# PRPG Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Summoner and Witch



## Eridanis (Nov 30, 2009)

This week's playtest classes are up: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog

All I can say is, I wanna roll up a summoner _right now._ I love the idea and execution of the eidolon.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Nov 30, 2009)

So the Summoner is like an alternate Druid (animal companion)?
Final Fantasy type summoner. Bard like casting (up to 6th).
I assume Life link is not an action (just activates when needed).
Also summon spell SLAs as a standard action that last longer.
Merging is kinda cool as is Life Bond ("I can't die while my creature lives").

Only summoning 1/day of eidolon I see (though I guess it shouldn't die too often). Can't recall till next day (but can respec it every level of it abilities).
It has full BAB, Outsider HD, and 2 good saves. 
Can the creature uses a weapon as a biped form? (oh I see they can since they can evolve to learn it).

Good spell list I think.
Overall, looks like a very interesting class, but lots of choices to look through to make the eidolon though.

Witch
Charm hex is save or successful diplomacy check... it is unique. Weird as I don't think of diplomacy as charm usually.
Evil Eye is weakens a thing (AC, attack, saves, etc). Decent as the save just reduces duration to 1 rd.
Healing limited to 1/day on each creature makes it kinda weak. I guess if no other healers in party.
Slumber- sleep spell single target.
Agony is pretty good. 
Flight -minute/level each day is pretty low for out of combat, but useful in combat. Granted you could just cast the spell Fly as it is on their spell list.
Force Reincarnate is a save or die (didn't think one would see them in Pathfinder). Sure they get revived, but in a new body.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Dec 1, 2009)

On first blush, I think they're on a winner with the Summoner class although it has a bucketload of prep to get it going. I'm going to throw one in amongst my group next session (at 17th level so it's going to be a bit of work).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Pants (Dec 1, 2009)

Wow, really digging the summoner class. Very, very cool. Only problem I can see is that the whole 'evolution point' mechanic might end up being very time consuming to deal with. Still, not sure how you'd get the variety of eidolons without it.

Witch is pretty neat too.

I wonder why they switched between saying '1 day' and '24 hours' in the hex mechanics. Not really an issue, just something I noticed.


----------



## Reneshat (Dec 1, 2009)

While designing the eidolon will take a lot of time, at least it's all time out of game to get it to work.  I for one would be more than happy to make the time commitment to build the eidolon.  I had been fluctuating back and forth on Pathfinder, with part of our group wanting to play Pathfinder, and the other part not sure.  Summoner has firmly put me into the "I want to play Pathfinder" group.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Dec 1, 2009)

Really like the Witch. I was unsure on the Summoner at first, I just couldn't wrap my head around the concept of the Eidolon in terms of being a summoned creature, but unique to each caster...

Then I thought about it some more and decided that the Eidolon is the culmination of their apprenticeship, where they summon matter from the Ether and energy from other planes of existence to craft their own unique "living" creature.

Now I'm fine with it.  

So far I'm impressed with the new classes. I think the Cavalier needs a tad bit of work, but overall I really like what they've done.


----------



## Chronologist (Dec 1, 2009)

On first glance the Summoner looks a tad complicated, definitely not the kind of class for first time players. The witch looks a lot easier, and it's interesting to see a healing ability for an arcane caster. Both classes look like they'd play well, but the summoner doesn't look like it'd mesh with any of the existing prestige classes well. Hopefully he'll get a few prestige classes with the book.

Personally I'd like to see a summoner prestige class that gives elemental traits to his Eidolon, or one that gives them angelic/demonic abilities. Just a couple of ideas.


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 1, 2009)

A class that grants a permanent ally?  

Lanchester would not be happy.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 1, 2009)

*Summoner is Overpowered*

It gets casting in armor, a pet that's as tough as the fighter, bard casting with way better spells than a bard (haste as a 2nd level spell, greater invisibility as a 3rd level spell, for example).  Plus boatloads of summon monster spells (and summon monster got way better in Pathfinder).

I think it's significantly too good.

Ken


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Dec 1, 2009)

Yeah, I could see the Summoner needing to perhaps lose the light armor and drop down to a d6 HD. The free Summon Monster spells on top of the other spells plus the Eidolon companion does seem a bit high powered.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 1, 2009)

This is minor, but did anyone notice how the summoner references a spell called _transmogrify_ (which apparently lets the summoner redistribute evolution points; it's under the Evolution Pool entry of the Eidolon section) that then doesn't appear in the summoner's spell list? That may be due to this just being a playtest document, but otherwise it's a summoner spell that the summoner can't cast, apparently.

EDIT: Also, it's pointless to have the witch's cackle hex affect her ward hex, since the former makes a hex last for 1 additional round, while the latter lasts for an indefinite duration until the warded creature is hit or fails a saving throw.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 1, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> It gets casting in armor, a pet that's as tough as the fighter, bard casting with way better spells than a bard (haste as a 2nd level spell, greater invisibility as a 3rd level spell, for example).  Plus boatloads of summon monster spells (and summon monster got way better in Pathfinder).
> 
> I think it's significantly too good.
> 
> Ken




As opposed to the druid, who get casting in heavier armor, a pet that's as tough as a fighter, full casting with better spells than a bard, plus spontaneous _summon nature's ally_?

Summoners and Bards fulfill entirely different party roles. The Summoner is as close to a gish base class as you're likely to see from Paizo -- in 4E terms, it's an arcane defender or arcane striker (depending on which way you take the Eidolon).


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 1, 2009)

Zurai said:


> As opposed to the druid, who get casting in heavier armor, a pet that's as tough as a fighter, full casting with better spells than a bard, plus spontaneous _summon nature's ally_?




