| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was disappointed to see Unchained Summoner get specified in the Mystic Child and Fey Caller archetypes with no mention of the standard summoner.
It's fine if you want to include a few notes here and there for fans of the Unchained stuff, but the standard version should always get the main focus.
Except chained summoner's list is considered broken....
Except chained summoner's list is considered broken....
Pretty sure there is nothing in the errata or FAQ that says that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure there is nothing in the errata or FAQ that says that.
What? I'm saying the spell list is considered broken from a balance point of view.....
That's one of the reasons why unchained summoner was created... to fix the summoner's spell list. Unchained even says "the summoner spell list has been greatly revised, removing a number of imbalances."
For them to then use a spell list in Ultimate Intrigue that they know is broken rather than using a more balanced but flavour-ly equivalent option would be rather dumb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do tend to think the APG Summoner's spell list gets more hate than it deserves. The Unchained Summoner was a bit of an overreaction in that regard, nerfing or removing spells that were more flavorful than problematic. I mean, did anyone ever have an issue with a level 16+ Summoner having access to Dimensional Lock? The issue looked worse than it was because the Summoner is a spontaneous caster, and any given list of spells known would over-represent the broken spells. In terms of the overall spell list... we're talking maybe a dozen spells in total (tops) that needed adjustment, not a total ground-up rewrite of the class list.
In any case, I get the sense that Paizo really doesn't like the APG Summoner in 20/20 hindsight, and going forward wants to do as much as possible to pretend it never existed. They aren't going to errata the original summoner spell list to adjust the problematic spells at this point, and for better or worse will just point at U-Summoner from now on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was disappointed to see Unchained Summoner get specified in the Mystic Child and Fey Caller archetypes with no mention of the standard summoner.
It's fine if you want to include a few notes here and there for fans of the Unchained stuff, but the standard version should always get the main focus.
"You may notice that we did not say the unchained summoner would be available alongside its Advanced Player's Guide counterpart. Effective immediately, the Advanced Player's Guide summoner is no longer available in the organized play campaign, and the unchained summoner is its legal replacement."
From what I can tell the unchained summoner is now the new standard summoner as far as they are concerned...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, giving the Magical Child the regular summoner spell list is a decent houserule if you don't like the idea of the archetype being terrible.
Except that's still not thematically appropriate of a magical girl styled archetype.
You can't compare the summoner to 9th level casters, as they shouldn't be equal to them in caster capability while also gaining the full benefit of a 6th level caster. And Dimensional Lock is far from the only spell (and even further from the most important one) changed in the unchained list.
APG Summoner is nowhere near being the "equal" of 9-level spellcasters. The Summoner is a spontaneous caster, and utility spells like Dimensional Lock have a huge opportunity cost to learn. He gets significantly fewer spells known and casts significantly fewer spells per day than a Sorcerer. There were problem spells - I'm talking stuff like Haste at the 2nd level - but there actually weren't too many of those. Most of the reduced-level spells had their level reduced for very good reason, since a spontaneous caster 6-level simply doesn't have room for them.
It's really a tiny number of culprits pushing the APG Summoner's spell list over the edge. The vast majority of the reduced level spells were never an issue, and didn't come close to bridging the gap between him and the proper 9-level casters.
Except that's still not thematically appropriate of a magical girl styled archetype.
Definitely agree with that; both versions of the Summoner spell list are very specifically designed with his theme in mind. I can see it working for some concepts, but not all concepts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, neither is the unchained summoner list. Or having your only other new class feature be a familiar. So that's neither here nor there.Incidentally, giving the Magical Child the regular summoner spell list is a decent houserule if you don't like the idea of the archetype being terrible.Except that's still not thematically appropriate of a magical girl styled archetype.
Actually familiars are quite iconic to magical girls. I can't think of a single magical girl team without something acting like a familiar, even if they sometimes share the familiar. That and the transformation sequence are the two aspects every magical girl shares (with a certain cardcaptor notwithstanding on the transformation front.) All they needed to do was include those and make it compatable with the other archetypes, but they threw in a spell list and screwed it up royally...though looking at it I can't see where the familiar would fit as easily while still letting it mesh with warlock.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most magical girls usually have some sort of mystical animal friend, yeah, but most of time those companions are background characters, not a core component of the magical girl's combat capabilities.
