|
Hello All
I've been making the round seeing how I can get this moving. I've contacted both @PaizoOrgPlay and @PFSOPC on Twitter, along with making a Reddit thread to discuss the benefits and flaws of allowing the Monster Tactician in PFS.
I was told to post something to the "Pathfinder Society general discussion" board to help move this along. Not sure how this works so I'll just state my case.
I love the idea of the Monster Tactician because of it being a Divine-based summoner essentially. While I like the Summoner well enough, I wanted something that's more focused on Buffing/Supporting with some skill versatility, which frankly is often lacking at any PFS table you sit at. The more we can encourage classes/archetypes with skill versatility, the less likely tables are to get "stuck" in certain skill based challenges.
I also understand the flaws of allowing this class. The Inquisitor is already a complex class with a lot of moving parts. Adding to that the inclusion of a SLA Summon will further exacerbate that issue. Often the worry is about a single player burdening the game with taking too long on their turns. There's also the concern about the class being too "powerful" with the addition of the SLA ability summons in addition to the summons getting the Teamwork feats. To that end I'd like to address each of these points as part of my respectful petition.
Flaws
1: Burden of Complexity
While I certainly understand and share these concerns, I also find it a little odd that this particular archetype gets shunned for that aspect when there are plenty of other classes that share the same level of complexity, if not more so. Take for instance any of the Animal Shaman archetypes for the Druid.
The Druid is already a complex class, but on top of that you're introducing 3 additional templates players have to manage for their summons (Which also turn into Standard Actions at level 5 with Spontaneous Summons) and making Wild Shape (Already a very complex class feature) even more complex by working at different effective levels. I don't know how anyone could play this build without the assistance of Hero Lab. Now I'm not saying all complex classes and archetypes should be banned, I just don't see it as being a good reason to ban this archetype. Honestly, if the player doesn't take a Domain that grants an Animal Companion, then it will operate a lot easier and this isn't really a concern.
Perhaps there could be a minor restriction with allowing the Archetype, that the player just can't take the Animal/Fur/Feather domains (Just spit balling here).
2: Too Powerful
To begin with, I completely agree that SLA Summons are a very powerful class feature. Summoners can’t even use it without dumping their Eidolon. People then argue that combine that with the Inquisitor’s Bane feature, and the class will be a power house. I argue that the Archetype forces a very difficult decision on the player.
Basically the Summoner can either go Eidolon focused, dumping all their feats to buff the Eidolon, or SLA focused by investing their feats into their Summon feature. Much like Ranged combat, Summoning comes with a feat requirement. To be effective, you HAVE to take Spell Focus: Conjuration and Augment Summoning just to begin with. Later, so your summons are still effective despite DR, you’ll need to gain access to Moonlight/Sunlight/Starlight Summons to help stay relevant in Combat, else any kind of DR will drastically reduce the effectiveness of your summons.
This same “Sophie’s Choice” (I’m dating myself) would also apply to the Monster Tactician. If they want to keep being effective as either a Martial combatant or their SLA Summons, they’ll need to make some tough choices. Ranged Combat is right out the window. Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot in Combination with Spell Focus: Conjuration and Augment Summoning means that you won’t be fully up and running in either category till level 7, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg with both those categories. Sure, the Bane feature will “help” but as a class that’s already at a Medium BAB, the Bane feature won’t help as much to bypass potential -8 attack rolls if you’re missing those key feats. Yet if you invest in those key feats, your summons will drastically suffer, and even worse at later levels they won’t really be able to do much if they can’t bypass DR. They just become another Warm body on the battlefield.
Melee is a bit better, but now we expose ourselves to Concentration checks since the Summon feature is a Spell Like Ability. Also remember though, Melee has its own level of feat requirements to stay effective, like Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Vital Strike, etc... All this continues to detract from your SLA Summon feature and makes you tepid in either category.
Benefits
1: Skills skills skills
I don’t know about you guys, but all too often I’ve been sitting at a table and there’s been a significant lack of relevant skills amongst the player base. I totally get this is more of a regional problem, but it’s still a problem. As the Seasons march onwards the skills challenges are becoming more varied and even more important. I know the Archetype doesn’t add anything specific to the skills of the Inquisitor, but getting players to run more skill versatile classes only helps the tables.