Using the druid as a baseline for class design is not a good place to start.

The druid is the most broken core class (by quite a lot actually).


----------



## Gorbacz (Dec 1, 2009)

Well, with the Wildshape nerf the PF druid is much more in line with other classes now.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 1, 2009)

I think if you limit the Summon Monster SLA it would be fine. Either returning the duration to 1 round/level or limiting the amount of monsters you can control at once.

The Eidolon is far less powerful than a fighter. Maybe in damage soaking it can compete, but it's touch AC would be ridiculously low. Weapon Training, Armor Training, and Feats put fighters over Eidolons in both versatility as well as strength.

I do have to agree with at least reducing the armor proficiency or hit die. At least one needs to be lowered if not both.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 1, 2009)

*Also*

The summoner class as presented changes the game significantly even for nonsummoners, because multiple spells are available for item creation at a lower level than they were in the past.  For example, it will be possible to create a Wand of Haste far cheaper now, since Haste is a 2nd level spell.  Likewise, a potion of Dimension Door will be possible.

Ken


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 1, 2009)

with regards to the eidolon being weaker than the fighter, are you sure?  A level 1 eidolon has 2HD and 2d10 HP, plus 3 points to buy stuff with, +2 BAB, and I am guessing a feat.  I'll admit that I haven't yet statted one out, but it looks like it would be better than what the 1st level fighter gets.

Ken


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 1, 2009)

> Well, with the Wildshape nerf the PF druid is much more in line with other classes now.





> The Eidolon is far less powerful than a fighter.




The problem with "permanent", extra allies is the additional actions per round.  That is _HUGELY _powerful, much moreso than wild shape for example.

Same goes for the Leadership feat.

The increase in power needed for a single combatant to overcome multiple opponents is essentially x4.  (check out the work done by Lanchester with regards to mathematical combat modeling)

Create a Summoner with the Leadership feat and throw around some mass buff spells like Haste and watch the carnage.  It will be fun for exactly one person at the table.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 1, 2009)

*leadership feat*

Why do we have to bring the Leadership feat into this?  Everyone knows that feat is broken.


----------



## Mark Chance (Dec 1, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> Create a Summoner with the Leadership feat and throw around some mass buff spells like Haste and watch the carnage.  It will be fun for exactly one person at the table.




You means it's not fun to sit around while one player cycles his way through six or more actions in the hopes that I'll get the chance for my two? Huh. Who'da thunk it?



So far I've been generally impressed with most of what I've seen for _Pathfinder_. The Summoner, however, marks that _PF_ rarity: something I would not use without major revision.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 1, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> Using the druid as a baseline for class design is not a good place to start.
> 
> The druid is the most broken core class (by quite a lot actually).




Have you played a Pathfinder druid? I'm going to assume "no", from this response. I'd guess you havn't even _looked_ at one. Wildshape is a pale shadow of its former glory, and spellcasting in general is less powerful than it is in 3.5.

Not to say that Druids aren't still on the top tier of classes, as any full spellcaster is going to be in any 3.0 derivative system, but it's not broken. Not any more. And, given that it isn't broken, the fact that it compares favorably to the Summoner implies that maybe the Summoner isn't broken, either.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 1, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> Force Reincarnate is a save or die (didn't think one would see them in Pathfinder). Sure they get revived, but in a new body.




What's the purpose of Forced Reincarnate?  Is it to sort of be a torturous transformation spell whose results can never be dispelled?  Sort of like a Polymorph but with Instant instead of Permanent duration?

It comes to mind that it effectively makes a witch immortal....or, at least, never ending age.  Sure, for 70 years you might be a male human, then for the next 50 years you're a male orce, and then then next 600 years you're a female elf...but you're effectively going to be around for a long, long time, unless you're killed.

Banshee


----------



## Skeld (Dec 1, 2009)

With regard to the power level on the Summoner (and the Witch, Cavalier, or Oracle for that matter): Paizo's method for playtest during the Alpha and Beta phases for the Core rules was to amp up the classes considerably, then pull them back in as the playtest moved forward.  Given how they conducted their Core playtest, I would be surprised if these classes aren't toned down some (and some more than others) by the time the APG hits shelves.

-Skeld


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 2, 2009)

Zurai said:


> Have you played a Pathfinder druid? I'm going to assume "no", from this response. I'd guess you havn't even _looked_ at one. Wildshape is a pale shadow of its former glory, and spellcasting in general is less powerful than it is in 3.5.




Of course I have.

Spellcasting and wild shape have nothing to do with the economy of actions.  Actions are the most precious commodity in 3ed, bar none.  

Introducing anything that grants a player additional actions - above and beyond the other players at the table - needs to be done with extreme care.  

_That_, in addition to decent fighting ability, spellcasting, and wild shape, is what makes the druid so powerful.  And as I mentioned before, the Leadership feat.


----------



## Chronologist (Dec 2, 2009)

I understand that having a Cohort, Thrall, of summoned creature gives a character more actions, but I don't think it slows down combat too much for other characters. If you know your cohort/summon's stats well, you can run their actions pretty quickly.

I played a thrallherd for a long time and my thrall had several attacks (bite, two claws, tail attack, possible rend), yet combat ran really smoothly anyway. Honestly more time was spent choosing what power to manifest than what my Thrall would do that round.

I do agree that the Summoner is a little too strong, but controlling two sets of actions isn't a problem IMHO. I'd recommend limiting the Eidolon to a small number of attacks each round (say, getting possible bite/claw/tail attacks, but losing all the iterative attacks from a high base attack bonus).


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 2, 2009)

Chronologist said:


> I do agree that the Summoner is a little too strong, but controlling two sets of actions isn't a problem IMHO. I'd recommend limiting the Eidolon to a small number of attacks each round (say, getting possible bite/claw/tail attacks, but losing all the iterative attacks from a high base attack bonus).



