So I was lookin at the spiritualist and I was thinkin... huh?
It literally seems like ANOTHER pseudo unchained summoner. Like an alternate class of the summoner.
Is the spiritualist really different enough to warrent a newbclass or should it have been an.alternate class?
The spirit is very different. The leveling is different, their abilities and no customizing. And the spiritualist doesn't have anything to replace the summon SLA with.
|
Their spell list is also quite a bit different. The Spiritualist is more like a spontaneous divine caster, with spells most closely matching the Shaman list.
Also: They do not have the Summon Monster SLA (as mentioned).
And they don't have anything akin to the Summon Eidolon spell. This turned out to be a huge disadvantage, as I wasn't able to find any way to bring out her Phantom quicker than the 1 minute ritual.
I thought the same thing. Neat concept, but spiritualists seem more like a Summoner archetype.
I will say that the choice of natural attacks was extremely poor.
It is entirely possible to make an effective melee buddy without going with the million claws. But the problem with the phantom is that it has TOO MANY natural attacks for them to be good.
With a single natural attack, their slam attack would do 1.5x str/power attack damage. If they had the multiattack ability (like eidolons and animal companions), they would get an iterative with that and still keep the 1.5x. After that, you could throw on haste and hurtful, and you would have something perfectly servicable as a melee character.
Of course, I am mostly looking at anger with my complaints (since it is the 'I do str' mechanics). Hate might do well enough with the two attacks, the methods of extra attcks, and all that bonus damage.
The rest... you should not look to them for damage. They are a debuff mechanic more than anything, typically.
I will also say that their numbers are just generally univerally...worse than eidolons. Which would not have been as bad if they didn't still keep the 'shared item slots' mechanic.
Past that...they are still worse than eidolons, since those get various skill boosting mechanics that lets them do various skill monkey and they have plenty of general abilities that are good for utility.
So yes- debuff mechanic that doesn't eat your action economy, from as far as I could see. I can understand they serve a different purpose from eidolons, but having other things to do other than their shtick would be nice. And since some of them 'doing damage' as their shtick....
I find them quite handy.
If the GM forbids summoners at the table , more often than not i go for the spiritualist.
They arent as capable as the summoner in the play style i like , but that never stopped me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find them quite handy.
If the GM forbids summoners at the table , more often than not i go for the spiritualist.
They arent as capable as the summoner in the play style i like , but that never stopped me.
GMs who forbid summoners are bad GMs. Yep, I said it. Disagree if you want, but I'm firmly convinced I'm right.
GMs who forbid summoners are bad GMs. Yep, I said it. Disagree if you want, but I'm firmly convinced I'm right.
What if the ban has nothing to do with balance, but is for setting reasons? Are they still a bad GM?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't recall the last time someone voiced an opinion and claimed they were wrong at the same time.
The opinion that I am voicing in this post is wrong.
The opinion that I am voicing in this post is wrong.
I don't recall the last time someone voiced an opinion and claimed they were wrong at the same time.
Trying to clear the forums of spam bots?