2: Increasing quasi-healers at the table.
As with skills, there tends to be a lack of people who can cast cure spells on a reliable basis. This is actually one the primary draws for me of this class because I love the idea of a support build (If approved I plan on going with the Defense domain) that can buff, cure, and support while also dropping beefy summons on the table to help allies. That, to me, fits the name of “Tactician”. It’s actually one of the reasons why I’m not attracted to the Summoner, because I’m not a fan of their spell list. While they do have Haste, and some other okay spells, they’re an arcane caster so their spells are going to be more offensive just by their very nature.
Of course Summoners don’t get access to Fireballs or many of the powerful Evocation spells, but we all know that being a powerful Arcane caster isn’t always about the Evocation spell school. Summoners get access to the Pit spells, and many other of the very powerful Conjuration spells that can really turn the tide of battle, like Grease or Cloudkill! So while the Inquisitor may have more powerful class features (Like Summon Tactics) I argue that the Summoner has much more powerful offensive capabilities just from their Spell List alone in comparison to the Monster Tacticians class features.
If you stuck with me this long, thank you. I’m very sorry I ranted this long because honestly I have no idea what this post was supposed to look like to get the Archetype approved. I just think it’d be a fun Archetype to play. I know many people argue that I should just play it in a home campaign but due to real life issues PFS is my only outlet for RPing right now, so I’m just doing what I would in a home campaign. I’m appealing to the person(s) who run the show to see if they’ll let me play what I’d like to play.
Thank you,
Ben
|
|
Two things you need to try and "prove" to get this to have any traction.
1) that it's not a better summoner than the summoner.
and
2) that it can't be as successful at stuff than the base.
Cause sure, for summons to be really effective you need feats. But an eidolon is extra actions and can flank which covers a lot of the bonuses judgment gives.
Basically you need to provide strong reasons for why you'd pick the vanilla version over this version.
|
|
It's an Inquisitor archetype, not a Summoner archetype.
I agree that the Summon ability is far more powerful than the abilities it replaces.
Giving them Teamwork Feats is extra icing on the cake.
It's powerful, but remember that Judgement scales ridiculously well as a class feature. I have a buddy who's is an Inquisitor freak (that's basically all he plays for campaigns) and when I mentioned this Archetype he was instantly put off because it losses Judgements.
Also, keep in mind that the class does not have as-powerful a spell list as the Summoner does. Again, the Summoner loses Evocation, but keeps all of the most powerful Conjuration spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list, which also scale insanely well. You would be in a CR 15 encounter and Grease, as a level 1 spell, would still be a complete game changer, especially as a spell that bypasses SR.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Good post Kurlac, I personally don't agree but you stated your point of view rather well.
IMO for what the archetypes gives up, regular summon would already be too much, standard action summon is a lot better and the teamwork feats on top bring this one into an area where it really is too good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've contacted both @PaizoOrgPlay and @PFSOPC on Twitter, along with making a Reddit thread to discuss the benefits and flaws of allowing the Monster Tactician in PFS.
The whole discussion is moot, guys. I found the Twitter post. Tonya herself replied, and denied his request.
If the leader and chief decision-maker of PFS says "no" then appealing to us low-level non-decision-makers is going to do no good. Or maybe it'll make things worse and annoy her -- she literally rejected this request just 2 weeks ago, so coming at her with this AGAIN so soon probably would not exactly please her. I think she'd wonder why people were not listening to her very clear and unequivocal "No."
|
|
The complexity of summoning and wild shaping isn't the fact that it's different at different levels -- it's the number of possible forms or bodies each with edge case rules on the table. In fact, the Animal Shaman is arguably less complex than a standard druid in practice because they're probably only going to have 1-2 forms they use...
Cavernshark nailed it - it's two burdensome for the org play setting. It's a turn time-eater. Ain't fun to be at a table with this archetype, as you'll be waiting and waiting and waiting...
|
Good post Kurlac, I personally don't agree but you stated your point of view rather well.
Yes, thank you for being well put together and not confrontational.
Although this particular request got denied, there have been similar discussions that led to legalization of other options, so you're on the right track.