 Unless you give the Bipedal form a weapon: they won't have iterative attacks from high BAB.
Since natural attacks never do.


----------



## EroGaki (Dec 2, 2009)

*The Summoner is cool, for the most part*

I think that the classes hit die and BAB should be scaled down to match that or the wizard/sorcerer. Having said that, I think the rest is fine. I like the increased duration of summon monster spells; one of the largest complaints I have with the duration is that it leaves little time to do anything else with it. A summoner lives and dies by his summon monster spells; his spell list is extremely limited, more so than a sorcerer. He has less options, being restricted to 6th level spells, and possesses a smaller number of spell slots in which to cast the few he does know. The summon monster spell offers greatly needed versatility; it _has _to last longer than the standard few rounds for the class to function outside of battle. Otherwise, the summoner would be nothing more than a supremely limited spontaneous caster.

As for the problem of the summoner spamming his abilities and hogging all the glory, I doubt it would be much of an issue. Seriously, I don't believe that the summoner has the resources to blow all of his summon monsters at once, not unless its a major battle, and even then it's a non-issue; summon monster was nerfed like most other spells in Pathfinder, and frankly, most most of the summons will pop in the face of a moderate threat. 

I'm fine with the eidolon. I wish animal companions were more customizable and versatile. I hope people give the class, and the Witch as well, an honest go before trying to beat it to death with the nerf bat. I know I will.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 2, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> Of course I have.
> 
> Spellcasting and wild shape have nothing to do with the economy of actions.  Actions are the most precious commodity in 3ed, bar none.
> 
> ...




I think the idea that actions are the most valuable commodity is only of limited correctness.  The idea has merit....the problem is that it has to be tied to the caveat that any extra actions you can take have to be of sufficient effectiveness at your character level to really matter.

A lvl 12 Wizard (Conjurer) using Summon Monster I to summon a 1 HD monster with a +1 BAB, and throwing that monster against a CR 12 opponent, is really no more powerful than the lvl 12 Wizard (Evoker) who decides to throw a magic missile....in fact, he's *less* powerful....that magic missile will do 5d4+1 dmg, no save, whereas summoning the 1 HD monster took up the Conjurer's action, and created a monster who might have a 5% chance of hitting (on a 20).

The extra action caused by the summoned monster really won't do much at that level.

This is an extreme example, I understand.....that Conjurer will likely have Summon Monster VI spell, which can bring a more powerful monster....but I think showing the lower level monster to illustrate the concept is valid.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 2, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> I think that the classes hit die and BAB should be scaled down to match that or the wizard/sorcerer. Having said that, I think the rest is fine. I like the increased duration of summon monster spells; one of the largest complaints I have with the duration is that it leaves little time to do anything else with it. A summoner lives and dies by his summon monster spells; his spell list is extremely limited, more so than a sorcerer. He has less options, being restricted to 6th level spells, and possesses a smaller number of spell slots in which to cast the few he does know. The summon monster spell offers greatly needed versatility; it _has _to last longer than the standard few rounds for the class to function outside of battle. Otherwise, the summoner would be nothing more than a supremely limited spontaneous caster.
> 
> As for the problem of the summoner spamming his abilities and hogging all the glory, I doubt it would be much of an issue. Seriously, I don't believe that the summoner has the resources to blow all of his summon monsters at once, not unless its a major battle, and even then it's a non-issue; summon monster was nerfed like most other spells in Pathfinder, and frankly, most most of the summons will pop in the face of a moderate threat.
> 
> I'm fine with the eidolon. I wish animal companions were more customizable and versatile. I hope people give the class, and the Witch as well, an honest go before trying to beat it to death with the nerf bat. I know I will.




I'll point out that with a maximum spell level of 6, the most powerful spells he'll have at lvl 20 are Summon Monster VI.  The creatures brought by that spell will not last long at all against a CR 20 threat.

Banshee


----------



## Reneshat (Dec 2, 2009)

The Summoner spell list isn't directly comparable to the Sorcerer/Wizard list.  Summoners have Summon Monster IX as a 6th level spell.  They also get their SLA Summon Monster spells.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 2, 2009)

Assuming a 17th level summoner (24 cha) and a 17th level conjurer, the conjurer will be able to cast _summon monster IX_ twice per day with a duration of 25 rounds as a full round action. This seems completely reasonable until compared to the summoner, who can cast _summon monster IX_ 10 times per day (assuming a 24 cha) with a 17 minute duration as a standard action. He can also cast it normally if in a bind twice at that level (the same amount as the 17th level conjurer) and he doesn't even have to make that choice until the situation presents it self.

In my opinion the Eidolon is perfectly balanced until you bring into play the amazing amount of battle field strategy the summoner will have at his disposal with it plus the summons. Give it support feats such as Greater Bullrush or Greater Trip and things will begin to drop incredibly quick. I believe that the problem lies in the _summon monster_ SLA, not the Eidolon or the summoner himself at all.

**also with the extended duration, if the summoner expects a large assault he can have an army at his disposal seconds before an attack.


----------



## Sylrae (Dec 2, 2009)

I'm not the only one to see summoner as a much needed option am I?
Or a necromancer who's truly badass in the Command Undead + Summon/Create Undead Hordes variety?

The fact that you could no longer do so with the core classes was one of the reasons I disliked 4e upon release (it was hard but you could manage it with proper multiclassing and feat selection and if you could take a PrC or 2 even better). I flipped to the mage and thought: "Eww, he's all AoE and damage effects."

which is, you know, what they were going for, whereas when I go for spellcasters I rarely want to specialize in AoE and crowd control, instead going for things like polymorph, charm, dominate, geas, summon monster, etc.

