Summoner vs. Leadership: Why is the former considered more broken?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

As the title states, it is an honest question. Consider this: a WIZARD, widely regarded as one of the more broken classes (If there is such a thing as broken,) can take leadership and gain MORE power from just that feat than a summoner's eidolon.

A cohort with about the same power level as an eidolon PLUS an army of followers that can often overwhelm foes with natural 20's, even if they could not hit the enemy otherwise? Insanity in a feat is what leadership is.

To this day I still don't see why people were all on the 'nerf-bomb the summoner' bandwagon when you could easily get more out of a 7th level FEAT that ANY CLASS could take!

As a note, I have always disliked how high of a power curve leadership is on and that has been exacerbated when paired with 'summoner is broken' arguments, considering that the summoner's main class feature can be had by a FEAT!

That's the end of that rant. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on the matter, because I have tried way too hard to conceive of a way that leadership can be considered balanced and the summoner, by comparison, is not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The real strength of the summoner comes from standard action minute per level duration summons.

At levels pre 7, the eidolon is generally as good if not better than a martial as well.

That said Leadership is banned at many tables and in PFS and listed as an always take if your gm is fool enough to let you have it in just about every guide i've ever read.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe Leadership should've been one of those "take more than once" feats, where every purchase of the feat offers a certain number of hit dice's worth of minions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

From what I've read people ban Leadership more than Summoner, it's just that summoner get's more attention because it's a base class.


Precisely. As-written, leadership does far more than even class features, such as animal companions, familiars, eidolons, and what have you.

Regarding the Summon Monster class feature, I do not consider it broken because of a few caveats.

Rules wrote:

Summon Monster I (Sp)

Starting at 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. Drawing upon this ability uses up the same power as the summoner uses to call his eidolon. As a result, he can only use this ability when his eidolon is not summoned. He can cast this spell as a standard action and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level). At 3rd level, and every 2 levels thereafter, the power of this ability increases by one spell level, allowing him to summon more powerful creatures (to a maximum of summon monster IX at 17th level). At 19th level, this ability can be used as gate or summon monster IX. If used as gate, the summoner must pay any required material components. A summoner cannot have more than one summon monster or gate spell active in this way at one time. If this ability is used again, any existing summon monster or gate immediately ends. These summon spells are considered to be part of his spell list for the purposes of spell trigger and spell completion items. In addition, he can expend uses of this ability to fufill the construction requirements of any magic item he creates, so long as he can use this ability to cast the required spell.

This means that:

a. You cannot go crazy summoning multiple creatures, burning through all your daily uses to effectively 1-man gank the enemy.

and

b. You cannot have the eidolon out at the same time as your summoned monster, a HUGE drawback that many overlook and adds a lot of balance.

Now, the standard action makes it a little more viable than a regular Summon Monster spell, which is itself a full round to cast and uses components to cast, but a Wizard of equal level can do better than that by far and has a LOT more versatility with what he can do. The wizard also does not have mutually-exclusive abilities like the summoner does, which is also a huge bonus.


Leadership is generally ignored as a power option because it is almost always either banned outright or houseruled (especially due to the relatively open wording of the feat). In 10+ years I have never played in a campaign where leadership was played by the book.

Summoner gets attention because it has a high optimisation floor. In optimised environments it is considered good but not game-breaking as it has a relatively low optimisation ceiling compared to e.g. wizard.

If you play video games, the summoner would be like, Bloodseeker in Dota 2 or 6-pooling in Starcraft 2: characters/strategies that people like to complain about but don't actually have much impact in optimised play.

*edit*

(actually, those comparisons may be more apt to a class such as the Gunslinger. The Summoner is actually a good class - but how good it is often gets overstated. Bloodseeker, like the Gunslinger, is mostly a trash class/character that has a big 'wow' potential when it hits its stride).

(also, master summoner is actually pretty damn silly).


Thread premise is backwards.
Leadership is considered more broken, thus is outright banned much more often.
It doesn't get discussed much because of that ban, it simply isn't used as much.
It's broken-ness is so obvious that there's no debate needed, if you use it you are OK with that power-bloat.

