|
Is your opinion that they were correct in boosting the monk and rogue but wrong to tone down the summoner?
IMO, Unchained is more akin to a massive errata. I do not have a problem with obsolete material being replaced with new. That was not what I was referring to. I just don't like the idea that someone (or someones) even with the play experience the OPC, developers, or RVC have to ban something based on its perceived power level. The designers of the game are the arbitrators of what is/not balanced. Sure they make mistakes sometimes, but its up to the them to fix it.
Remember, once you start talking about balance issues, it is easy to show how even a core character can be "broken." It reduces all arguments about what is OP to personal preference. I think its one of the reasons why we tend to hide behind the "not appropriate for PFS" justification even when it is clear a banning occurred because of a perceived OP condition (see synthesist)
|
|
I only commented as I was pleasantly surprised to see that comment from an RVC and felt that some positive feedback might have been a nice change
Just because we 100% fully support the decisions made by Paizo and the OPC does not mean we necessarily agree with all of them. I try to be as clinical as possible on matters like this.
|
The expectations and rewards for all the Venture-Officer positions can be found HERE
Ah. Thanks. VL+.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's what made the Master Summoner such a slowdown machineI can see your point with respect to inexperienced players. I guess my issue is that the problem does not rest with the archetype, it rests with the players using it.
That is only partly true.
I had a Lion Shaman Druid with the summoning feats. Despite being quite organized it still slows down the game to roll 4 pussy cats (3 summoned, 1 pet) each with 4 attacks (haste). I had a VERY strong tendency to only summon when things got really pear shaped because summoning can be so antisocial.
One combat where I DID summon (things were rapidly going from bad to TPK) I spent the entirety of the round (all through the other players actions) rolling dice. When my turn came up I could just say "33 damage to that one, 60 pts off its stone skin, 25 to that one and 30 off its stoneskin).
But the only reason that I did NOT slow the game down to a crawl was because the GM trusted me enough (both to be honest and accurate) that he just told me the bad guys ACs and I could roll all those dice unsupervised.
|
|
I'm also struggling to see how those of you in favor of making every option legal view Unchained. That's a book where everyone from the publisher to the entire Design Team said "We've had a few years of actual play experience now and we didn't get the balance quite right when we initially created some of these classes. We think that overall the rogue and monk need a bit of a boost but we need to depower the summoner some to bring it in line with the other classes."
Is your opinion that they were correct in boosting the monk and rogue but wrong to tone down the summoner?
according to you it's power creep. URogue is everything a rogue is but better, thus making the original less desirable. Thus it should have been banned.
but wait... it wasn't. That's because "adding power" here and there isn't power creep if it's never really modifying any power level of the tiers. Rogues getting dex to damage doesn't alter how fighting with a weapon works or AC or anything besides being better than normal rogue.
Many of the options banned that I've listed I feel fall under this. There were reasons to play a rogue over ninja before, there would still be reasons to play a URogue over a UNinja.
|
|
If that is the case generally speaking, then why not just ban summoning as being too disruptive? Or limit it like we do companions such that you can never have more than one (or whatever) summoned creatures?
Goes running off and screaming, "BUT WHOM WILL I PLAY NOW!!! I have no one left, dead to me, just DEAD I SAY" stop the madness before it starts.
|
|
To me, the thing that makes Master Summoner so bad is the minute/level summons combined with lots and lots of summons. If a Master Summoner knows what is coming, BAM here's an entire army of summons to take it down. Also, if the scenario is one where it is a dungeon crawl, the Master Summoner can just summon their army and speed their way through.
...I have experienced this personally multiple times with Master Summoners.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a general question out there. Have people seen many unchained summoners in play? I use to see the occasional APG summoner but I can't say I've seen a single unchained one.I feel like summoning Rosc to this conversation.
Oh. Hi there, Hilary. As you mentioned, I've given the class a lot of thought, and I have a couple of builds kicking around. About 3 of my PFS slots dedicated to it, along with an APG Summoner as my first slot character. I've got a Halfling lancer that rides on a spider demon, a Morphic Savant artist who's watercolor Azata can perform in different combat roles, and about a half dozen other things that I just don't have the play time to bring to life.
