsummoner sits in the room. The eidolon non-melee/pounce evolutions are still terrible, the First Worlder still reeks, the class has the dubious wonder of two archetypes of the same name and the only thing that honestly changed was the fact that the Unsummoner requires you follow one of the builds presented for the APG summoner eidolon (for those of you who don't know what the extra 20 entries beneath the eidolon mean, they're literally a bestiary creature-turned-eidolon) and then added like... an ability I guess, to compensate for the massive amount of RP restrictions. Seriously, there are like 6 pages of arguing about how the eidolon was nerfed when it's 99% the same - just the pounce builds have a slightly harder time being their boring murderbeast selves while the fun and creativity of the original class was sucked out. For those of you who felt the original was too complex, that was the point of the eidolon models in Ultimate Magic. I agree that the Unsummoner had a nifty idea of holding a player's hand into the class, but this is archetype stuff at best - not something that forbids your chaotic good pirate freebooter from having a mini mechanical pirate ship eidolon because "woah hey wrong alignment". I get that the eidolon is a hard concept to grasp - I struggled for almost six months to understand it. That's not a reason to trade off an entire half of the feature for some hand-holding!
That aside, Rosc:
I am honestly just plain amazed that the morphic savant DOESN"T follow the chain of every other summoner archetype and act like a secret trap, though in truth even then it sure comes close.
If there is the glimmer of hope on the horizon and the garbage that exists starts to fade away... I guess my hope is that somehow a decent feydolon concept gets made, one where it's genuinely worth it to go for it AND the magical evolutions are reduced in price to fit the theme, instead of just ending up with a third wildcaller archetype >.>
My other hope is that somehow, some day, they introduce an archetype that does nothing more than drop the summon monster SLA entirely for more eidolon stuff. I don't summon other monsters, I use my eidolon because that is the purpose of my class. It'd be nice to be able to play to that somehow. It;d also be nice if the person worded it in such a way that it works with any Summoner archetype, instead of the usual "oh this replaces trap sense with some other terrible ability, thus preventing you from ever having your cake and eating it too, all because of this one single little nitpick." Something like "this stacks with all archetypes" in the text would be bomb, because then it would even account for that morphic savant and you could truly make your ever-shifting protean entity in truth, and not be limited by the fact that morphic savant changes an ability you no longer have. That would be really, really cool.
Finally they need to do evolution price adjustments. There are too many garbage evolutions at terrible prices. This was complained about before Unsummoner and, since like I said, Unsummoner did nothing to change any of them, those trapvolutions are all still there.
The problem is that you are complaining about things, where you have to face the reality that they aren't going to change. Martial-Caster disparity is here to stay. And you can complain about it all you want, but it won't change anything, because that's just the game. And if you don't like the game, then you should find something you like better.If gamers don't like the feel of 4E one can go play 5e which does the same. The difference is its one thing to tell a poster to play a different game. Another when it's " if you don't like go somewhere else and play 5E.
The door==========================>5E
See how silly that looks.
I don't even Think it's so much " Paizo and the PDT rules". So much as the poster not liking anyone challenging him on a forum. Which his right and I can respect that. Not exactly conductive to have a discussion IMO.
Yes even 5e didn't fix the disparity problem. All the fullcasters are tier 2 and everyone else is tier 3. You can play PF games with that kind of balance, you just have to use a lot of the things I stopped liking in PF (endless pages of rules, I can't even run a rogue in PF without feeling like I'm spending too much effort on rules. Let alone something like a magus. Comparatively, I find full casters easier to run).
4e did fix the disparity problem but it was an entirely different game because of the way they did it.
|
|
That aside, Rosc:
I am honestly just plain amazed that the morphic savant DOESN"T follow the chain of every other summoner archetype and act like a secret trap, though in truth even then it sure comes close.
Sadly, it's lawful counterpart did not fare so well. But yes, some kind of Feydolon would be nice. Or an undead, maybe? I know there is at least one kind of outsider undead in the Bestiary, and most likely more in the additional monster lists.
Finally they need to do evolution price adjustments. There are too many garbage evolutions at terrible prices.
Which ones? I know the breath attack isn't worth the points you put into it (okay for Evolution Surge though) and Blindsense really eats into your pool.