Summoner is not so clear cut, many many people do allow it in games, and especially post-Unchained the debate is not straight-forward.


Divinitus wrote:

This means that:

a. You cannot go crazy summoning multiple creatures, burning through all your daily uses to effectively 1-man gank the enemy.

You still have spells, which aren't subject to the simultaneous usage limitation that the class ability is. ("cannot have more than one... active IN THIS WAY" i.e. via class ability)

Quote:
b. You cannot have the eidolon out at the same time as your summoned monster, a HUGE drawback that many overlook and adds a lot of balance.

Get real, selectively ignoring rules will break just about any part of this game, eidolon/standard-action-summons/gate exclusivity is obvious to any half-competent player.

The un-mentioned advantage of Standard Action Summons(/Gate) is that the creature effectively gets in an extra full turn of actions.


And minutes per level means the summons are online for multiple encounters rather than one. Plus by level 9 or so you're summoning monsters that can also cast spells.


Please help me try to understand why you care about this. If we agree that both are broken why does the degree of brokenness matter at all? I think its safe to assume that people have different baselines for when something can be considered broken or not but once that line is crossed for someone isn't that just it, final, end of the line? There's no point in discussing their relative offensiveness when their state is absolute.
This leads me to believe you must believe one of them isn't broken, apparently the Summoner, and you're trying to argue and validate your belief. If so I don't care for the discussion that lies ahead and will likely not post in this thread again. Not because I have different beliefs (which I do) but simply because such a discussion is tiresome and redundant and redundant (so corny, but I love it!) and I have better things to do. I'll give you a warning though, if this is in fact what you're doing, your argument is highly flawed and won't hold up. Just because something is worse that doesn't inherently make anything else ok by comparison. Also, you shouldn't try to justify the whole package by justifying its parts in a vacuum.

If you disagree with both options A and B you can go with option C; Tell me how wrong I am on both counts and explain yourself further. Insulting me for my arrogance and presumptuousness is optional but not recommended.
The rest of the alphabet is available in case of unforeseen possibilities. If you cannot make do with 26 things go write a book instead of post on a forum.


As others have said, the summoner more often allowed.
And, being cha based is one of the classes that benefit most from leadership. Among the worst things you can have in a party is a master summoner with leadership.

I once was in a party with a master summoner who had a cavalier as a leadership cohort. That meant 1 skillodon, 1 pack of summons (using lower level monsters), the cohort, the cohort's mount. Wasn't fun for everyone else.

And often Leadership is used for crafting or similar things while the summoner is a caster (nearly a full caster looking at the skill list) that has a capable martial in addition to that and thus is more likely to overshadow martials by doing their stuff in addition to shaping the world.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The summoner is basically a one-man party, which makes them fairly unfun to have at the table.

The eidolon and the summons are more powerful than cohorts and followers simply because they're immortal. Leadership at least has a significant consequence if your cohort or any follower dies. Not a big deal for a summoner, who can spam summon spells while he waits for his eidolon to respawn.

Of course, yeah, Leadership is so often banned that most people don't consider it an option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Leadership should never have been posited as a feat in the first place. It would be far more appropriate to model what you can achieve with leadership as a function of charisma, gold and the diplomacy skill.

The summoner class has several problems which include its spell list (early entry spells are problematical for many reasons) and the strength of its eidelon (certain combinations are far too powerful for the point cost given). The unchained summoner is Paizo's attempt to correct these problems, and they partially succeed.

It's easy to see why both are often banned, in the absence of fiddly house rules to make them more palatable. A given DM can of course do whatever he wants in his home game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Divinitus wrote:

As the title states, it is an honest question. Consider this: a WIZARD, widely regarded as one of the more broken classes (If there is such a thing as broken,) can take leadership and gain MORE power from just that feat than a summoner's eidolon.

A cohort with about the same power level as an eidolon PLUS an army of followers that can often overwhelm foes with natural 20's, even if they could not hit the enemy otherwise? Insanity in a feat is what leadership is.

