| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i just came back to have a look at how the summoner was going and i'm here asking myself wtf?
so if ended up becoming a undead summoner and i summoned a undead eidolon i would take damage with him?
i mean i get that for the good guys but that makes zero sense for people who are summoning things like elder mythos aberrations and daemon come on people
also could you people please for the love of Christ change that thing about the marks that shows through everything
this is gonna ruin the game for everyone during stealth or stuff
please just put a rule that everyone can tell your eidolon is connected to you don't add unnecessary cosmetic changes to the player's character
yes i understand that might not be the intention but i can definitively see a gm interpreting it like shining through magical invisibility or making you easy to spot in the dark
damn there goes my hopes of playing as an undead eidolon and have the summoner character basically be my phylactery
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The eidolon mark has sort of been there since the beginning, I wouldn't place any bets on that going away. If there's a GM out there who abuses it, then they were abusing it in PF1 and I haven't heard any mention of it until now.
As for your question, currently it seems as though the playtest summoner is more physically bonded with their eidolon. A necromancer may not care for their undead minion, but a summoner and their eidolon have more than a master and pet relationship in this iteration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The eidolon mark has sort of been there since the beginning, I wouldn't place any bets on that going away. If there's a GM out there who abuses it, then they were abusing it in PF1 and I haven't heard any mention of it until now.
As for your question, currently it seems as though the playtest summoner is more physically bonded with their eidolon. A necromancer may not care for their undead minion, but a summoner and their eidolon have more than a master and pet relationship in this iteration.
i'm asking why is this a good design decision when it pretty much destroys any fiend aberration or evil summoner
leaving undead aside it wouldn't make sense for someone to summon a daemon whose sole purpose is to cause suffering deaths and destruction and then make their life shared
in fact i'm sure the daemon would laugh and kill you since he can just spawn back in abaddon
you can't use the design decision itself to justify itself that is circular logic fallacy
as for the mark i find it weird that you people think something should be completely changed and others are set in stone
if you can make life shared you can change that horrible mark
what is the point of a new edition fix you don't fix horrible mistake
also first edition did worse isn't a excuse to not do better
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conjurers and Summoners are different things. Someone who uses demons as tools do not bind their soul to their body as a Summoner. Conjurers use their summons as weapons and tools.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conjurers and Summoners are different things. Someone who uses demons as tools do not bind their soul to their body as a Summoner. Conjurers use their summons as weapons and tools.
they became that in this edition in fact they haven't even become anything yet since we are in a play test
you are basically telling they are like that because they are like that that just stating the obvious is not in any way a coherent argument
so why should they be like that?
why does it make sense for a daemon summoner to die with his eidolon when it will like eat his soul in the way to afterlife?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the summoner can use the daemon's power while he is still living. This could play right into the trope of making a deal with the devil (or in this case a daemon.) You can find reasons that make sense in more and might even become the basis of your relationship with said daemon.
Summoner: "Go check in that room and tell me what is in there!"
Daemon: "Go do it yourself!"
S: "I didn't summon and bind you just ot have you give me lip. Do you want my soul or not? If you don't go I'll take up jogging again!"
D: "FINE!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the summoner can use the daemon's power while he is still living. This could play right into the trope of making a deal with the devil (or in this case a daemon.) You can find reasons that make sense in more and might even become the basis of your relationship with said daemon.
Summoner: "Go check in that room and tell me what is in there!"
Daemon: "Go do it yourself!"
S: "I didn't summon and bind you just ot have you give me lip. Do you want my soul or not? If you don't go I'll take up jogging again!"
D: "FINE!"
that is a nice backstory not a nice constraint though, i'm all in for people having the choice to be linked but i don't think everyone should be forced to
why not just make it like the wizard thesis and let the player chose at level 1 between linked and unlinked
remember nobody is asking for lifelink to be erased from existence but many would like to just have the option to not be forced to pick it
so what is the justification for the design choice to force all summoners by default into lifelink?
that is a nice backstory not a nice constraint though, i'm all in for people having the choice to be linked but i don't think everyone should be forced to
why not just make it like the wizard thesis and let the player chose at level 1 between linked and unlinked
When it comes to shared HP pools, I personally lean towards the current playtest model, but wouldn't be upset if the final product has separate hit points. But I think the impact of linked HP and unlinked HP is much lower than wizard theses or rogue rackets or barbarian totems.