They're not in the fight sure, but quite often they're the ones that give them their powers in the first place and some assist in special attacks. Hell sometimes they're needed in the freaking transformation sequence. Once again a certain cardcaptor breaks the mold but even her companion was giving her advice for the card of the week. In other words most of them function like the familiar from the chosen one paladin archetype.
And this isn't even counting the ones that get in the middle of the fight, like Potpourri from Heartcatch Pretty Cure and her freaking barriers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd give them charisma-based kineticist "casting" as a houserule over giving them summoner casting as a houserule personally.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do tend to think the APG Summoner's spell list gets more hate than it deserves. The Unchained Summoner was a bit of an overreaction in that regard, nerfing or removing spells that were more flavorful than problematic. I mean, did anyone ever have an issue with a level 16+ Summoner having access to Dimensional Lock? The issue looked worse than it was because the Summoner is a spontaneous caster, and any given list of spells known would over-represent the broken spells. In terms of the overall spell list... we're talking maybe a dozen spells in total (tops) that needed adjustment, not a total ground-up rewrite of the class list.
No, we aren't. Look at the APG Summoner's Spell List again. Compare it to, say, the Bard (which everyone agrees has a solid list).
In fact, let's do that:
Of 6th level spells, the Bard has 7 out of 41 (and slightly more than 1/6) that are actually 7th-9th for all 9 level casters (most are 7th, a few higher). The Summoner has something like 20 out of 28 spells that fall under that category and thus almost 3/4 of their 6th level spells (most are 8th level or higher). This pattern is repeated at lower levels. All of them. For both classes.
In order to equalize that, you need to change at least a dozen spells from the 6th level spells alone. And an equal number from most other levels.
The spell list is objectively miles better than any other 6-level caster's list, and the Class features are, in fact, not miles worse. Indeed, they are miles better than many, and certainly miles better than any Full Caster gets (with the possible exception of Druid...and I'm skeptical even there).
So...they have what amounts to 9-level casting (with a limited list, sure, but when your 'limited list' includes almost all the best spells in the game, that's not a big comfort), plus the most powerful pet in the game, plus other Class Features, there's a bit of a problem. APG Summoners are legitimately way more powerful than intended, and likely way more powerful than any Class should be. They weren't the most powerful Class in the game only because Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are even more broken.
And this last part is the biggest reason they got changed (and needed to be):
Making an optimal Wizard, Druid, or Cleric is actually kinda difficult. It requires system knowledge to manage, and new players rarely accidentally create a character that vastly overshadows the rest of the party. APG Summoners are ridiculously easy to optimize. you can do it by accident and thus, in new player groups, create a character who vastly overshadows everyone else and ruins their fun.
New players having their fun ruined is bad. Both in terms of making a good game, and definitely in terms of making money. So they changed it. This is pretty much an unambiguously good decision.
If you lay in a more optimized group (say, one where everyone is an optimized full caster except the people playing the Summoner and the Magus), you might well be fine playing the APG Summoner with no issues...but you're sorta in the minority, and should not expect a lot of additional support for that version of the Class going forward.
Pretty sure there is nothing in the errata or FAQ that says that.What? I'm saying the spell list is considered broken from a balance point of view.....
That's one of the reasons why unchained summoner was created... to fix the summoner's spell list. Unchained even says "the summoner spell list has been greatly revised, removing a number of imbalances."
For them to then use a spell list in Ultimate Intrigue that they know is broken rather than using a more balanced but flavour-ly equivalent option would be rather dumb.
It's your opinion that it is "broken." That's fine, but doesn't mean it really is broken. Unchained is a book full of optional rule tweaks for GMs to consider using. Some people like them and use them, some don't. It's the Pathfinder version of Unearthed Arcana.
I was disappointed to see Unchained Summoner get specified in the Mystic Child and Fey Caller archetypes with no mention of the standard summoner.
It's fine if you want to include a few notes here and there for fans of the Unchained stuff, but the standard version should always get the main focus.