To this day I still don't see why people were all on the 'nerf-bomb the summoner' bandwagon when you could easily get more out of a 7th level FEAT that ANY CLASS could take!

As a note, I have always disliked how high of a power curve leadership is on and that has been exacerbated when paired with 'summoner is broken' arguments, considering that the summoner's main class feature can be had by a FEAT!

That's the end of that rant. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on the matter, because I have tried way too hard to conceive of a way that leadership can be considered balanced and the summoner, by comparison, is not.

As many others already said Leadership is so often banned it's not even considered an option by many players anymore. This is because it's quite evident how the feat can break a game unless the GM changes his campaign accordingly (you are supposed to have 4-6 people roaming dungeons and the like not 4-6 people AND THEIR ARMIES).

As for summoner the original class makes the game unfun for most other players simply because the summoner can do almost everything from lvl 1 thanks to eidolon and summons (this barring certain archetypes that are even more broken), but it's banned outright less than leadership is.


Rogar Valertis wrote:


As for summoner the original class makes the game unfun for most other players simply because the summoner can do almost everything from lvl 1 thanks to eidolon and summons (this barring certain archetypes that are even more broken), but it's banned outright less than leadership is.

This so much! It seems like that so much you could come to the conclusion that was on purpose. Let's make a class that's so op it destroys games or at least makes them unfun for everyone else.


Leadership is only as bad as the GM allows it to be. The NPC cohort (as an NPC) is designed by the GM, NOT the player.

Additionally, the NPC cohort has NPC gear, NOT equivalent to a PC of the same level.

People often houserule to change this into something that the player designs (instead of NPC creation by GM) and this, IMO is what leads to it being banned so often.

At our table we sit down and discuss the INTENTION of the follower, and work on it together. This removes any possibility of game-breaking tweaks or synergies that a purely PC designed cohort would create.

99% of character design of the cohort is done by the player, I just ensure it is a 'vanilla' build, rather than 'Gorgo the super-death man' kinda builds... Most of the time people want a Fighter to take hits or a Healer to help the party. Basic Fighter or Cleric is good enough... no archetypes.

Summoners don't work this way, the player makes ALL the choices, so unless the GM overrides the published rules, has more potential to be broken.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pathfinder / D&D works best as a small skirmish group, so GMs tend to ban leadership and made summoners a controversy.

I allow both since it is nowhere as broken as some similar advantages in other RPGs, such as Exalted. In Exalted, the right background advantage, or power path could mean a PC starts out with thousands of competent warriors at their command - at character generation.

That changes the perspective a bit on what is and isn't balanced.


KestrelZ wrote:

Pathfinder / D&D works best as a small skirmish group, so GMs tend to ban leadership and made summoners a controversy.

I allow both since it is nowhere as broken as some similar advantages in other RPGs, such as Exalted. In Exalted, the right background advantage, or power path could mean a PC starts out with thousands of competent warriors at their command - at character generation.

That changes the perspective a bit on what is and isn't balanced.

Agreed with your opening point.

At our table we commonly ban both Leadership AND the Summoner (and sometimes Animal Companion using classes/Necromancer types and so on) just to keep the numbers down.

Summoning spells also get the hairy eyeball. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way that I have always run leadership is to allow it, but the Cohort is run by the same PC or another if their character gets ganked in combat.

The mooks are generally unavailable for general adventuring, as the requirement for their use is an organization of some sort.

I love leadership and often have one PC with it. It allows me to interject forgotten information to the group in an in game way and perhaps drop a hint if necessary. I always roleplay him outside of combat and make sure he isn't used as a random body.

My opinion of these may be tempered by the fact that I just finished running Kingmaker and am currently running Wrath of the Righteous. Both of which require the running of multiple npc's at the same time as PC's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KestrelZ wrote:

Pathfinder / D&D works best as a small skirmish group, so GMs tend to ban leadership and made summoners a controversy.

I allow both since it is nowhere as broken as some similar advantages in other RPGs, such as Exalted. In Exalted, the right background advantage, or power path could mean a PC starts out with thousands of competent warriors at their command - at character generation.