If you're looking for a "divine summoner" there are still several ways to go about it. My buddy plays a Cleric with Summon Good Monster (small list but Standard Action), and I play an Unchained Summoner who flavors her Eidolon as a servant of Pharasma and her summons as "giving mortals one last chance to tip a neutral judgment more in their favor".
|
|
This is a weak argument because those other classes do get shunned, all the time, for complexity when they don't understand the options at their disposal when it comes to summon shenanigans. I've played a wizard to 14 and even with full-round summons I have to have carry around a tome of monster stat sheets to be able to respond to emerging situations. Even with that prep then I try to do it sparingly so as not to slow down combat (which I cannot always say works). The complexity of summoning and wild shaping isn't the fact that it's different at different levels -- it's the number of possible forms or bodies each with edge case rules on the table. In fact, the Animal Shaman is arguably less complex than a standard druid in practice because they're probably only going to have 1-2 forms they use...
Shunned is different than Banned. I don't disagree, but the teamwork feats aren't nearly as complex to calculate as the Young, Advanced, or Giant templates are that the Shaman Druids gain access too.
|
|
I've contacted both @PaizoOrgPlay and @PFSOPC on Twitter, along with making a Reddit thread to discuss the benefits and flaws of allowing the Monster Tactician in PFS.The whole discussion is moot, guys. I found the Twitter post. Tonya herself replied, and denied his request.
If the leader and chief decision-maker of PFS says "no" then appealing to us low-level non-decision-makers is going to do no good. Or maybe it'll make things worse and annoy her -- she literally rejected this request just 2 weeks ago, so coming at her with this AGAIN so soon probably would not exactly please her. I think she'd wonder why people were not listening to her very clear and unequivocal "No."
While I appreciate that perspective, I'm just a consumer of their products who pays appreciatively for what they put out there. If they're going to get annoyed with a customer simply because that customer is respectfully and politely advocating to further consume their product (IE I want to play an Archetype they developed from a book I happily paid for.) then the problem isn't with me.
|
|
Cavernshark nailed it - it's two burdensome for the org play setting. It's a turn time-eater. Ain't fun to be at a table with this archetype, as you'll be waiting and waiting and waiting...
I disagree with this argument because the Animal Shaman doesn't stop the class from taking different forms with Wild Shape, it makes other non-totem based forms operate at different levels. Meaning if the character finds themselves in a situation that taking a non-totem form would be more advantageous then they need to not only look up that shape, but they'll then also need to calculate how they operate at -2 effective levels for that shape. Hence why it overly complicates an already massively complicated class feature.
|
|
If you're looking for a "divine summoner" there are still several ways to go about it. My buddy plays a Cleric with Summon Good Monster (small list but Standard Action), and I play an Unchained Summoner who flavors her Eidolon as a servant of Pharasma and her summons as "giving mortals one last chance to tip a neutral judgment more in their favor".I've played around with a few other builds, but I've been a bit disappointed with how they operate. I'd even be okay with going full on Summoner if there was an archetype that ditched the Eidolon to buff the SLA Summons.
Frankly it's the Eidolon that annoys me about the Summoner because with that in play I don't really "feel" like it's a summoner. It becomes just a Pet class, which isn't really the flavor I like.
And just for clarification if people think I just want to play an Over Powered archetype, I'm more than willing to discuss options to bring it into balance to make it playable. The Double Barrel Musket used to be massively over powered but rather than ban it, they changed it to make it much more balanced.
So if people aren't for this archetype getting approved what could change to make it more reasonable from a power perspective? Dump the Summon Tactics ability? Remove the Bane class feature? Strip out Domain access? Some combination of all three of those options? I'm perfectly okay with the archetype getting nerfed if that will get it approved. I'd rather see things get errata'd to get approved for PFS play rather than just get outright banned.
|
|
The Double Barrel Musket used to be massively over powered but rather than ban it, they changed it to make it much more balanced.
The "they" in this case wasn't PFS Leadership. It was the Pathfinder Design Team. And the Gunslinger is from the Core line of hardbacks, whereas this Inquisitor archetype is from a splatbook.