"You may notice that we did not say the unchained summoner would be available alongside its Advanced Player's Guide counterpart. Effective immediately, the Advanced Player's Guide summoner is no longer available in the organized play campaign, and the unchained summoner is its legal replacement."
From what I can tell the unchained summoner is now the new standard summoner as far as they are concerned...
So says PFS. Which is not RAW nor official. It's a bunch of house rules decided by committee.
|
So says PFS. Which is not RAW nor official. It's a bunch of house rules decided by committee.I was disappointed to see Unchained Summoner get specified in the Mystic Child and Fey Caller archetypes with no mention of the standard summoner.
It's fine if you want to include a few notes here and there for fans of the Unchained stuff, but the standard version should always get the main focus.
"You may notice that we did not say the unchained summoner would be available alongside its Advanced Player's Guide counterpart. Effective immediately, the Advanced Player's Guide summoner is no longer available in the organized play campaign, and the unchained summoner is its legal replacement."
From what I can tell the unchained summoner is now the new standard summoner as far as they are concerned...
Yes, but it is Paizo's own house rules.
Incidentally, giving the Magical Child the regular summoner spell list is a decent houserule if you don't like the idea of the archetype being terrible.Except that's still not thematically appropriate of a magical girl styled archetype.
Yeah, I think giving the Magical Child ki powers like a monk would be more fitting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was disappointed to see Unchained Summoner get specified in the Mystic Child and Fey Caller archetypes with no mention of the standard summoner.
It's fine if you want to include a few notes here and there for fans of the Unchained stuff, but the standard version should always get the main focus.
What should the mention be? Neither original nor Unchained Summoner was modified by Magical Child. It needed a spell list, and they decided that Unchained Summoner had a good one.
As for Fey Caller, it's just adding an option that the original Summoner already had to the Unchained Summoner. There were two archetypes that did this already for original Summoner, and SLA evolutions were freely available from the start.
It's your opinion that it is "broken." That's fine, but doesn't mean it really is broken.
No, it's the developers opinion, and it says so in Unchained.
My opinion doesn't matter (I actually don't have an opinion on whether it is balanced as I've never actually looked up the summoner spell list), I merely said that it is considered broken. Considered broken =! broken, but that is irrelevant when the people who consider it broken make the rules, so if they consider it broken they are going to consider it broken when they write new rules.
Unchained is a book full of optional rule tweaks for GMs to consider using. Some people like them and use them, some don't. It's the Pathfinder version of Unearthed Arcana.
That is irrelevant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Claiming that altering the list of spells was unnecessary and using Dimensional Lock as an example is very misrepresentative.Not when Dimensional Lock is a great example of spells that got removed for no good reason.
Sure. But most of them were removed for a very good reason indeed.
|
|
Well yeah, but that was never the argument in question for this particular quote chain. Dasrak said that the unchained summoner list was an overreaction and many of the spells that were removed didn't need to be removed and listed Dimensional Lock as an example. That other spells did deserve to be removed is wholly irrelevant to pointing out spells that were removed needlessly.
Well, Dasrak was in fact arguing that the APG Summoner's list was close to fine as-is (with the exception of Haste and a couple other spells...he never specifies what), and the nerf was unwarranted as stated here:
I do tend to think the APG Summoner's spell list gets more hate than it deserves. The Unchained Summoner was a bit of an overreaction in that regard, nerfing or removing spells that were more flavorful than problematic. I mean, did anyone ever have an issue with a level 16+ Summoner having access to Dimensional Lock? The issue looked worse than it was because the Summoner is a spontaneous caster, and any given list of spells known would over-represent the broken spells. In terms of the overall spell list... we're talking maybe a dozen spells in total (tops) that needed adjustment, not a total ground-up rewrite of the class list.
APG Summoner is nowhere near being the "equal" of 9-level spellcasters. The Summoner is a spontaneous caster, and utility spells like Dimensional Lock have a huge opportunity cost to learn. He gets significantly fewer spells known and casts significantly fewer spells per day than a Sorcerer. There were problem spells - I'm talking stuff like Haste at the 2nd level - but there actually weren't too many of those. Most of the reduced-level spells had their level reduced for very good reason, since a spontaneous caster 6-level simply doesn't have room for them.