That changes the perspective a bit on what is and isn't balanced.

In Exalted a character designed so they have thousands of competent warriors at their command is not at a huge advantage compared to another one designed so defeating thousands of competent warriors is Tuesday. Comparing the way Exalted is balanced to the way PF is 'balanced' and saying something fine in one should therefore be acceptable in another ignores rather too many factors to be sensible.


Arcane Addict wrote:
Please help me try to understand why you care about this....

Because there is a certain player, who shall remain unnamed, who was complaining about another PC proposing a summoner but, before complaining about it, proposed a conjurer wizard with leadership and a load of summon buffs, including a third-party feat that replicated the Summon Monster class feature of the summoner. I made this thread so I could have evidence that people find the concept of summoner=more broken than leadership to be ridiculous.


Divinitus wrote:
Arcane Addict wrote:
Please help me try to understand why you care about this....
Because there is a certain player, who shall remain unnamed, who was complaining about another PC proposing a summoner but, before complaining about it, proposed a conjurer wizard with leadership and a load of summon buffs, including a third-party feat that replicated the Summon Monster class feature of the summoner. I made this thread so I could have evidence that people find the concept of summoner=more broken than leadership to be ridiculous.

I see you went with option D: A combination of parts of options A, B and C. Good on you ^^

So you want to expose hypocrisy. That is a worthy cause! Let me give you another fair warning though, whatever 'testimony' from this community you can get to support your argument will soon be rendered meaningless as your unnamed player can go do the same to support his. He'll find it, too, because the internet supports every opinion somehow somewhere no matter how ridiculous, prejudiced or even damaging that opinion is. Both of you are probably better of spending your time gathering facts, instead of opinions, to support your own arguments to present to one another. Well... You can very likely find an even better use to spend that time. I would. Well, if I wasn't human and prone to errors in judgement anyway ;)

Anyway... Good luck!


True enough! Part of it was, admittedly, my own need to have people confirm that I was right about the situation. My other PCs want a different person for our home game than the one that made this issue a thing. Let's just call the guy "Ace", because he calls himself that all the time.

Grand Lodge

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Maybe Leadership should've been one of those "take more than once" feats, where every purchase of the feat offers a certain number of hit dice's worth of minions.

Or, maybe Leadership is the one place where a feat tax would be appropriate. Like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From what I remember of 3rd edition, leadership wasn't even in the players handbook. It was in the dmg and considered very optional


Divinitus wrote:
True enough! Part of it was, admittedly, my own need to have people confirm that I was right about the situation. My other PCs want a different person for our home game than the one that made this issue a thing. Let's just call the guy "Ace", because he calls himself that all the time.

Now we're getting somewhere! First off, I sincerely hope you've been relieved of your doubts. Second, it seems you're dealing with a problematic player. Is this 'issue' the reason your other players don't want to play with 'Ace' or is there more/something else? Do you even want to? Can you, and are you willing to, resolve these problems with 'Ace', and to some extent your other players, in a polite and peaceable manner? If the answer to the last question, and/or the sub-question, is no, you're probably better of cutting your losses now, cite 'irreconcilable differences and part with 'Ace' as a member of your game group rather than protract this ordeal any further. If the answer was yes to both I wish you yet more luck!


One thing to add which may or may not answer your question:
After having experienced both, I would play in a game were leadership is allowed but I would not again play in a game with a summoner.

That said: I myself would only allow the squire feat without upgrade to leadership and only for mundane PCs.


If your GM is worth their salt, nothing is broken. We use the leadership handbook at our table which effectively gives everyone the leadership feat for absolutely free. The players absolutely love it, because they now get a chance to convert NPCs they meet during adventures into cohorts.

I think it has helped them move away from being strict murder hobos as they first think about whether or not they can redeem the NPC instead of outright killing them. Anyone interested in running leadership should pick up the Leadership Handbook from Everyman Games.