Remember, once you start talking about balance issues, it is easy to show how even a core character can be "broken." It reduces all arguments about what is OP to personal preference. I think its one of the reasons why we tend to hide behind the "not appropriate for PFS" justification even when it is clear a banning occurred because of a perceived OP condition (see synthesist)
Ah, the Synthesist. A beloved example of something that is both broken (it literally breaks the point buy rules, for example) while also being weaker than the base Summoner. I really hope it gets a less lopsided incarnation that's compatible with Unchained and PFS play. I'd love to play one some time.
But yeah. The Unchained rewrite seems to be partially inspired by public perceptions, such as Eidolons being pouncing death beasts with no flavor. "Just a bunch of tentacles with three butts," if I recall the old line correctly. After all, we have a full on 50% nerf to the Large Size evolution while Skilled is still massively front loaded +8(!) racial bonus and standard-action summoning that outpaces Wizards remain unmodified.
Heck, my napkin math puts Summoners at the same spells-per-day as an Arcanist once you count their SLA.
The class is still fun, and it is healthier for PFS play overall. That new Pounce evolution NEEDED to happen, after all, and I'm sure the Dev team has a better view of the whole issue than I ever will. I just wish the subtypes were handled differently, or made to be optional
|
|
Because a regular old caster can't spam summons like a master summoner can.
Perhaps not but that is a philosophical objection based on your opinion of where the line exists between acceptable and OP. IMO, the line between an acceptable amount of summoning and OP is beyond both the master summoner and the druid or conjurer. That a master summoner is even more past the line is not relevant. This coming from someone who likes both builds and recognizes the potential for OP.
In my experience, the reason why most wanted it banned was because of unprepared players either not knowing what to summon, not having the stat blocks prepped, or simply the length of a turn due to excessive actions. None of those concerns are alleviated by banning the master summoner. Virtually every summoning-focused character presents the same problem. So the only logical conclusion is that it was singled out for banning because of a perception of OP. That creates a very real inconsistency because everyone can posit examples of just as (or more) powerful builds that render the rest of the player superfluous.
A part of me is glad master summoner is banned because of the potential for table disruption, but at the same time the justification does not hold water when compared to similar player options. Your reality may vary.
Because a regular old caster can't spam summons like a master summoner can.Perhaps not but that is a philosophical objection based on your opinion of where the line exists between acceptable and OP. IMO, the line between an acceptable amount of summoning and OP is beyond both the master summoner and the druid or conjurer. That a master summoner is even more past the line is not relevant. This coming from someone who likes both builds and recognizes the potential for OP.
In my experience, the reason why most wanted it banned was because of unprepared players either not knowing what to summon, not having the stat blocks prepped, or simply the length of a turn due to excessive actions. None of those concerns are alleviated by banning the master summoner. Virtually every summoning-focused character presents the same problem. So the only logical conclusion is that it was singled out for banning because of a perception of OP. That creates a very real inconsistency because everyone can posit examples of just as (or more) powerful builds that render the rest of the player superfluous.
A part of me is glad master summoner is banned because of the potential for table disruption, but at the same time the justification does not hold water when compared to similar player options. Your reality may vary.
By that logic, because the NJ Turnpicke imposes a 75 mph speed ban on automobiles, it should just ban driving altogether.
The Master Summoner was over powered not because of the amount of summons it could have, but because it could literally fill the battlemap with them. Something NO other class could do, not even the regular summoner. The issue was not so much OP, but letting the other players get to play.
Yes the other summoning classes can be a problem, especially with players who don't have their acts together or could not be bothered to prep summons in advance. But if PFS were to eliminate all potential problems, we GMs would be hosting empty tables. Instead we have a tolerance threshold, and the Master Summoner is simply one of those classes that goes beyond it.
|
|
A master summoner could blow all his summons to last for minutes and run through an entire dungeon and kill everything before they expired and without the summoner needing to enter.