It's really a tiny number of culprits pushing the APG Summoner's spell list over the edge. The vast majority of the reduced level spells were never an issue, and didn't come close to bridging the gap between him and the proper 9-level casters.
Given that, noting that Dimensional Lock was the exception rather than the rule among the nerfed spells seems reasonable to me.
But for some reason the two of you decided that "some of the spells didn't need to be removed" meant "the APG summoner list was perfect as is". So... hooray for strawmanning I guess?
Uh...look above. He didn't quite say that, but he did say it was less than a dozen spells that needed to be changed, whereas a quick look at the list (which I actually did) reveals that it's more like a dozen per level if it's to have a spell list on par with the Bard and other 6-level casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. But most of them were removed for a very good reason indeed.
I strongly disagree with that assertion. Let's actually look at the list of removed 6th level spells as an example. I will bold spells that I agree needed to be removed, and italicize spells that are arguable.
* Antipathy - terrible spell, not a problem.
* Binding - very niche spell, not a problem
* Mass Charm Monster - a good spell, not entirely in keeping with the class's theme, but far from broken.
* Create Demiplane - a very good utility spell, but hard to fit on a 6-level spontaneous caster.
* Dimensional Lock - a niche spell, not a problem.
* Dominate Monster - not in keeping with the class's theme, and a very powerful 9th level spell in general. I agree this should have never been on the list in the first place.
* Greater Energy Siege Shot - more flavorful and thematic than practical. Not a problem.
* Greater Hostile Juxtaposition - a good spell that fits well with the summoner's theme, but not a problem.
* Incendiary Cloud - terrible spell, not a problem.
* Maze - one of the game's more broken spells even at 8th level on the wiz/sorc list. No arguments here.
* Greater Planar Binding - one of the game's most powerful spells, but also incredibly thematic to the class. The spell line is a headache to handle, but it's one I'd rather have than not.
* Protection from Spells - good for NPC's, not so good for PC's. Not a problem.
* Summon Monster VIII - not nearly good as it looks; it's both inferior to and redundant with the SLA. Not a problem
* Sympathy - terrible spell, not a problem
* Teleportation Circle - expensive to cast and with a long casting time, and difficult to find room on for a 6-level spontaneous caster. It's also very thematic to the class. Overall, if there was a candidate for a 9th level spell slipping on the Summoner's list this was it.
* Walk Through Space - a cool spell and thematic to the class. Short duration keeps it in line. Not a problem.
That's 16 removed spells, two of which I agree definitely needed to go and four more I'll agree are arguable. If you want to argue for more thorough pruning than me, fine. I'll drop the "dozen tops" assertion, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere near a dozen spells per level that you're claiming.
Well, Dasrak was in fact arguing that the APG Summoner's list was close to fine as-is (with the exception of Haste and a couple other spells...he never specifies what)
Specifically, my words were that it gets more hate than it deserves. I fully agree that it is the best 6-level spell list. Take away the creme of the crop, though, and it's really not that much better than the likes of bard. Certainly if you're going to slap it on something like Mystic Child it won't cause issues in the same way it did on the APG Summoner. For the record, I feel the SLA was the biggest culprit in pushing APG Summoner over the edge. Anyways, if you want me to commit to a list of spells that definitely needed a spell level change or removal, here:
6th level - remove Maze and Dominate Monster
5th level - Greater Teleport and Spell Turning to 6th level,
4th level - no changes needed
3rd level - Black Tentacles, Charm Monster, Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility, and Wall of Ice to 4th level
2nd level - Haste and Slow to 3rd level
1st level - no changes needed
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...that leaves Teleport as a 4th level spell, making Wands of it available pretty readily...which is sort of an issue. It also lets them get Teleport as soon as Sorcerers, which I actually don't think is in-theme at all.
I'll also note that your list of 6th level spells to drop leaves off a lot of what I'd consider the problematic ones. Protection From Spells leaps to mind. That's an 8th level spell for everyone else and makes absolutely no sense for the summoner thematically.