Only one cohort is allowed to accompany the party on any given mission, so it keep things from getting too out of hand with cohorts and followers running around everywhere. One at a time keeps it nice and simple.


Leadership is also less powerful if the player doesn't get to design his own cohort, but instead has to choose from NPCs the party has come across.


Because people forget that if you cast PFG/PFE make you immune to natural attacks of summoned creatures.


Because Leadership does not actually exist, is just a figment of the immagination. I mean, everybody can say in a book that "exist" but, did you actually ever saw one?


I like Leadership. As a DM I always allow it, always have.
And I let the players design and play their own cohorts.


Arcane Addict wrote:
Now we're getting somewhere! First off, I sincerely hope you've been relieved of your doubts. Second, it seems you're dealing with a problematic player. Is this 'issue' the reason your other players don't want to play with 'Ace' or is there more/something else? Do you even want to? Can you, and are you willing to, resolve these problems with 'Ace', and to some extent your other players, in a polite and peaceable manner? If the answer to the last question, and/or the sub-question, is no, you're probably better of cutting your losses now, cite 'irreconcilable differences and part with 'Ace' as a member of your game group rather than protract this ordeal any further. If the answer was yes to both I wish you yet more luck!

Therein lies the problem, however. Some of my gaming circle are too nice to even vote on giving him the boot. Ace, however, is a blatant power-gamer, hogs the arcane caster role, and often pulls the whole 'we can't be the villain by killing the villain's goons, no matter how evil they are' (Interestingly enough, an argument was started after the barbarian broke a Gnome slaver's neck after they got the information from him after he ADMITTED TO HELPING ENSLAVE THE VILLAGE'S CHILDREN! Like seriously, how much more evil do you need to be before it's okay to dispose you? Honestly?). He's the type that goes for Sleep spells, buffs that he never shares with the people that actually do the front-line work (And Shield... really? What a worthless spell!), ect. I have considered giving Ace the boot anyway, irregardless of the fact that half the group does not have the heart to vote on it, as he is a problematic player.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
From what I've read people ban Leadership more than Summoner, it's just that summoner get's more attention because it's a base class.

In 3.0/3.5 Leadership was in the DMG not the PHB, our group house ruled leadership away, after a particularly exquisite demonstration of its problem.

In the end, leadership and summoner both suffer the same problem, where the player with such a feat/class dominate the attention at the table, just by sheer number of actions they have to account for, to a lesser extent other pet classes have the same issue.

In a party of 3-4 players having a meat punching bag can be a really boon, in a party of 1-2 it is almost required, but when you have a party of 5-6+ players, the game grinds, and when one person is disproportionately responsible for that grinding it builds resentment.


Divinitus wrote:
Therein lies the problem, however. Some of my gaming circle are too nice to even vote on giving him the boot. Ace, however, is a blatant power-gamer, hogs the arcane caster role, and often pulls the whole 'we can't be the villain by killing the villain's goons, no matter how evil they are' (Interestingly enough, an argument was started after the barbarian broke a Gnome slaver's neck after they got the information from him after he ADMITTED TO HELPING ENSLAVE THE VILLAGE'S CHILDREN! Like seriously, how much more evil do you need to be before it's okay to dispose you? Honestly?). He's the type that goes for Sleep spells, buffs that he never shares with the people that actually do the front-line work (And Shield... really? What a worthless spell!), ect. I have considered giving Ace the boot anyway, irregardless of the fact that half the group does not have the heart to vote on it, as he is a problematic player.

That sounds like a decent plan to me. Its a shame you're likely going to have to be the bad guy and tell Ace the bad news by yourself though.

P.S. I'm assuming you know how to be civil and decent when you tell him so I've withheld the obvious advice for the sake of brevity.


Divinitus wrote:
(And Shield... really? What a worthless spell!)

Please tell me you're being sarcastic or quoting your bad player.

I don't want to believe people actually consider Shield bad.


Milo v3 wrote:
From what I've read people ban Leadership more than Summoner, it's just that summoner get's more attention because it's a base class.