If anything this seems ripe for table houseruling either way. It's such a small non-issue that it's astounding that the conversation has flowed over into three threads.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't lifelink pls dont call it lifelink. Lifelink was fun and let the player choose. This is a forced mechanic for no actual reason other than to be different, which shouldn't be the reason it gets implemented.
Novelty =/= good.
Haven't people given plenty of reasons both thematic and mechanical as to why shared HP is currently in use with the playtest summoner? I mean, I understand that you're championing hard for the cause of splitting the HP pool, but you can't call it novelty when people have already pointed out...
Mechanically
Simpler and easier to track: Sort of a thing that Paizo has been showcasing with PF2 is streamlining a lot of mechanics so that anyone can pick up and go, especially if it's a core function of a class (unlike summoning minions which is something a spellcaster would opt in for).
Removes eidolon as an expendable resource: This ends up forcing more important decisions on the summoners end while making them think more wisely about using their eidolon as a meat shield/sack of hit points.
Opens up design space: Creating a separate entity in terms of hit points alters how much power can be allotted to the eidolon. Without the risk posed to the summoner, more limits would have to come up from somewhere to replace it.
Thematically
Further drives home the difference between summoners and those who summon: Hey, there's a reason why it's its own class and not just an archetype for summoners. It should have some new mechanics to drive home that feeling.
Eidolons aren't just summoned creatures: These aren't cheap toys that you throw out and forget. Currently this is showing exactly that connection between the summoner and their eidolon.
Golarion summoners are not WoW summoners: Hey, I tossed my own in here because why not? I've said it before that Paizo has shown that they're more firmly establishing their brand on things throughout their books and no longer making them setting agnostic. Summoners have had a much stronger connection to their eidolons than conjurers (for lack of an easier term) and moving in that direction is positive.
NONE of this is to say that they should or shouldn't have HP pooled. Again, this is a playtest, but this mechanic has been shown time and time again that it's not novelty. It's fine to not enjoy it, but to completely ignore literally conversation that you've had (over three threads!) is getting exhausting.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The eidolon mark has sort of been there since the beginning, I wouldn't place any bets on that going away. If there's a GM out there who abuses it, then they were abusing it in PF1 and I haven't heard any mention of it until now.
As for your question, currently it seems as though the playtest summoner is more physically bonded with their eidolon. A necromancer may not care for their undead minion, but a summoner and their eidolon have more than a master and pet relationship in this iteration.
i'm asking why is this a good design decision when it pretty much destroys any fiend aberration or evil summoner
leaving undead aside it wouldn't make sense for someone to summon a daemon whose sole purpose is to cause suffering deaths and destruction and then make their life shared
It doesn't take a lot of creativity to deal with this delima. In fact, there are a number of science fiction and horror that show similar connections.
To be more direct, I see the example you presented with the evil Summoner that doesn't care about their Eidolon and who just wants to sow destruction. Why would he want to share HP...he wouldn't! However it is a necessary sacrifice for him to summon such a powerful being. This Summoner isn't satisfied with just the weak minions a Wizard or Sorceror summons, but thirst for more power. Unfortunately with more power comes more effort and sacrifice. He has found a way to tap into a powerful Outsider (daemon, undead from the negative plane, abberation, etc.) by learning the Summoner arts. Sharing his life-force is necessary to make this bond, but his thirst for this awesome power is worth what it takes to sow such destruction!
It is similar to the trope of making a deal with the devil. You have to give up something to gain such power.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't lifelink pls dont call it lifelink. Lifelink was fun and let the player choose. This is a forced mechanic for no actual reason other than to be different, which shouldn't be the reason it gets implemented.
I couldn't disagree more strongly.
If there is one thing that I think needs to stay around after the PT is over it is the shared HP pool between S and E. It's flavorful, it makes sense, and it works great to keep Summoners from just treating their E as a Meatshield that they mistreat and just resummon one round after it dies.