Paizo's summoner is a bit on the powerful side, but being able to summon monster like that is a needed role. I looked at the Eidolon and it seems cool, though I'd be just as happy with just having the ability to summon something of the appropriate CR and keep it around until I can summon something more powerful. (So a Permanent Summon 1, Summon 2, etc, with greatly expanded lists of options.)


----------



## Xendria (Dec 2, 2009)

If you look at the undead focused oracle, it handles the summoning/controlling undead category pretty well.

On the topic of the summoner, I agree. The Eidolon fits perfect as a unique and needed class. I've personally been waiting for something like this since 3E. But what I'm saying is focus on the Eidolon, not another classes ability (aka the conjurer). Give them the extended duration (1 min/level) but don't give them 3 + cha times per day and as a standard action to boot. I mean the spell is on their spell list. Or another fix could be giving them the 3 + cha / day but it isn't on their spell list, and limit the number of creatures to like 2 at a time. Or even make the number of creatures level dependent. I just think its ridiculous to have a level 17 summoner with his Eidolon with an AC 30 and 10 Astral Deva's marching into battle. /rant.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 2, 2009)

Banshee16 said:


> A lvl 12 Wizard (Conjurer) using Summon Monster I to summon a 1 HD monster with a +1 BAB, and throwing that monster against a CR 12 opponent, is really no more powerful than the lvl 12 Wizard (Evoker) who decides to throw a magic missile....in fact, he's *less* powerful....that magic missile will do 5d4+1 dmg, no save, whereas summoning the 1 HD monster took up the Conjurer's action, and created a monster who might have a 5% chance of hitting (on a 20).
> 
> The extra action caused by the summoned monster really won't do much at that level.




I think you are summoning the wrong monsters.
Summon a spider: web attack works on everything up to 1 size larger. Yes, it is nothing more than a tanglefoot bag almost, but hey it has a couple/day. And the spider can then poison enemies with its bite.

Only some monsters are tanks, some are casters (Dretch), and others are specialist (special ability users).


----------



## Mark Chance (Dec 2, 2009)

Banshee16 said:


> This is an extreme example, I understand....




In RPGs as in law: Extreme cases make bad law.


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 2, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Why do we have to bring the Leadership feat into this?  Everyone knows that feat is broken.




You mean the ability to have a permanent ally is broken?  Hmm, kind of sounds like, oh, I don't know, this Summoner class or animal companion.

And last I checked, Leadership is in the PF core rulebook.


----------



## Sylrae (Dec 2, 2009)

Or possibly, the ability to have a permanent ally that you pay so little for is broken.

If your permanent ally is factored into the power of each of your class levels that's one thing.

If all you had to do was take a feat, supposed to be worth a little under a 5th of a total level's worth of benefits, thats a different story. Particularly when the allies granted by leadership are getting better without you paying for them more.


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Dec 2, 2009)

Interesting feedback folks. 

As a note, I tend, as a designer, to push things as far as I think they can go and scale back as necessary. Sometimes I do not go far enough, but that is not as common as going a bit too far. This of course, applies to material that we are going to playtest. I am a bit more conservative with direct to print material. 

So yes.. the Summoner is maybe a bit too good right now. I am looking through all of my feedback and I am getting that a lot. That said, I am still waiting for a bit more concrete feedback. I would not want to make changes based solely on hypotheticals and perceived imbalances.

Keep on rolling.. I am reading.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


----------



## Chronologist (Dec 2, 2009)

I played a 5th level Summoner this afternoon for a few hours, and it was perfectly balanced. The Eidolon, however, was not. Spell list and spells per day? Worked great. Extended summoning abilities? Not a problem. The Eidolon was the imbalance, wiping out way more than its share of enemies. A large number of Undead fell to it, and after a while the party just started healing it and letting the creature loose. It performed about as well as the main party fighter. Granted, he was standard 3.5, but I don't think the player enjoyed getting showed up by a summon.

I'd recommend EITHER having an Eidolon OR having extended summons, but not both.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 2, 2009)

*Feedback*

OK, I don't have a game to playtest this in at the moment, but I favor this:

1) keep the extended summons SLAs with extended durations.  This is the classes core competency.

2) drop the Eidolon, completely.  It might make a good feature for a different class, it's super cool -- just too much power in combination with the SLAs

3) move some of the spells (haste, dimension door, greater invis) back to their original levels.  The summoner shouldn't be focused on buffing the party, in my opinion --certainly he should not be better at this than a bard.

4) drop the armor proficiency, go to a d6 HD and poor BAB.  This class is about getting others to do your bidding, not being a warrior.

After you drop all that, if it's too weak build in class features that make the SLAs better/more interesting.  For example, the ability to see through the eyes of a summoned creature, or merge with its form, might be cool.

BTW I really like the witch.  It's really cool how she's so focused on her familiar.  She needs a way to upgrade her familiar to an imp or something without losing all her spells though!  Also, she needs a broom!

Ken


----------



## BryonD (Dec 2, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> You mean the ability to have a permanent ally is broken?  Hmm, kind of sounds like, oh, I don't know, this Summoner class or animal companion.
> 
> And last I checked, Leadership is in the PF core rulebook.



The Leadership feat and any and every permanent ally being broken are not the same thing.  And honestly, the 3.5 Druid be at the top of the power stack does not at all show that 3.5 animal companions are broken.  You can take the animal companion out of the healing, blasting, wildshaping powerhouse and STILL have a very potent class.

There is merit to the Lanchester point, but you are distorting it beyond any semblance of validity.  