That and PFS had several years of Summoners, whereas Leadership was banned on day one.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
From what I've read people ban Leadership more than Summoner, it's just that summoner get's more attention because it's a base class.
That and PFS had several years of Summoners, whereas Leadership was banned on day one.

Also, summoners are powerful from level one. Leadership requires at least level 7.

But even at level 1, I wouldn't say the summoner is any more powerful than the Druid. The summoner just has an easier optimization floor.


Divinitus wrote:
Arcane Addict wrote:
Now we're getting somewhere! First off, I sincerely hope you've been relieved of your doubts. Second, it seems you're dealing with a problematic player. Is this 'issue' the reason your other players don't want to play with 'Ace' or is there more/something else? Do you even want to? Can you, and are you willing to, resolve these problems with 'Ace', and to some extent your other players, in a polite and peaceable manner? If the answer to the last question, and/or the sub-question, is no, you're probably better of cutting your losses now, cite 'irreconcilable differences and part with 'Ace' as a member of your game group rather than protract this ordeal any further. If the answer was yes to both I wish you yet more luck!
Therein lies the problem, however. Some of my gaming circle are too nice to even vote on giving him the boot. Ace, however, is a blatant power-gamer, hogs the arcane caster role, and often pulls the whole 'we can't be the villain by killing the villain's goons, no matter how evil they are' (Interestingly enough, an argument was started after the barbarian broke a Gnome slaver's neck after they got the information from him after he ADMITTED TO HELPING ENSLAVE THE VILLAGE'S CHILDREN! Like seriously, how much more evil do you need to be before it's okay to dispose you? Honestly?). He's the type that goes for Sleep spells, buffs that he never shares with the people that actually do the front-line work (And Shield... really? What a worthless spell!), ect. I have considered giving Ace the boot anyway, irregardless of the fact that half the group does not have the heart to vote on it, as he is a problematic player.

Okay, so... You have a problem with him "hogging the arcane caster role"

How does that even happen? I mean, do you have a rule that there can be only 1 arcane caster?

Then:

He doesn't want to kill enemies, then proceed to tell a story of how his character objected to another character murdering a captured and defenseless enemy.

This... Isn't a problem? Seriously that's just good rp of a Lawful or neutral good PC.

Then:

He uses sleep spells, doesn't share buffs, and you complain about shield?

.....

I've been around long enough to detect when something is amiss. You aren't being honest with us.

YOU seem to be the problem player, who seems jealous of "Ace" to me.


I'm going to go on record:

The OP isn't the GM for his group. He's a player. He wants to play a Summoner and he's miffed because another player "Ace" (Who, based on his statement of what Ace has actually done, isn't a problem player at all) objected to it and the GM obviously sided with Ace.

The OP is further miffed because Ace attempted to get a character passed with Leadership passed by the GM and the GM said yes. Thus the OP is here trying to get us to give him ammunition to force his GM into letting him play a Summoner by attacking the argument and Ace at the same time.

The OP is absolutely bitter. He slipped up when he complained that Ace doesn't buff, "The people that do the work."

He also plays a Neutral or evil character. Probably the Barbarian he mentioned in his neck snapping story.


DominusMegadeus wrote:

Please tell me you're being sarcastic or quoting your bad player.

I don't want to believe people actually consider Shield bad.

Very observant! ;)

Probably should have put quotations on that.

HWalsh wrote:

Okay, so... You have a problem with him "hogging the arcane caster role"

How does that even happen? I mean, do you have a rule that there can be only 1 arcane caster?

Then:

He doesn't want to kill enemies, then proceed to tell a story of how his character objected to another character murdering a captured and defenseless enemy.

This... Isn't a problem? Seriously that's just good rp of a Lawful or neutral good PC.

Then:

He uses sleep spells, doesn't share buffs, and you complain about shield?

.....

I've been around long enough to detect when something is amiss. You aren't being honest with us.

YOU seem to be the problem player, who seems jealous of "Ace" to me.