But all that's only the start of the list's problems. I actually agree with you that they might've gone too far, but there are definitely around dozen spells per level (except 1st) that could use some re-leveling (or removal, in the case of 6th level ones) to keep the Summoner list from being overwhelmingly superior as compared to every other 6-level caster. Just eyeballing it:
6th: Antipathy (Makes no sense thematically, way higher level), Mass Charm Monster (Bards don't get this, why should Summoners?), Create Demiplane (too high level, not really very thematically tied in), Dominate Monster, Incendiary Cloud (8th level, and not thematically necessary at all), Maze, Protection From Spells (Why does Summoner even have this?), Sympathy (Again, high level, makes no sense.), Teleportation Circle (Yeah...this is completely unnecessary and not really quite their wheelhouse),
So, forgive me, that's only 9. Of that level. On earlier levels, I'm gonna cut the commentary mostly. You get the idea of why I'm doing this, right? The point is that only spells that are very much in the class's wheelhouse should be lower level for them. That's how all the other 6 level casters do it.
I'll note if I'm suggesting doing more than moving the spell up a level.
5th: Lesser Create Demiplane, Creeping Doom, Ethereal Jaunt, Ice Crystal Teleport, Mass Invisibility, Repulsion, Simulacrum (maybe off the list altogether? This doesn't actually make sense with the Summoner's theme), Sequester, Spell Turning, Tar Pool, Greater Teleport,
And that's only 11.
4th: Baleful Polymorph, Mass Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, and Owl's Wisdom (Everyone else gets these at 6th level, including the Bard. Buffing is the Bard's whole schtick, there's no way the Summoner should get them two levels earlier, and probably not even one), Damnation's Stride, Hostile Juxtaposition, Magic Jar, Overland Flight, Communal Stoneskin, Summon Stampede, Teleport,
That one's 12.
3rd: Black Tentacles, Charm Monster (Bards get it at this level, Summoners should not be as good at Enchantment stuff as Bards), Creeping Ice, Dimension Door, Mass Enlarge Person, Greater Invisibility, Locate Creature, Obsidian Flow, Mass Reduce Person, Stoneskin,
That one's only 10.
2nd: Haste, Slow.
Two. Huh. I really overestimated on that one.
Okay, so, short version: Eyeballing it, a dozen per level was an overstatement, from my perspective anyway. At 44, it's only about 9 per level (not counting 1st). Still way more than a dozen spells in total, though.
Now, the Unchained Summoner's spell list changes may have gone a little overboard (I definitely would've left the Planar Binding levels alone, just for thematic reasons). I won't even argue that.
But my point is and always has been that they were in response to a legitimate problem. Which this sheer volume of under-leveled spells should be pretty convincing evidence of, IMO. They'd likely still have more underleveled spells than any other class even with the 44 spells I note changed.
* Dominate Monster - not in keeping with the class's theme, and a very powerful 9th level spell in general. I agree this should have never been on the list in the first place.
Most likely the thinking was that they got monster control type spells due to the eidolon and the summoning of creatures. But yeah, not quite fitting with the idea that they summon things, not find them and control them.
* Maze - one of the game's more broken spells even at 8th level on the wiz/sorc list. No arguments here.
Yes, it is great, but not as fantastic in practice. Once you are 16th level, a lot of your foes are going to have SR to overcome. Then targets can come back in as little as one round if their INT is high enough. Finally, it's a single target only. Compared to other 8th level wizard/sorcerer/arcanist/witch spells, it's one of the middling to high ones but not the best. Still, I agree it doesn't quite fit the theme so it could stand to go. Not a big deal.
* Greater Planar Binding - one of the game's most powerful spells, but also incredibly thematic to the class. The spell line is a headache to handle, but it's one I'd rather have than not.
...
I agree with this and the rest.
I fully agree that it is the best 6-level spell list.
I would say 2nd best after inquisitor--no other 6-level spellcaster has such a mix of healing, buff, debuff, and attack spells.
|
|
You say to keep the summoner list from being overwhelming superior, but then most of your complaints seem to be thematic rather than.