No biggie though, we're both allowed to like and dislike different stuff, just be sure to fill out the PT survey like I do so Paizo knows how you feel bruv.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't lifelink pls dont call it lifelink. Lifelink was fun and let the player choose. This is a forced mechanic for no actual reason other than to be different, which shouldn't be the reason it gets implemented.
Novelty =/= good.
It’s literally called Life Link in the Playtest doc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with you ArchSage20. I think the shared hit point pool is a mistake myself. It does limit how you can use your summoner and the stories on how you bind your summoner to your will. I think it will alienate and disappoint the PF1 summoner fans who have certain expectations of what it means to have a summoned creature at your command.
I think the level of divisiveness I see on this topic is exactly the level I saw in regards to 4E. I think ignoring the summoner fans from PF1 who hate this mechanic and listening to people who might play a summoner once ever who just like to see new mechanics is a bad commercial and design decision.
I think it will cost them in sales and fans to pursue this mechanical idea that so deviates from PF1 summone fan expectations.
Even the specter of a shared hit point pool for other than the synthesist single-handedly killed my interest in the summoner and the Secrets of Magic Book. I can get the spells and archetypes off one of the online sites. Only reason to buy the book for me was the summoner class.
I hope they re-think this before release. No matter how many people want to make summoner fans believe they need some kind of blood bond with their eidolon, that is not what the majority of PF1 summoner fans wanted in a summoner class. Summoning a pet or minion is about having a powerful creature under your control that will die for you if necessary, not with you.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
I think it will cost them in sales and fans to pursue this mechanical idea that so deviates from PF1 summoner fan expectations.
I tend to disagree. Given how poorly Summoner was regarded by everyone who didn't play Summoners in 1E, I can't imagine that distancing themselves from it signficantly isn't the strong business move.
I'm the only person I know in my local area excited for this class. Literally everyone elses reaction could be summarized as, "Ugh, that broken class?"
I want a class I can play, and that means avoiding the perception that it is remotely OP.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is so weird that whenever a thing happens that isn't exactly the same as PF1, the doomsayers (weirdly the same people) come out to say, "And this will cost Paizo sales!
Incapacitation rules will cost Paizo sales!
Goblins in core will cost Paizo sales!
Renaming paladins will cost Paizo sales!
Thankfully all of these people are the CFO of Paizo. One joint amalgamation of people in a suit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they re-think this before release. No matter how many people want to make summoner fans believe they need some kind of blood bond with their eidolon, that is not what the majority of PF1 summoner fans wanted in a summoner class. Summoning a pet or minion is about having a powerful creature under your control that will die for you if necessary, not with you.
Honestly, I don't get this point of view there are plenty of ways to summon minions in this game.The idea of Eidolon being another minion only meant to serve is boring to me. Plus I think if and Eidolon was regulated to being a minion it would have all the restrates that all other minions have. Which would make it much weaker. We don't need a bond techically the summoner does need to be a class it could have been an archytype. But the bond themanicically interesting to me. This may not be interesting to you. Plus you can't speak for all summoner player PF1 no one can.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is so weird that whenever a thing happens that isn't exactly the same as PF1, the doomsayers (weirdly the same people) come out to say, "And this will cost Paizo sales!
Incapacitation rules will cost Paizo sales!
Goblins in core will cost Paizo sales!
Renaming paladins will cost Paizo sales!Thankfully all of these people are the CFO of Paizo. One joint amalgamation of people in a suit.
It's the "sacred cow argument." I like something and if you change it then it will be horrible. These arguments almost always come with doom sayers that make everything out to be the end of the world. They are easy to spot often enough because if people don't immediately agree with them, they often attempt to elicit an emotional response (often either fear or nostalgia).
Personally I loved the 1e Summoner, but if I'm truthful I banned the class from my tables after the first year (largely due to how much they slowed down the game). I like the approach of this Summoner and believe it holds true to the ideals the original went for while changing things for the better.
Are their changes that need done? Yes. They are on the weak side right now and the action economy looks good until you play it and realize you are pigeon holed into a rather boring routine for battle. But I have faith these and the lack of unique options for Eidolon growth will be fixed. The HP sharing though, gives this class some real interesting lore and mechanics. Thats just my opinion of course.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not the "sacred cow argument", its a "there is not reason to force it on us".