The current draft may truly be over-powered.  But, if so, the better method for fixing it is to look at the whole package and work to correct it.  Knee-jerk discarding of a whole concept is not the way to go.


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 2, 2009)

BryonD said:


> There is merit to the Lanchester point, but you are distorting it beyond any semblance of validity.




With validity?  Let's not over-exaggerate now.

I said:

"Introducing anything that grants a player additional actions - above and beyond the other players at the table - needs to be done with extreme care."

Which remains absolutely true.  If you design a class feature that grants additional abilities - regardless of what the rest of the class abilities are - a huge sign should pop up in your brain that says "You are entering dangerous territory - proceed with caution".

And yes, even without looking at the rest of the class features, I will be immediately skeptical at the overall balance of the class.  Companions and allies are so _easily _broken at the table, I would rather avoid them altogether.  You are introducing something into your game that is very difficult to control and balance.  

And beyond that, granting extra allies has the potential to reduce the fun for the other people at the table.

It's a lose-lose design scenario in my opinion.


----------



## Reneshat (Dec 2, 2009)

I can't wait to try this class out, but it might be a bit before I can.  At first glance, I would drop the hit dice to d6, remove the armor proficiency and casting, drop to 1/2 BAB, and have the character choose to either get the Eidolon, or the SLA and extended duration for summon spells.  My opinions on this very well might change upon actually playing the class


----------



## EroGaki (Dec 2, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> 3) move some of the spells (haste, dimension door, greater invis) back to their original levels.  The summoner shouldn't be focused on buffing the party, in my opinion --certainly he should not be better at this than a bard.




This, IMO, isn't really necessary. Having access to haste at level 4 instead of level 5 (when a wizard would get it) isn't a game breaker. And by the time he gets access to those other spells (dimension door, etc) a wizard would already be able to cast those. All together, not too bad, especially if the class loses the eidolon, its hit dice, and BAB like you wish it to. 



GlassJaw said:


> With validity?  Let's not over-exaggerate now.
> 
> I said:
> 
> ...




Keep in mind that this is going to be the _Advanced _Players Guide. From what I understand, it will be emphasized in the book that these classes are intended for mature, trustworthy players. Ones who know enough to not hog the spotlight or break the game. If you don't like the class, don't allow it. But don't harp about how the class is going to ruin the game just because you don't like the idea of of the class. Just ban it from your game and move on. The point of the play test is getting constructive feedback. All you seem to be saying is don't create the class at all. Which is what they are _not _looking for.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 2, 2009)

BryonD said:


> There is merit to the Lanchester point, but you are distorting it beyond any semblance of validity.




The understanding of Lanchester's impact on 3e is frustratingly incomplete, but you know very well that if the "pet" (cohort, animal companion, or summoned creature) is robust enough to be at all meaningful in combat, by "squaring" it represents a significant increase in power. 

That doesn't necessarily mean that it is broken-- it represents party power, after all, which can be a good thing, even if that power is concentrated into the hands of just one player. It's brokenness is proportional to the "fairness" of having more power in the hands of one PC than another-- and of course there are plenty of other places in the rules where we are content to live with such imbalance.

But it is absolutely fair to consider it an instant "red flag." It's specious to claim that Lanchester's Square Law is a "hypothetical" at this point.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 2, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> 2) drop the Eidolon, completely.  It might make a good feature for a different class, it's super cool -- just too much power in combination with the SLAs




Paizo has stated they don't want class remakes or adjustments, they want new base classes. If you remove the Eidolon you are left with a better Conjurer, which is just another wizard. The Eidolon should be the core of this class because it is what makes it unique and interesting. If you want a super advanced summoner, go for a prestige class or a conjurer, don't destroy a perfectly good idea, that hasn't been done to this extent, for an ability that another class has a less powerful version of. 

On that note, I say screw the SLA and keep the Eidolon. Just make all _summon monster_ spells cast 1 minute / level duration. But don't give them the extra 3+cha casts per day.


----------



## Sylrae (Dec 3, 2009)

Personally, I'd say keep both, but tone them both down.

Weaken the Eidolon so it isnt as good as the fighter, and tone down the summon ability. Maybe drop 1 min/level to 3-5 rounds/level.

A different possible nerf I thought of, is that when you have your summons, you lose an action. You can either make a move OR standard action, but not both. This is on any turn you try to direct your summons. You can't direct them while doing both. If you just tell them "Attack!", then you only lost that one action. If you want to use sophisticated strategy with them, you need to drop an action. Directing that many people takes effort.

Just a thought.


----------



## Pants (Dec 3, 2009)

Sylrae said:


> Weaken the Eidolon so it isnt as good as the fighter, *and tone down the summon ability. Maybe drop 1 min/level to 3-5 rounds/level.*



I agree with the first part. Tone down the eidolon a bit so that it's not stealing the fighter's thunder.

On the second (bolded) part, maybe instead of having the summons last minutes per level, have them last an additional number of rounds equal to the summoner's Charisma modifier (so a 1st level summoner's SM1 would last 4 rounds).

Then maybe add an ability later on that grants the summoner the ability to extend one of his summons to 1 min./level once per day. The ability could scale with more levels gained to 2/day, 3/day, etc.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 3, 2009)

I put my party (Level 14 paladin, fighter, cleric, druid, wizard) against a Summoner tonight (level 16) and had them later help one out (level 14) and in neither case were the Eidolons as good as the fighter. The level 16 one was just about equal but the level 14 was not. Afterwards we talked and established this was due to the bonus feats and Weapon Training class feature. Overall, the Eidolon doesn't need nerfing, the summoning does.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 3, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> 1) keep the extended summons SLAs with extended durations.  This is the classes core competency.
> 
> 2) drop the Eidolon, completely.  It might make a good feature for a different class, it's super cool -- just too much power in combination with the SLAs




You've got these reversed. Jason's gone so far as to say (on the Paizo boards) that the Eidolon is designed to be at least as important, if not more important, than the PC. The Eidolon is the core competency, not the _summon monster_ spells and SLAs, and if anything goes, it won't be the Eidolon. My vote's on ditching all the non-Eidolon summoning, but I was saying that months ago.