I think those are two very different things that can be argued distinct from each other, because asking why summoners have Antipathy is different than summoners breaking the game because they have antipathy.
Allow me to clarify: Having access to almost any particular high level spell isn't game breaking. Most 6th level casters have one or two. What's game breaking about the APG Summoner is the number of them. The fact that, as levels go up, more than half their list is made up of them, and you can casually make a Summoner who only has such spells in his 3rd level and higher spells known. That's the issue.
So. You need to dump a lot of them to have anything close to balanced. That being the case, which you dump should then be based at least partially on theme, since having a few under-leveled spells is fine and the ones you keep should obviously be the most appropriate ones.
Mass Charm Monster (Bards don't get this, why should Summoners?)Bards probably should
But they don't. Which definitely means summoners shouldn't. You can't look at these things in isolation, but within the context of the game as a whole. On it's own having Haste as a 2nd level spell is fine, if everyone has it then. It's the fact that they don't that makes that broken.
I'm not sold thematically. I mean, the conjuration specialist having big conjuration spells makes sense. Incendiary cloud in particular is both pretty thematic and kind of terrible too.Create Demiplane (too high level, not really very thematically tied in)
Incendiary Cloud (8th level, and not thematically necessary at all)
They're not masters of all conjuration magic, they Summon specifically. Incendiary Cloud is not nearly as necessary to that as, say, Greater Planar Binding, and the point is to clear the list of some spells.
And it's not a great 8th level spell, but it's better than a 6th level one should generally be.
So, forgive me, that's only 9.Nine, yes, but many of those nine because they don't fit, not because they cause the Summoner to be "overwhelmingly superior".
In numbers? Yes they do.
Creeping DoomThey get it at the same level as a Druid (13), but suffer a -2 to the save DC. That seems pretty fair. A large number of the other spells you mentioned follow a similar pattern.
Indeed. And having equivalent spells to a 9-level caster at the same level when you're a 6-level caster is exactly the problem.
Mass Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, and Owl's Wisdom (Everyone else gets these at 6th level, including the Bard. Buffing is the Bard's whole schtick, there's no way the Summoner should get them two levels earlier, and probably not even oneYeah, but buffing is also a big part of the summoner's shtick too and a bard getting those spells five levels late makes them a lot more questionably useful.
Though yeah, should probably be 5th level, not 4th.
Buffing is part of the Summoner's schtick, it's true. But not more than it is the Bard's which is why they shouldn't get buff spells at a lower level than the Bard does. The same level? Sure. Lower? Not a chance. Not for a whole category of spells like this, anyway.
The thing is the delayed progression on so many of the U-Summoner's spells make them really bad. The U-Summoner itself doesn't actually care about this, because its spell list is ancillary and mostly just used to buff/support its eidolon and SLA summons. It's really really noticeable on the magical child though, which is undoubtably the worst 6th level spellcaster in the entire game.
I'd disagree with that, at least somewhat. The Unchained Summoner list is almost as good at buff spells as the Bard list, and you can therefore buff yourself with it pretty effectively. Magical Child isn't the strongest Class ever, but it's not bad at all.
|
|
Ultimate Intrigue referring to Unchained Summoner is in keeping with the trend in other Paizo books (they have done so in the Player Companion series as I remember Unchained Summoner referred directly in their description i.e. Devil Impostor comes to mind but I'm not sure if there are other examples out there...)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what I simply don't like about Unchained in other books? It makes a book of Paizo's houserules into regular rules. That goes against exactly what Paizo said they were doing when making Unchained.
Pathfinder 2.0 is already here, and it's starting to show. Here's hoping the game gets better for it.
|
|
You know what I simply don't like about Unchained in other books? It makes a book of Paizo's houserules into regular rules. That goes against exactly what Paizo said they were doing when making Unchained.
Pathfinder 2.0 is already here, and it's starting to show. Here's hoping the game gets better for it.
I'd say that if you missed this trend after every major hardcover book brought a whole new set of classes, feats table, spell lists and various subsystems, then yes, you'd feel threatened by Unchained.
All of those merely added to the game, not change already working parts of it in a Shadow Errata/New Version publication.