The old system gave the summoner the choice of how they want to do it. It was not forced. You want to shared HP sure share HP. I dont want to share HP sure dont share HP. That is what the old version allows.
Yes, didn't you know that in the future there will only be the summoner to play. And it will be exactly like the playtest in every way. And it shall never change. It shall never see its options expanded. You are forced to submit. You must submit!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
........
Is it really so bad to have options?
What if one of those options was to have a shared pool of HP? There have been pitches about splitting it into paths and those are fine, but you have dug in your heels so hard about shared HP that it's become comedic. Many people have expressed an interest in the mechanic. It's also far and away not even close to being the biggest of summoners' problems.
I don't think there would be a single person upset if they saw the summoner be released with a level 1 feat that lets you use the eidolon as an animal companion. I currently don't see why that should be an option, but if people want it, then absolutely.
But this insane bizarre crusade against it and all the doomsaying that surrounds linked HP is (in my opinion) the most farcical thing in the playtest right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually starting to soften to the shared hit point pool. I think you make it work by adding the Eidolon's Con x level to the hit point pool and that would be sufficient. The ease of hit point tracking and healing makes a shared hit point pool better once you account for the summoner heavily using summoned creatures to supplement his eidolon. If he had a shared hit point pool, then you would be tracking 3 or more hit point pools with a summoned creature. A shared hit point pool works better to ease that bookkeeping.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are so many people in this thread acting like evil characters can't have a few creatures they genuinely like and care about? Evil Summoners can absolutely care about their eidolon, so the playtest's assumption of a strong bond between the two absolutely doesn't destroy evil summoner concepts as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are so many people in this thread acting like evil characters can't have a few creatures they genuinely like and care about? Evil Summoners can absolutely care about their eidolon, so the playtest's assumption of a strong bond between the two absolutely doesn't destroy evil summoner concepts as a whole.
Or creatures that only agree to serve them by binding to them. Sure, you can work a story around it and leave planar binding or create undead for forcing creatures into service.
I think it's more the vice versa, the evil eidolon having a strong bond with the summoner. But it's a good reminder that your evil characters CAN have soft spots!
Why are so many people in this thread acting like evil characters can't have a few creatures they genuinely like and care about? Evil Summoners can absolutely care about their eidolon, so the playtest's assumption of a strong bond between the two absolutely doesn't destroy evil summoner concepts as a whole.Or creatures that only agree to serve them by binding to them. Sure, you can work a story around it and leave planar binding or create undead for forcing creatures into service.
That's a great idea, actually!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, shared hitpoint pool works better for velstracs/kytons.
.
I think it will cost them in sales and fans to pursue this mechanical idea that so deviates from PF1 summoner fan expectations.
I tend to disagree. Given how poorly Summoner was regarded by everyone who didn't play Summoners in 1E, I can't imagine that distancing themselves from it signficantly isn't the strong business move.
I'm the only person I know in my local area excited for this class. Literally everyone elses reaction could be summarized as, "Ugh, that broken class?"
I want a class I can play, and that means avoiding the perception that it is remotely OP.
Yes it need to be reasonably balanced in order to be accepted. But it also needs the right flavour for people to want to play it.
PF1 was cool and innovative, but broken. This one is innovative, not broken and more than a little bit odd. It's the flavour I don't like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically
Simpler and easier to track: Sort of a thing that Paizo has been showcasing with PF2 is streamlining a lot of mechanics so that anyone can pick up and go, especially if it's a core function of a class (unlike summoning minions which is something a spellcaster would opt in for).
I don't buy the "easier" argument. For the price of keeping track of a single extra number you have quite a complex interaction when both entities take damage and some special rules. Nobody who plays pathfinder is concerned by simple addition.
Removes eidolon as an expendable resource: This ends up forcing more important decisions on the summoners end while making them think more wisely about using their eidolon as a meat shield/sack of hit points.
I don't agree that this is a desirable goal. It is not the right theme for a Summoner.