What did you dislike about the other builds? I can assure you they're effective enough for PFS. You can keep your roleplay regardless of mechanics.
Instead of asking for a change, maybe we can help you formulate one.
|
|
@Korlac
I see that you asked Tonya for a reason why the archetype is not for PFS. As a heads up, Leadership rarely provides reasons as to why a specific decision is made. Just that a decision has been made.
We may actually get an official "why" but it is not likely.
I figured. I also figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Worst they can say is no.
|
|
Instead of asking for a change, maybe we can help you formulate one.
Summoner: Took much reliance on the Eidolon. Again, I'd be happy for an archetype here that dumps the Eidolon for the SLA Summons to get a buff. I know I could just run the Summoner without the Eidolon, but then it feels like I'm having to just ignore a rather major feature of a class (Hence hamstringing myself) to get it working way I want. I also have a minor bias against Charisma based casters, I just don't like Charisma as a casting stat Since it provides very little other benefits. At least Int grants a lot of additional skill points and applies to a bunch of other skills. Wisdom applies to a bunch of really important skills (Perception, Sense Motive, Heal, Survival) while also bumping your Will save.
Cleric: I've crunched the numbers on the Herald Caller a bunch of times and while it kind of works, it's also a bit confusing and I argue makes the class far more complicated than anything with normal summons because now you have to check if your Summons are something in line your Deity. It adds additional layers of complexity that frankly don't really add much flavor in my opinion and like the Shaman Druid, I think overly complicates the summoning mechanic (Though I love the Mighty Heralds class feature at level 4).
Arcanist: So full disclosure, I am running an Occultist archetype for the Arcanist in PFS currently (He's level 3). He's fine, but doesn't fit the mold I'm going for (IE the "Tactician" with group buffs, support, and healing). Dumping your Arcane Reservoir to summon as a SLA is rough, but I totally get it because it's a very versatile class that is also a full spell casting class with an unrestricted spell list.
Druid: I've thought about running the Animal Shaman build but like I said previously, it's that archetype that actually concerns me from a complexity standpoint with all the templates. Not a bad option and I keep playing around with the build.
I also don't see the harm in asking for a change though. Obviously some people feel the archetype is too powerful for PFS, so why not bring it in line and make it so that it does work for PFS?
Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South
|
The best hope for that would be an changed reprint, there are too much problems with this archetype to fix it easily. Summon monster SLA is one of the best classfeatures that exists (after Full spellcasting and on par with stuff like Hexes)
Also the summon Tactics is a massive powerboost and can lead to some very broken combinations.
This archetype additionally only looses one fluff feature and one (the worse) of its combat boosters. So there is little reason for any inquisito to not take this archetype over the base class (except the purely combat ones)
This archetype might be salvagable if you were to remove bane, the domain and lowered its spells per day but as written it is a straight upgrade to the class.
I alos would very much like an summoner archetype without an Eidolon but the closes we got (the master summoner) is banned for good reasons and it "blocks" the niche the new archtype would need to fill.
|
|
Obviously some people feel the archetype is too powerful for PFS, so why not bring it in line and make it so that it does work for PFS?
Because that's not something PFS does.
Leadership can only ban something, or legalize something, or clarify how something works.
Hence the suggestion to help you, since what you're asking can't be done.
|
|
The best hope for that would be an changed reprint, there are too much problems with this archetype to fix it easily. Summon monster SLA is one of the best classfeatures that exists (after Full spellcasting and on par with stuff like Hexes)
Also the summon Tactics is a massive powerboost and can lead to some very broken combinations.
This archetype additionally only looses one fluff feature and one (the worse) of its combat boosters. So there is little reason for any inquisito to not take this archetype over the base class (except the purely combat ones)This archetype might be salvagable if you were to remove bane, the domain and lowered its spells per day but as written it is a straight upgrade to the class.
I al[so] would very much like an summoner archetype without an Eidolon but the closes we got (the master summoner) is banned for good reasons and it "blocks" the niche the new arch[e]type would need to fill.
Reducing the spells per-day seems extreme. I'd be okay with Bane being tossed out and the domain being removed. Keep the Summon Tactics in unless that's just determined to be crazy too good. Again, the Summoner can just choose not to pull out it's Eidolon and they have all their SLA Summons and a good Arcane Spell casting list that's Spontaneous just like the Inquisitor.