All other summoning builds that only last rounds per level can't do that.
The other classes with minutes per level can't spam as many and thus is not likely to be able kill everything by themselves.
It's past the OP line into broken territory when certain common situations happen.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Unchained rewrite seems to be partially inspired by public perceptions, such as Eidolons being pouncing death beasts with no flavor. "Just a bunch of tentacles with three butts," if I recall the old line correctly. After all, we have a full on 50% nerf to the Large Size evolution while Skilled is still massively front loaded +8(!) racial bonus and standard-action summoning that outpaces Wizards remain unmodified.
It bothers me that they ruined so many lovely flavor options for Eidolons, and they didn't future-proof many of the evolutions. Why is it that you can only have evil mounts as an unchained summoner?
I also felt terrible that Bret's APG summoner with a gentle sea-serpent eidolon was treated as a pariah and pre-judged at so many of the tables he played at. It made him retire his -1 character and never play her again, all because summoners were viewed as being always fun-stealing munchkins. At least now with the unsummoner, there are fewer groans when a summoner comes to the table.
The most interesting thing about the APG summoner was that eidolons were like Lego -- a monster that you could build to fit many fantasy concepts.
I've never tried a summoner, primarily because I don't enjoy summoning things to fight for me. (Summoning earth elementals to spy through walls or dig out buried treasure is another story) but I was sad that the class lost so many flavor choices for Eidolons.
My main issue with summoning is that homework has to be done ahead of time. I spent time with a new teenage girl player that I had who had a druid, and helped her figure out where to download summoned monster stats and how to do other things to speed up her turns. The next time I saw her, she came armed with a notebook with all her summons clearly marked by their own tabs. It was awesome!
Hmm
|
|
Perhaps not but that is a philosophical objection based on your opinion
This is a meaningless rebutal. Every concept of what is overpowered and what should be banned is going to be subjective.
That the master summoner is op is subjective. That it's the same as other summoning options is objectively wrong.
of where the line exists between acceptable and OP.
It's not just the overpowered, its the sheer level of annoyance. Yes, a regular caster can summon but
1) they don't have as many summon spells to cast, so will use less summon spells
2) usually need a round to get the summons off, which leads to less summons because the option isn't as good and because it's one less round of combat.
It's also an opinion shared by a lot of players and the campaign leadership.
IMO, the line between an acceptable amount of summoning and OP is beyond both the master summoner and the druid or conjurer. That a master summoner is even more past the line is not relevant. This coming from someone who likes both builds and recognizes the potential for OP.
The druid summoner doesn't have access to acadamy graduate, so i think they're stuck with full round summonses aren't they? That's a huge problem with action economy.
Druid summons have a very hard time dealing with the ubiquitous DR of critters.
The druid has 2-3 spells of their highest level (ie the ones that would be useful)
Starting at 1st level, a master summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 5 + his Charisma modifier
A master summoner has 9 or more summons of their highest level
Yes, the druid could theoretically spam summon monster 1 against a cr 13, but that is exceedingly rare because its a bad idea. A master summoner spamming summons is agood idea, beacause all of his are top level spells.
In my experience, the reason why most wanted it banned was because of unprepared players either not knowing what to summon, not having the stat blocks prepped, or simply the length of a turn due to excessive actions. None of those concerns are alleviated by banning the master summoner.
With other summoners you at least move combat along for a round while they ickity ackity ook.
Your reality may vary.
enough peoples reality varied from your ideas, for the reasons listed above, to get it a well deserved ban. Some of what you're disagreeing with is math.
It bothers me that they ruined so many lovely flavor options for Eidolons, and they didn't future-proof many of the evolutions. Why is it that you can only have evil mounts as an unchained summoner?
Even with the standard summoner, I couldn't have my Chocobo, so I've been feeling your pain.
|
|
...what you're disagreeing with is math
No, what I disagree with is inconsistencies in the application of our rules. IMO, subjective and perhaps arbitrary decisions using "over-powered" as a baseline creates a lot of strife in the campaign. I am simply expressing that the perception of what is/not over-powered should not be a basis for deciding what is/not legal for the campaign. I happen to think most alchemists are broken, but I stop short of asking for their banning (not that it is necessarily relevant).