The Eidolon is supposed to be a summoned/manifested creature. Firstly it doesn't really die, secondly the whole point of using a summoned creature is for it to take more risks than you would.But even so the Eidolon is not expendable. Of course if the Eidolon dies there will be a cool down period, or the Eidolon will come back on 1 HP. It is the bulk of the Summoners power, they need it. It won't be treated in a totally disposable fashion.
Opens up design space: Creating a separate entity in terms of hit points alters how much power can be allotted to the eidolon. Without the risk posed to the summoner, more limits would have to come up from somewhere to replace it.
Not seeing it. The summon pays more for the eidolon in term of lost proficiencies and spells, than the druid does for their animal companion (half their class feats).
Thematically
Further drives home the difference between summoners and those who summon: Hey, there's a reason why it's its own class and not just an archetype for summoners. It should have some new mechanics to drive home that feeling.
I don't mind the new mechanics. They just don't fit the concept some of us have of a summoner
Eidolons aren't just summoned creatures: These aren't cheap toys that you throw out and forget. Currently this is showing exactly that connection between the summoner and their eidolon.Golarion summoners are not WoW summoners: Hey, I tossed my own in here because why not? I've said it before that Paizo has shown that they're more firmly establishing their brand on things throughout their books and no longer making them setting agnostic. Summoners have had a much stronger connection to their eidolons than conjurers (for lack of an easier term) and moving in that direction is positive.
We are getting closer to the point. The difference in our concepts of what a summoner is.
I'm drawing a significant distinction between a dedicated summoner and a wizard who uses a few summons spells. Its about the portion of their power that is tied to the summons.When I think of a summoner I think of a wizard who goes to major effort to bind a creature from another dimension in a hexagram and either compells it or negotiates with it for a task. Or of a person who has bound one such entity in service, and that creature has most of the power and magic and does the work of the summoner as he adventures. The exact nature of the relationship can be quite varied. The bond could even be accidental or inherited, not only a deliberate arcane connection.
I don't mind that there is some form of life link available but in 90% of the scenarios I'm thinking about that life link is not needed.
The old summoner could cover that space. The playtest summoner does not.
I don't mind a new concept. I just want a game tool that covers that design space. So I can tell the stories I want to tell.
Very happy for Paizo to go off and create new classes. The shared new HP mechnism is very interesting. I'm sure many people will have fun with it. It just doesn't come close to what I would call a summoner.
I'm not a fan or a foe of Golorian. It is nice to have a default world, and I do buy and use modules from that setting. But most of the time I'm in a campaign world of the GMs creation. Creating your own world and your own story is a big part of a fantasy role playing game. I'm not giving that up.
NONE of this is to say that they should or shouldn't have HP pooled. Again, this is a playtest, but this mechanic has been shown time and time again that it's not novelty. It's fine to not enjoy it, but to completely ignore literally conversation that you've had (over three threads!) is getting exhausting.
Not really sure what you are saying here. Yep we are going to continue to disagree, and that is OK.
Gortle,
What do you think of the summoned creature as your support actions for the summoner?
I really like it myself, but I have to test it more. With boost eidolon and boost summons it was highly effective against an equal level elite alchemical golem. It was interesting. It made picking the right creature to support the eidolon in battle an interesting choice.
It felt like my variability came not from spells, skills, or martial abilities, but from choosing different creatures for the job.
I could get into being the best at utilizing summoned creatures. It's a niche that isn't yet filled. It means every bestiary is worth buying to see the new possible options for creatures.
Only problem is it would take a font like summons. Two highest level slots and two one level lower is insufficient to implement this strategy as the only creatures viable against an equal or higher level enemies are the very highest level choices. Even those are about as good as a equal level sustained flaming sphere or something like that.
Gortle,
What do you think of the summoned creature as your support actions for the summoner?
I really like it myself, but I have to test it more. With boost eidolon and boost summons it was highly effective against an equal level elite alchemical golem. It was interesting. It made picking the right creature to support the eidolon in battle an interesting choice.
It felt like my variability came not from spells, skills, or martial abilities, but from choosing different creatures for the job.
I could get into being the best at utilizing summoned creatures. It's a niche that isn't yet filled. It means every bestiary is worth buying to see the new possible options for creatures.