----------



## Sylrae (Dec 3, 2009)

Honestly, The Eidolon is cool, but I want a summoner to be able to summon things. Otherwise you have a caster that just pieces together a unique elemental (or some other kind of outsider). And while cool, thats not a summoner.

I think the class needs the summoning. If i had to just pick one or the other, I'd definitely say keep the summoning drop the pet. However, *My* preference would be to hit both abilities with a whiffle bat until they're both fair together, and still roughly equally valuable.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 3, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> Keep in mind that this is going to be the _Advanced _Players Guide. From what I understand, it will be emphasized in the book that these classes are *intended for mature, trustworthy players*.




I really had a good laugh after reading this. So, the book is only for 'Advanced Players'?
I guess, you'll have to suceed at an intricate psychology test before you are allowed to order a copy. 

Or, maybe not.

Publishing a book with broken classes and saying that's fine because you can choose not to allow them is ... an 'interesting' idea. 

I'm pretty sure noone at Paizo had that in mind when they decided to call this book 'Advanced Players Guide'.


----------



## EroGaki (Dec 3, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> I really had a good laugh after reading this. So, the book is only for 'Advanced Players'?
> I guess, you'll have to suceed at an intricate psychology test before you are allowed to order a copy.
> 
> Or, maybe not.
> ...




Adding smiley faces to a statement does nothing to obfuscate the snark. Just saying.

But I suppose I see the point. I didn't mean to offend with what I said. If I insulted anyone, I apologize. 

And I would strongly disagree with you; "broken" is hardly the term I would use. Honestly, people throw that word around too freely for my taste. It is strong, perhaps too strong, but I doubt it is no more game breaking than any other class is. A player (or DM) who sets their mind to it can break any game, with any class. 

My DM has approved the play testing of the class in our up-coming Legacy of Fire game. We shall see how well it runs, and if it is "broken."


----------



## Mark Chance (Dec 3, 2009)

After more reflection, I think the major flaw with the summoner is that the class doesn't have to play a card from the battle deck when summoning a monster.

Either that, or it should store specific monsters in magical containers.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 3, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> With validity?  Let's not over-exaggerate now.
> 
> I said:
> 
> "Introducing anything that grants a player additional actions - above and beyond the other players at the table - needs to be done with extreme care."



You also said: 


> You mean the ability to have a permanent ally is broken? Hmm, kind of sounds like, oh, I don't know, this Summoner class or animal companion.



 You referenced a generic "permanent ally", declared it "broken" and immediately equated it to "animal companions".
That is what I responded to and it was you over-exaggerating in the point.

If I had responded to the quote you have substituted, it would have been to agree.  I do agree with that general statement.  But you did not stop there.  
You went on into over-reaction territory.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 3, 2009)

Didn't James or Jason say at one point that the class was not exactly what the name implied and they were actually going to alter the name at a later time? I think the actual summoning got added on after the idea of the Eidolon since that was the base idea of the class. So arguing to get rid of the Eidolon is pointless, they're not going to remove what the class is based on, especially in favor of 1 SLA. Remember, more than half of the class' abilities are based on the Eidolon. Without those the class is basically the SLA and some defensive spells.

Overall, I still stand by my previous statement. If you wish to play a summoner, there is an option for wizards to specialize in a school called "Conjuration." Try that out, I hear that's what they do. If that's not good enough, build a prestige class based on the SLA that you like and call it a day.


----------



## ruemere (Dec 3, 2009)

Summoner at higher levels is a sitting duck for many anti-caster abilities. So, yes, he may be a guy with a rocket launcher, but his defenses turn him into an easy target.

Weak defense are in no way a balancing factor, however, IMHO, they should be improved so that Summoner would not be so easy to eliminate.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. My other issue with Summoner is that it is in essence a pokemon trainer. I would strongly advocate adding more utility to the class (i.e. out of combat options). Suggestions I have posted at Paizo forums: extradimensional security expert/hacker, tamer of outsiders, explorers of far realms.


----------



## Chronologist (Dec 3, 2009)

ruemere, that's not a bad idea. They could have some supernatural abilities that let them banish or control outsiders.

I just thought of a fix for this class. What if the spells were taken away? Then all he has is his Eidolon and extended summoning abilities.

This class and the idea of a "second" character reminds me a lot of the Champion class from Giant in the Playground.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 3, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> That doesn't necessarily mean that it is broken--



Thank you, now lets work toward making it functional rather than decreeing animal companions broken.



> it represents party power, after all, which can be a good thing, even if that power is concentrated into the hands of just one player. It's brokenness is proportional to the "fairness" of having more power in the hands of one PC than another-- and of course there are plenty of other places in the rules where we are content to live with such imbalance.



But it doesn't need to be this way.  It can also be calibrated to a character rather than to a party.  

I find the idea of a character whose power is concentrated into a summoned thrid party to be quite intriguing.  And, yes, the additional actions are critically important to manage and it is easy to substantially undervalue this.  But I don't believe that the system can not handle it.  It just needs work and thoughfulness.  What it doesn't need is dead end claims that permanent allies are implicity broken.



> But it is absolutely fair to consider it an instant "red flag." It's specious to claim that Lanchester's Square Law is a "hypothetical" at this point.