I'd say that if you missed this trend after every major hardcover book brought a whole new set of classes, feats table, spell lists and various subsystems, then yes, you'd feel threatened by Unchained.You know what I simply don't like about Unchained in other books? It makes a book of Paizo's houserules into regular rules. That goes against exactly what Paizo said they were doing when making Unchained.
Pathfinder 2.0 is already here, and it's starting to show. Here's hoping the game gets better for it.
None of the previous books wrote an entire class out of any future material support before. Anyone looking for future 'chained' summoner material will have to look to 3rd party material to find it.
|
|
Well, no, it's the quality of them. Number is only half the game. A 6th level spellcaster that had.. clashing rocks, salvage, wood phalanx, transmute golem and, I dunno, mass defending sword wouldn't be that special, even though it had five ninth level spells.
Quality is certainly a factor, but it's not the only one.
And most have five or more, it's just a tiny fraction of the whole number.
At a penalty, with an opportunity cost, on a mediocre spell. I know some people subscribe to this "ninth level casters should be better at everything all the time" philosophy but I don't see it, and having a worse version of a mediocre spell at a similar level isn't the end of the world.
It's not really about the comparison to 9th level casters. It's about the comparison to other 6th level casters, and the absurd degree of ease in optimization.
Especially when so many spells are level sensitive. Part of the reason the Summoner got fast progression is because a number of spells are terrible if you get them late.
A few examples, maybe? Teleport, Black Tentacles, Greater Teleport, and Mass Bull's strength + Summoned Monsters never go out of style. Which Summoner spells are you referring to?
Look at say, Eyebite and its scaling HD based effect. A bard gets this spell at 16th level. At that point, they will basically never encounter a meaningful enemy who they could use the spell against without just getting the minimum effect. A wizard gets it at 11, which still puts them past the curve but means it's at least possible to run into viable enemies.
Agreed. and I get the principle, I just very much disagree that it applied to most of the under-leveled Summoner spells.
Or SM7. U-Summoners get it three levels late and at that level a bunch of mediocre CR9 enemies are going to be basically completely nonthreatelning.
Okay, agreed. Like I said, I don't deny they maybe went overboard a little with the nerfing. I just disagree that the APG summoner didn't need a lot of nerfing. It did. They maybe went too far, but it needed a lot.
What I'd like to see as an example is one of the spells I advocated taking up levels or off the list that's meaningfully level dependent. I was cool with Summon Monster VIII staying available, for example.
Oh no they're not terrible. They're certainly functional.
But I think it's hard to argue that the MC isn't the worst 6th level caster in the entire game.
Weakest at what? They're way better out-of-combat than a Warpriest, and have better party-buffing. Their self-buffing is nowhere near as good, though.
They're much better at social stuff than most Hunters, too, and again better party-buffers, though worse in personal combat.
Really, the only ones who are better at party-buffing than them are Bards and Skalds (who are also usually on-par or close to it in most social skills). And they are flat-out worse than those Classes in most ways (though the free Familiar helps)...but Bards are debatably the strongest 6-level caster in many ways, so I'm not sure that's a damning indictment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well i just witnessed a kind of mediocre (meaning not minmaxed as hell) unchained summoner in an AP with diverse problems doing very, very well.
The Eidolon is one of the main damage dealers and tank at the same time, able to do some skill checks and the summoner himself can contribute through a lot more skills, aid on combat or cast enough other meaningful spells (when he´s not buffing the eidolon) as well as support the party with some utility like teleport, etc.
I think the unchained summoner is way better than the chained one, which was totaly out of line, and kind of an half-official errata.
I highly welcome that and hope we will see more along those lines in the future.
|
|
None of the previous books wrote an entire class out of any future material support before. Anyone looking for future 'chained' summoner material will have to look to 3rd party material to find it.I'd say that if you missed this trend after every major hardcover book brought a whole new set of classes, feats table, spell lists and various subsystems, then yes, you'd feel threatened by Unchained.You know what I simply don't like about Unchained in other books? It makes a book of Paizo's houserules into regular rules. That goes against exactly what Paizo said they were doing when making Unchained.