Also note that with the release of Unchained, it would seem to suggest even the designers have decided that some aspects of the summoner, perhaps including archetypes like master summoner were in fact OP and need to be re-balanced. So, with regards to this particular topic whether or not master summoner is OP is moot.
No, what I disagree with is inconsistencies in the application of our rules. IMO, subjective and perhaps arbitrary decisions using "over-powered" as a baseline creates a lot of strife in the campaign
In the 8-9 years I've been GMing PFS, I have yet to see any significant evidence of "campaign strife" outside of rants in this venue. Many of the latter adjustment decisions that have resulted in changes like these aren't any more arbitrary than any other decision that came from player/gm/campaign feedback.
|
|
...what you're disagreeing with is mathNo, what I disagree with is inconsistencies in the application of our rules. IMO, subjective and perhaps arbitrary decisions using "over-powered" as a baseline creates a lot of strife in the campaign.
you are ignoring everything that makes them different and then declaring them arbitrary.
I have yet to see any significant evidence of "campaign strife" outside of rants in this venueThat doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A good portion of my time is spent listening to and investigating complaints that run the gamut of most topics seen in the forums.
That's part and parcel of running a network campaign. Paradoxically, PFS may run into more problems because it allows more material than RPGA's campaigns did. In Living City, most of my player material was unusable because the campaign never got around to allowing it. So not as much material-based complaints. (plenty of others though)
|
|
you are ignoring everything that makes them objective and then declaring them arbitrary....what you're disagreeing with is mathNo, what I disagree with is inconsistencies in the application of our rules. IMO, subjective and perhaps arbitrary decisions using "over-powered" as a baseline creates a lot of strife in the campaign.
BNW, the subjectiveness is in the weighting that is applied to differences in classes/spells/feats/etc.
I personally put a huge amount of weight on 6+Int skill points when deciding what class I want to play. Because I really like playing skilled characters. Someone who enjoys a more "smashy" style may not care at all if her character has only 2+Int skill points.
Objectively the Master Summoner can throw out more max-level summons than any other class, and as a standard action. Subjectively - is that a problem?
Bob's issue is that some of the things that are banned are - in his opinion - not more overpowered than things that are allowed. Especially when it seems arbitrary which is allowed and which isn't. That's a subjective analysis. Allowing everything would eliminate that potential source of grief.
Though I will argue it could open up more issues, that's a slightly different topic. We rely on Campaign Leadership to make decisions on what is and isn't too powerful. As this thread clearly shows VLs, VCs, and even RVCs don't always agree with those decisions. But the Paizo employees are the ones whose actual job is to keep the campaign healthy.
|
|
BNW, the subjectiveness is in the weighting that is applied to differences in classes/spells/feats/etc.
Saying that they're the same completely undermines the difference between 9 and 2, as well as vast experimental evidence that 9 plays a lot differently than 2.
Though I will argue it could open up more issues, that's a slightly different topic. We rely on Campaign Leadership to make decisions on what is and isn't too powerful. As this thread clearly shows VLs, VCs, and even RVCs don't always agree with those decisions. But the Paizo employees are the ones whose actual job is to keep the campaign healthy.
well i would never disagree with campaign leadership....
(okay, someone go pick John up off the floor)
Handwaving every decision as subjective is an exercise in epistemic nihlism.
Objectively the Master Summoner can throw out more max-level summons than any other class, and as a standard action. Subjectively - is that a problem?
Objectively it was, i believe the master summoner was allowed and then banned later and it was a problem with people's turns taking too long.
Remember you don't always summon 1 critter per summons, you can bring in a hoard of smaller critters.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
The Master Summoner was over powered not because of the amount of summons it could have, but because it could literally fill the battlemap with them. Something NO other class could do, not even the regular summoner. The issue was not so much OP, but letting the other players get to play.
The duration is probably more important because unlike assertions you could always spam summons as a standard action once you hit a certain point in core.