I think the Master Summoner was blocked not because it was "too good" (because the Eidolon gets such a massive nerf that it basically becomes useless) but it falls under the same "Too Complicated" category of running Summons AND a Pet based class. I get that, but oddly there are many other ways to accomplish this exact same type of "build" with other classes/archetypes. Back to my Animal Totem example. You get a full caster class, with Spontaneous Summons (That are Standard Actions at level 5) along with an Animal Companion.
|
|
Hence the suggestion to help you, since what you're asking can't be done.
Of course it can. Maybe I'm not asking in the right place (I know this is PFS but PFS is a part of Paizo as a larger organization, so it's not irrational to think they'd know "who" to talk to as far as the "product group" goes.) but the archetype can be errata'd to fit PFS. These things aren't written in stone.
|
|
It's a toned down Monster Tactician. Writing that out suddenly makes me want to make this...
That's really interesting, I hadn't heard of that archetype before. I'll need to crunch it through Herolab and see how it plays out.
Another one I REALLY like (I have a level 4 character with this Archetype in PFS) is the Preservationist for the Alchemist. All you have to give up in Poison Use and you add Summon Nature's Ally to your Formula List that scales better than the normal Alchemist progression (IE at level 8 you get Summon Nature's Ally IV as a 3rd level extract).
Warpriests get in on the fun too with the Good/Evil/Lawful blessing with their Battle Companions. Unfortunately that doesn't kick in till level 10, but it's still a standard action and scales well too.
|
|
what you're asking can't be done.Of course it can. Maybe I'm not asking in the right place (I know this is PFS but PFS is a part of Paizo as a larger organization, so it's not irrational to think they'd know "who" to talk to as far as the "product group" goes.) but the archetype can be errata'd to fit PFS.
No, it can't. That's what we're trying to tell you.
That's simply not what PFS is for.
Campaign Leadership is not responsible, in any way, for creating content for Pathfinder.
They are not, in any way, responsible for Pathfinder errata.
Sometimes PFS Campaign Clarifications make their way into the Pathfinder FAQ. That's a decision made by the Pathfinder Design Team, however, and not PFS Leadership. Errata and FAQs are different things.
The role of Campaign Leadership is to create content for Pathfinder Society and run the Campaign.
That's it.
|
|
what you're asking can't be done.Of course it can. Maybe I'm not asking in the right place (I know this is PFS but PFS is a part of Paizo as a larger organization, so it's not irrational to think they'd know "who" to talk to as far as the "product group" goes.) but the archetype can be errata'd to fit PFS.No, it can't. That's what we're trying to tell you.
That's simply not what PFS is for.
Campaign Leadership is not responsible, in any way, for creating content for Pathfinder.
They are not, in any way, responsible for Pathfinder errata.
Sometimes PFS Campaign Clarifications make their way into the Pathfinder FAQ. That's a decision made by the Pathfinder Design Team, however, and not PFS Leadership. Errata and FAQs are different things.
The role of Campaign Leadership is to create content for Pathfinder Society and run the Campaign.
That's it.
So Tonya Woldridge doesn't work for Paizo? Unless they specifically don't work for Paizo (Which I believe they do since on Twitter it lists them as living in the Redmond/Seattle region which the Paizo headquarters are located) then of course it is. It's just a matter of one part of the business communicating with another part of the business. If the core Leadership portion of PFS (Which is owned and operated by Paizo) has 0 ability to communicate and interact with the Pathfinder product group (Also owned and operated by Paizo) that's a business failing there at an organizational level. The implication there is that Pathfinder can influence PFS, but PFS can never influence Pathfinder.
|
|
The fact that PFS banhammered an option probably gets around. They might tone it down if they reprint it somewhere else because of that. Or make a toned down version and call it something else.
Or more likely just add it as a footnote and move on.
Of all the things people have to do and discuss why does this have to go into the pipe?
|
|
If the core Leadership portion of PFS has 0 ability to communicate and interact with the Pathfinder product group that's a business failing there at an organizational level.
That's. Not. Their. Job.
It's not that they *can't*.