Pathfinder 2.0 is already here, and it's starting to show. Here's hoping the game gets better for it.
The class sucked IMO... and it still does.
Edit: the one summoner NPC I statted up once for one of my players was laughed at as it just looks like you're trying to shove a Pokemon episode into a semi-serious game. I agree with him. The eidolon is OP most of the time and benefits from modes of movement the other PCs don't have at low levels, etc. BUT IT STILL SUCKS. Your character is just some kind of puppetteer guy and this doesn't seem to tend towards quality roleplay, especially without more backstory about eidolons in general... just a weird thing that's been shoehorned in. At least Pathfinder Campaign Setting came up with a good excuse for gnomes. Eidolons? not so much...
There's zero appeal for that class in the groups I know. I'm pretty sure the "people looking for future 'chained' summoner material" are not enough in number for Paizo to care.
Which means it's good news for third parties I guess. Please do keep me informed on the millions of dollars these guys are gonna make producing 'chained' summoner stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Purple Dragon Knight: I make no judgement on either version, just that unchained in effect overwrote the class without physically doing so.
As to "I'm pretty sure the "people looking for future 'chained' summoner material" are not enough in number for Paizo to care": I don't know about that. It sounds more like your personal bias against the summoner as a whole than an empirical study of chained summoner popularity.
Secondly, quality roleplay is the purview of the player not the class. Failure in that area fall squarely on the player. Why to you expect the setting to require an excuse/backstory for something for you to roleplay it? Isn't that what the player is there for? DO you need the game to tell you why you have the profession skill on your character too or you can't roleplay it?
How about the fact some Summoners summon aspects of their deity? I'll roleplay the heck out of that in an instant, and their's nothing better for it than a Chained Summoner archetype.
Nevermind that the Unchained Summoner is far more chained than the old one in flavor and mechanics...
|
|
Oh, I'm totally biased. And yes, the player is a meat and potato kind of gamer.
But *still*... even after expertly statting that summoner (that eidolon is a b!*+! to take on) and taking the player through the basics of class... meh. That's the overall feeling I got as I kept making excuse after excuse for that character.
So sure, I'm totally biased, but I deserve to be, as I at least tried.
excuse after excuse
This is really the crux of what I'm not getting. What excuses? What hand holding do you feel the class failed to do for you? What in the class prevented a roleplayer from doing so? Or why did it make his roleplaying worse? What did the class do that was so bad that you sounds like it kicked your dog and ran off with your girlfriend?
You allude to 'excuses' and 'Pokemon' but don't bring forth any substantial problems with the class past your not liking it. If you actually "at least tried" it doesn't seem like you put forth a lot of effort as I have yet to see the issues you seem to have had when you 'forced' yourself to make a single attempt at something you clearly hated from the get go.
I've seen dozens of players with them without any noticeable dip in roleplaying. If fact, IMO the class seems to attract those that are creative as it requires you to rebuild/advance your pet with new abilities and that makes them more invested in their growth than the average pet. You bad experience could just have been giving a character that was a bad fit for the player and THAT caused the player not to enjoy the experience. You give a player a character that likes simple character one that has to juggle spells, a pet and additional summons and it can be overwhelming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno...I don't think there is any shortage of threads discussing problems with the original summoner. It's not exactly some obscure viewpoint that the Summoner is grossly unbalanced, and introduces some weird rules interactions on top of anything else.
I actually mostly like many of the unchained summoner, especially the spell list. The only problem I have is that their are an insufficient number of options/flavor so far, so its a lot less flexible than the original summoner. Hopefully more archetypes and outsider types can fix that.
|
|
Are old archetypes not allowed for Unchained Summoner? (rogue archetypes still work with Unchained Rogue)
Those that don't change the Eidolon's Base Form do. That's most of 'em, for the record.
'fey caller' gnome summoner with fey eidolon... ok, I could warm up to that one and not hate it so much (especially since any possible type of creature can be pulled from the First World anyways...)
Yep. That works. Of course, 'Fey Caller' is actually Unchained Summoner specific. There was a fey-summoning Archetype for the APG Summoner, but it had a different name.