Who called it hypothetical?  Its validity does not justify its misuse.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 3, 2009)

Chronologist said:


> I just thought of a fix for this class. What if the spells were taken away? Then all he has is his Eidolon and extended summoning abilities.



It is a tricky balancing act.    
As is, the Eidolon looks too powerful for any combination to work.  

Just for consideration, imagine a class that is exactly the commoner, except he has the ability to summon a permanent fighter of equivalent level.  Cleary this is no different than giving a fighter a permanent commoner pet and is more powerful than a fighter without.

So the Eidolon needs to be some measure clearly less potent than a fighter just to exist in the first place alongside a base class with zero additional features above those possessed by a commoner.  

On the other hand, if you take a commoner and let him summon two fighters of half his level, he will progress from a bit over powered to steadily more and more under-powered as he goes along.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 3, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Its validity does not justify its misuse.




It is not a misuse of Lanchester's to observe that doubling the number of combatants leads to a quadratic increase in power.

That's actually "use."

Unless of course you take steps to make the pet "asymmetrically insignificant;" as will happen to any meatbag that falls behind the leading edge of the magic power curve.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 3, 2009)

I'm surprised they didn't go with the method wherein the Summoner has to spend actions to control his eidolon, sort of like the 4e Ranger does with his animal companion. The eidolon could take basic actions on its own, like opportunity attacks, making it a decent bodyguard if nothing else, but if you want to attack with it, you have to control it directly.

Like, I figured it would be a D&D version of the Yuna from Final Fantasy X. When she busts out her various summoned critters, she's removed from the action.


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 3, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> I'm surprised they didn't go with the method wherein the Summoner has to spend actions to control his eidolon, sort of like the 4e Ranger does with his animal companion. The eidolon could take basic actions on its own, like opportunity attacks, making it a decent bodyguard if nothing else, but if you want to attack with it, you have to control it directly.




Wickett wins the thread.  I was just about to make the exactly same comment.  



> I find the idea of a character whose power is concentrated into a summoned thrid party to be quite intriguing.




As do I.  And requiring the character to spend actions to direct his companion is a great balancing tool.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Dec 3, 2009)

Ugh, sorry, I can't go along with that idea. PC's spending their actions to control their critters in 4E is one of the things I hate most about 4E. I'd hate to see that concept ported to 3E/Pathfinder.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 3, 2009)

*Summoner*

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether the Eidolon is the core of the class.  I really think the SLAs are more in keeping with the flavor of a Summoner.

If the Eidolon stays, I like the idea of having it take actions to control it.

How about this:  It takes a swift action to grant an Eidolon a Move action, a Move action to grant an Eidolon a standard action, and a standard action to grant an Eidolon a full attack/full round action.

Of course, this has wierd consequences, like the fact that the Eidolon Master and his pet have a hard time keeping up with the party in a march.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 3, 2009)

*by the way*

I did something similar in a Savage Tide campaign I ran in Argentina last year -- one of the PCs had a Dread Necromancer with numerous pets.

When giving orders, I ruled that ordering the first creature in any given round was a swift action, the second a move action , and the 3rd a standard action.  Persistent orders (like 'kill him' ) didn't have to be renewed each round, in this case.

Even with this restriction the PC still ended up dominating the game.

Ken


----------



## Mark Chance (Dec 3, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> How about this:  It takes a swift action to grant an Eidolon a Move action, a Move action to grant an Eidolon a standard action, and a standard action to grant an Eidolon a full attack/full round action.
> 
> Of course, this has wierd consequences, like the fact that the Eidolon Master and his pet have a hard time keeping up with the party in a march.




There's probably a fix for that. Another idea I had (not as good as the battle deck or magical container idea ) is that the summoner's "consciousness" is split between himself and his eidolon. The summoner suffers a -X penalty to this, that, and the other thing any round the eidolon functions at full capacity. The eidolon suffers this same penalty any round the summoner functions at full capacity.

I'm not sure what I mean by "capacity."


----------



## Zurai (Dec 3, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether the Eidolon is the core of the class.




As long as you realize you're disagreeing with the expressed intent of the designer of the class, I'm fine with that.

As for economy of actions: the Summoner doesn't have an awful lot of economical action choices of his own. He has very, very few offensive spells (which are at low DC thanks to his Bard spell progression and the general disincentive to pump casting stat for a partial caster without a lot of DC-based spells) and the _summon monster_ SLAs. He's also got medium BAB, but only light armor and no shield. He's not likely to be up in melee (although I'm playtesting a Summoner who does just that), and his spells are mostly of the "cheerleader" type. It's the Eidolon who has the significant actions.

The _summon monster_ abilities -- which I've already stated I'd just as soon see disappear, including the spells in his spell list -- aren't as hot as most people are making them out to be. Summoned monsters are generally of a CR significantly below the party level, fighting against monsters equal to or *higher* CR than the party, except in the first few levels when there isn't that much range of CR yet. SM6, which the Summoner gets at 11th level, summons at best a single celestial dire tiger, which is CR 9, and probably not as good a choice as a CR 7 huge air elemental in many situations. At 11th level, the Summoner is likely to be fighting monsters in the CR 13-15 range like iron golems, adult dragons, and fairly powerful outsiders. Dire tigers have jack squat against anything that flies or anything that has DR 10+, and air elementals have significantly less offense than the tigers do. <I use SM6 as an example because the Summoner I'm playtesting is level 12, so I've recently looked through that list>

The point of the Summoner is to allow people to play a common fantasy archetype that _has never existed in playable form in D&D before_: that of the guy who specializes in summoning or controlling one unique fantastic creature  (or a small number of them). Examples of this archetype are all over literature and popular culture -- Belgarath's demon summoning in the Belgariad, Summoners in the various Final Fantasy games, Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, Shinigami Captains and their Bankai in the anime Bleach, and, yes, Pokemon/Digimon/etc -- but D&D has never allowed you to play it. _That_ is the point of the class. Personally, I'm of the opinion that all the _summon monster_ stuff detracts from the point and the focus of the class, and possibly over-powers it, but as Jason said in this thread, he aims high for playtest versions of classes and trims back what seems to be too much.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 3, 2009)

*OK I see your point*

About Jason Buhlman's intent.  Thanks for the link.