I'm going to go on record:

The OP isn't the GM for his group. He's a player. He wants to play a Summoner and he's miffed because another player "Ace" (Who, based on his statement of what Ace has actually done, isn't a problem player at all) objected to it and the GM obviously sided with Ace.

The OP is further miffed because Ace attempted to get a character passed with Leadership passed by the GM and the GM said yes. Thus the OP is here trying to get us to give him ammunition to force his GM into letting him play a Summoner by attacking the argument and Ace at the same time.

The OP is absolutely bitter. He slipped up when he complained that Ace doesn't buff, "The people that do the work."

He also plays a Neutral or evil character. Probably the Barbarian he mentioned in his neck snapping story.

Nope, I'm the GM. There are several problems that I have with his behavior.

1. My group is traditional and believes that there has to be a group where each role is filled. Ace is a relatively new player and has been hogging the role for the 1.5 years that he has been playing.

2. Objecting to PCs executing/killing enemies is one thing, using Charm Person on them when they don't do what he wants is an entirely different matter. That violates the 'don't be a ****' rule.

3. I was being facetious about his view of Shield.

Also, I would like to presume that you are joking about your assessment. If you think a player complaining about his fellow players, then proffering something more munchkin-y than the person they are complaining about, is okay, and, you know, hogging the arcane role and mind controlling his fellow PCs that refuse to go along with HIS plans is okay, then I have no words for you.

EDIT: He has been kicked from the group. His own sister in the group said that it was for the best. That's sad.

EDIT 2: Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, and, occasionally, Lawful Evil are my preferred character alignments.


I personally think Leadership is roughly equally umbalanced and time consuming than a summoner, so teorethically I don't see any point in allowing one and banning the other.
However, if a GM know that some player is going to optimize the hell out of it, while the other is either "bad" or uncaring of the number game, he might want to give him a few more concession since it's really unlikely is going to break the game.
I usually don't like to play favourite when I GM but there are cases when this is ok and is an implicit social contract that you trust your GM to be good enaugh to make the right call in this cases.


Fair enough, although the point is relatively moot now, as the problematic player was removed from the game for finally crossing the line and insulting everyone for being 'unreasonable people who just want to roleplay hired killers'.

I, quite honestly, was fed up with him, so I said, "Um, buddy, that's been an RPG staple since the days of Gygax, so... maybe you need to re-examine what hobby you have? TTRPGs, by and large, have not been about hugging unicorns or playing a hippy form of Batman that is afraid of breaking a few bones. There's a 'My Little Pony' RPG if you want to make snuggletime with your enemies... leave Pathfinder for the people with the big boy pants.". His sister said that it was about time that he was shown the door. I honestly didn't do it at first because I felt bad for him being so socially-awkward and having the game as his only form of real human interaction, but there's only so much that you can let slide before you have to put the foot down and hurt someone's feelings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
leave Pathfinder for the people with the big boy pants

Really? Murderhobos now are called people with the big boy pants?

Look, everybody heres know that playing evil sociopath is fun in a combat heavy game like pathfinder, but I think you are pushing a little too far. D&D can work well also as a game about "hugging unicorns or playing a hippy form of Batman" and I've done it a couple of time myself.
Now, if everybody want to play rampaging killer then naturally you have to adapt to them, since this is a cooperative game. Seems like your friend failed at that. But "ttrpg are about murdering stuff" is not an aswer, since is not really true. It may be what they are to you, witch is fine, but I'd like to make a point clear.
Is not okay to ridiculize someone just because he has a different approach than you to the game.
If he is unwilling to adapt to your style of play is ok to tell him "look, we don't mesh, so sorry but find one other group". But is not ok to tell him "you are a delusional sissy and are playing the game wrong" witch is basically what you said to him.


Dekalinder wrote:
Quote:
leave Pathfinder for the people with the big boy pants

Really? Murderhobos now are called people with the big boy pants?