Also consider the ramifications of what you're asking. You're essentially wanting a nerf. That rarely ever goes well. It usually goes badly.
What is the incentive for Paizo to spend time and resources to nerf one of their newest releases?
It wouldn't even happen until the second printing anyways, and that will take years.
|
|
If the core Leadership portion of PFS has 0 ability to communicate and interact with the Pathfinder product group that's a business failing there at an organizational level.That's. Not. Their. Job.
It's not that they *can't*.
Also consider the ramifications of what you're asking. You're essentially wanting a nerf. That rarely ever goes well. It usually goes badly.
What is the incentive for Paizo to spend time and resources to nerf one of their newest releases?
It wouldn't even happen until the second printing anyways, and that will take years.
I propose we drop this line of discussion because it's serving no purpose to the larger conversation.. I didn't pull Tonya's name out of a hat. I had tried a few different points of Contact and was told directly by the @Paizo representative to contact her about this request. I will agree that making changes to the Archetype isn't her responsibility, but I offered that as a possible solution to the problem. PFS absolutely influences the Pathfinder product, and seeing as Tonya is responsible for the Pathfinder Society program, she's a part of that feedback loop.
Also, the part about nerfing is also a weird point. If all people do is bring up how powerful it is and it's banned from Organized play potentially because it's too powerful, then doesn't that indicate it might need a Nerf? Reworking it to fit better in PFS play and letting it be legal is better than just wiping it off the table completely and never allowing it at all. I'd imagine Paizo want people to utilize desired aspects of their product, and PFS is where the most play of various builds happens (Due to a larger pool of rotating characters).
|
|
It wouldn't even happen until the second printing anyways, and that will take years.
This is a far better point than "It just can't happen." and I appreciate the question.
I think it goes back to my previous point about adding versatility to an under utilized class (Again, this gets to be a more regional specific thing but in my chapter of PFS I can't honestly remember the last time I saw a player run an Inquisitor other than my friend, and he stopped playing PFS years ago).
Increasing the desire to play the hybrid/versatile classes means more skills at the table (Seriously, I don't know what it's like for other people but we have a horrible time with skill versatility.), more people who can cast CL Wands, and the Monster Knowledge feature really helps with the encounters as well. All in all I think it'd help an under utilized class get more play time.
In the same vein I think the should let the Investigator utilize Wands (Another woefully under utilized class) but that's a conversation for a different thread.
|
|
I believe that most games are home games.
In a home game, a DM sitting at the table can determine
- From reading the description, is the power level in line with what i want for my game?
- After seeing the character that Bob makes with it, is this too powerful?
- Can bob actually roll all those attacks in a reasonable time frame for combat? (Keep in mind, PFS is often on a time limit that home games are not, both in terms of needing to get through a specific amount of content or getting tossed out of the store because the cashier needs that sleep thing
- Is bob overshadowing bill, who took a regular summoner ? If so are we all okay with this?
The idea that a product MIGHT be a fit option for one style of play and not the other is... tuesday. it's not the omg batton down the hatches the barn is on fire" event you're treating it like. PFS bans a fair bit of stuff. its no big deal. There's lots more stuff to use. Paizo keeps the lights on making lots more stuff, not trying to cut the corners to make sure everything will fit in the PFS box.
|
|
If all people do is bring up how powerful it is and it's banned from Organized play potentially because it's too powerful, then doesn't that indicate it might need a Nerf?Please allow me to introduce to you several hundred thousand people that disagree with you.
Alright, I think we've hit the saturation point for this part of the discussion. Initiate virtual handshake and lets drop this.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
If the core Leadership portion of PFS has 0 ability to communicate and interact with the Pathfinder product group that's a business failing there at an organizational level.That's. Not. Their. Job.
It's not that they *can't*.
Also consider the ramifications of what you're asking. You're essentially wanting a nerf. That rarely ever goes well. It usually goes badly.
What is the incentive for Paizo to spend time and resources to nerf one of their newest releases?
It wouldn't even happen until the second printing anyways, and that will take years.
Except most of the problems with nerfs are the arbitrary times at which they occur. The stuff PFS nerfs usually just occurs silently because of their immediate nature.