Only problem is it would take a font like summons. Two highest level slots and two one level lower is insufficient to implement this strategy as the only creatures viable against an equal or higher level enemies are the very highest level choices. Even those are about as good as a equal level sustained flaming sphere or something like that.
Lots of summons spells was a feature of the PF1 summoner. Along with 2/3 spell casting. I think that was too many resources for PF1. My summoner would often only be down to half her resources when the rest of the party was tapped out.
But now its gone a bit too far in the other direction. As you say 4 spell slots is not enough. I think a couple of dedicated summons slots or a summoning font, or a feat or two like the Sorcerors Primal Evolution - needs to be available to make the rest of the summon style features in the class worthwhile.
Gortle,
What do you think of the summoned creature as your support actions for the summoner?
I really like it myself, but I have to test it more. With boost eidolon and boost summons it was highly effective against an equal level elite alchemical golem. It was interesting. It made picking the right creature to support the eidolon in battle an interesting choice.
It felt like my variability came not from spells, skills, or martial abilities, but from choosing different creatures for the job.
I could get into being the best at utilizing summoned creatures. It's a niche that isn't yet filled. It means every bestiary is worth buying to see the new possible options for creatures.
Only problem is it would take a font like summons. Two highest level slots and two one level lower is insufficient to implement this strategy as the only creatures viable against an equal or higher level enemies are the very highest level choices. Even those are about as good as a equal level sustained flaming sphere or something like that.
Lots of summons spells was a feature of the PF1 summoner. Along with 2/3 spell casting. I think that was too many resources for PF1. My summoner would often only be down to half her resources when the rest of the party was tapped out.
But now its gone a bit too far in the other direction. As you say 4 spell slots is not enough. I think a couple of dedicated summons slots or a summoning font, or a feat or two like the Sorcerors Primal Evolution - needs to be available to make the rest of the summon style features in the class worthwhile.
Fortunately in PF2 the limitations on summons is already built in with a 3 action cast and sustain cost. That is why I think a summoner monster font-like ability would work in PF2 as it would still be throttled by the casting and sustain system, while still scaling well at higher level with effortless concentration allowing you to have at least one extra creature out a battle.
If they make it an option only for the master summoner, that would be cool. I would take that option myself. I like the idea of summoning creatures to support the eidolon. It was really fun to think about how to use that creature. That's always been the fun of summoners: using summons in an interesting and effective manner.
I think split or shared hit points should be a choice.
A free choice, not one paid for with feats.
The only time I think this could be a balance issue is for Synthesis, but even that is a function of how or if an Eidolons Constitution contributes to the Hit Point total(s).
As it stands, it doesn't contribute, so it's fine.
A variable split would be my preference, but I immediately concede the complexity pitfall of that option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An evil mage sacrificing part of their own life force for power is super thematic. It also means that the demon they have bound themselves too shares in any damage the summoner takes.
If you want throwaway minions you can also cast the same conjuring spells as any other arcane caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An evil mage sacrificing part of their own life force for power is super thematic. It also means that the demon they have bound themselves too shares in any damage the summoner takes.
If you want throwaway minions you can also cast the same conjuring spells as any other arcane caster.
Absolutely true but "sacrificing part of their own life force" is only a fraction of the story space for a summoner. Please don't try to push everything into that one hole.
As has been discussed elsewhere, Summon X spells are a bit weaker in this system. They are not strong enough to build a caster around as their main schtick. Summoner should bring a little bit more to the table in this regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the summoner has given up enough
"life-force" in the form of martial proficiency and spellcasting to cover that theme.
I still support sharing hit points as an option, but I don't see how having it be the only option is superior design.
I think the summoner has given up enough
"life-force" in the form of martial proficiency and spellcasting to cover that theme.
I still support sharing hit points as an option, but I don't see how having it be the only option is superior design.
.
i agree as a rule of thumb more option tends to be the better design choice since gm can ban things and players can chose not to use then without altering the rules but buffing them requires homebrewing and rule altering that will likely never be allowed in society and in many tables so its always better to overshoot than to have the arrow drop midway