Look, everybody heres know that playing evil sociopath is fun in a combat heavy game like pathfinder, but I think you are pushing a little too far. D&D can work well also as a game about "hugging unicorns or playing a hippy form of Batman" and I've done it a couple of time myself.
Now, if everybody want to play rampaging killer then naturally you have to adapt to them, since this is a cooperative game. Seems like your friend failed at that. But "ttrpg are about murdering stuff" is not an aswer, since is not really true. It may be what they are to you, witch is fine, but I'd like to make a point clear.
Is not okay to ridiculize someone just because he has a different approach than you to the game.
If he is unwilling to adapt to your style of play is ok to tell him "look, we don't mesh, so sorry but find one other group". But is not ok to tell him "you are a delusional sissy and are playing the game wrong" witch is basically what you said to him.

Bingo. In my games, for example, I don't think the OP would be able to mesh... I generally have a rule of, "If you execute a prisoner when you don't have the authority to do so then you take a hit on the "Good to Evil" scale (this doesn't mean an alignment shift, just the beginning of one) as well as on a "Lawful to Chaos" scale.

So:
If a Paladin executes a helpless prisoner... Instant fall unless they are legitimately empowered to do so.

But then again, that is my personal house rule.


It IS okay to ridicule someone if they join an established group, act disruptive, have an 'it's all about me' approach to the game, and just generally behave like a spoiled brat that doesn't get his way, even after repeated warnings from both the GM (Me!) and a few of the other players. Mind-controlling PCs to FORCE them to adapt to his playstyle? Yeah, he violated the 'don't be a ****' rule first, so his feelings are ultimately irrelevant, as he disregarded everyone else's.

And yes, TTRPGs have been built with the understanding that most campaigns are about wiping out evil, as horrifying as that idea may be to some people. Even with Pathfinder, there have been comparatively few non-lethal options compared to lethal ones. That's just a fact about the industry.

Do I have a problem with campaigns designed specifically for non-violent play? No, I had a rather fun political campaign made with the PC nobles all being unwilling to take a life, but that was because that was the agreement between both players and GM from the get-go. If you KNOW that the game is going to be the traditional 'kill evil people and take their stuff' style gameplay and you, as ONE PC, try to force not only the game, but the players as well, to shift and accommodate you, then no, I am not okay with it.

Right now I'm trying to decide how to make his character's final exit in the game.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
It IS okay to ridicule someone if...

No.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's agree to disagree.


DSXMachina wrote:
Because people forget that if you cast PFG/PFE make you immune to natural attacks of summoned creatures.

1) Animals with the fiendish/celestial templates are still neutral

2) Elementals, while only exceptional when their element is a key factor, are serviceable bruisers and also neutral.

Anyway, when it comes to balancing things, player perception is huge. Play a game where players use Leadership to bro it up with their favorite NPCs and connect to the world? 10/10 must have classic. Endless cycle of abuse from Craft Item slaves or abusing spotlight-stealing combos? -7/10 why would Paizo allow such a bad feat.

Naturally, most player experiences ride somewhere in between, but there's a spectrum here.

Same with the Summoner. Having played an Advanced Summoner in PFS up to level 10, I can say a few things. Early levels allow you to build Eidolons that feel downright unethical. The Skilled evolution is hilariously front loaded (and never got nerfed in Unchained!) and keeping your max attacks up will outperform unoptimized martials. These aren't much of an issue if the Summoner's player knows when to hold back and share the spotlight. Flutter and Hmmm created a pretty good doccument about Animal Companion etiquette and 90% of it applies to Eidolons.

No one complains about early access to Haste/other buffs when you're casting it on them.

In the long run, both the feat and the class are more vulnerable to abuse, but they can be solved by asking yourself one question as you build your character: How can this be fun to play with at the table?


Dekalinder wrote:
D&D can work well also as a game about "hugging unicorns or playing a hippy form of Batman" and I've done it a couple of time myself.

As have I. Not in Pathfinder (It was 2nd AD&D), and not with my current group, but I've hugged a unicorn (at great risk for the attempt) and played a somewhat hippy take on Batman (remember bards can do almost anything, and with style).

Even in my current group which heavily favors combat and such, we don't go murderhobo, at least not for no reason.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Summoner vs. Leadership: Why is the former considered more broken? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.