I guess 'guy with permanent pet who is better than him' doesn't exactly scream 'summoner' to me.  Maybe he should rename the class.  

Honestly, I just don't like the idea of a class with a permanent pet that is better than the PC.  It's hard for me to understand why that would be the design goal here.   I'd vastly prefer a class focused on summoning creatures from large lists, which is what summoning has always been about in D&D.

Ken


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 3, 2009)

*By the way*

Have you looked at the Pathfinder Summon Monster lists?  Many creatures come in a full level earlier than they did in 3.5.  It's a significant change.

Ken


----------



## Mark Chance (Dec 3, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Have you looked at the Pathfinder Summon Monster lists?  Many creatures come in a full level earlier than they did in 3.5.  It's a significant change.




Interesting. I hadn't noticed that.

I did, however, notice this generalization:



Zurai said:


> Summoned monsters are generally of a CR significantly below the party level, fighting against monsters equal to or *higher* CR than the party....




That's not true in my games. PCs in my games generally fight against groups of monsters with individual CRs lower than that of than the party. For example, five CR 1/2 monsters (EL 3) against four 3rd-level PCs.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 3, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Have you looked at the Pathfinder Summon Monster lists?  Many creatures come in a full level earlier than they did in 3.5.  It's a significant change.
> 
> Ken




Yep, I'm aware of that, but like I said, the monsters on the lists are still significantly weaker (minimum 4 CR if your opponent is a CR+2 from party level) than what it's going to be fighting. After looking through my SM6 (and 1d3 SM5/1d4+1 SM4) options, I've pretty much decided that summoned monsters are mostly going to be flank buddies, distractions, and mobile spell-like abilities (hello, lillend azata). I'm not saying the summoning is useless  just that after the first few levels, their direct combat application isn't really "summon a whole lot of monsters and watch them solo the encounter". 

I'll admit that the combination of summoner + 2 HD Eidolon + SM1 at level 1 is likely too strong. I'm also of the opinion that Eidolons have _waaaaaaay_ too much AC, and have raised that concern in the playtest boards (and Jason has responded that he's looking into the AC; he's also looking into how magic items should interact with Eidolons). At higher levels, though, I think it evens out and possibly even shifts down to perfectly level-appropriate (as opposed to any of the full casters, who start out weak compared to a fighter and quickly ramp up to "that was a CR+3 encounter?"), at least if you don't _try_ to break the Eidolon. I'm hoping the level 12 game I'm playing will shed more light on that, but it's a PbP so we may not get enough time to do more than an encounter or two.



			
				Mark Chance said:
			
		

> That's not true in my games. PCs in my games generally fight against groups of monsters with individual CRs lower than that of than the party. For example, five CR 1/2 monsters (EL 3) against four 3rd-level PCs.




Sorry, I'm generalizing from Paizo's published modules and my own games, all of which tend to have monsters tougher than the party in most encounters. Individual DMs vary, of course.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 3, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I guess 'guy with permanent pet who is better than him' doesn't exactly scream 'summoner' to me.




Actually, it has a whiff of Jekyll and Hyde, or Banner and Hulk, except that the alter ego (or, rather, _id_) actually gets to hang around in physical form to watch the havoc.

And maybe cast a few buffs on him.


----------



## GlassJaw (Dec 3, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Actually, it has a whiff of Jekyll and Hyde, or Banner and Hulk, except that the alter ego (or, rather, _id_) actually gets to hang around in physical form to watch the havoc.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 3, 2009)

Zurai said:


> The _summon monster_ abilities -- which I've already stated I'd just as soon see disappear, including the spells in his spell list -- aren't as hot as most people are making them out to be. Summoned monsters are generally of a CR significantly below the party level, fighting against monsters equal to or *higher* CR than the party, except in the first few levels when there isn't that much range of CR yet. SM6, which the Summoner gets at 11th level, summons at best a single celestial dire tiger, which is CR 9, and probably not as good a choice as a CR 7 huge air elemental in many situations. At 11th level, the Summoner is likely to be fighting monsters in the CR 13-15 range like iron golems, adult dragons, and fairly powerful outsiders. Dire tigers have jack squat against anything that flies or anything that has DR 10+, and air elementals have significantly less offense than the tigers do. <I use SM6 as an example because the Summoner I'm playtesting is level 12, so I've recently looked through that list>



 I don't think anyone is saying summons are all tanks or DPSers.

The giant spiders webs foes. The Giant frog eats them. The Dretch causes fear and stinking clouds. Mephits have spells (depends on type) as does Bralani.

For SM 6th: 
Shadow Demon has many spells, incorporeal, etc (but can't use in sunlight).
Lliend is another spellcaster.
Succubus can dominate/Charm enemies. Heck, they can grant you a +2 to any stat (although you need high Will save so no suggestions).


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 4, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> I'm surprised they didn't go with the method wherein the Summoner has to spend actions to control his eidolon, sort of like the 4e Ranger does with his animal companion. The eidolon could take basic actions on its own, like opportunity attacks, making it a decent bodyguard if nothing else, but if you want to attack with it, you have to control it directly.




That was my initial reaction to the idea of limiting the eidolon also. For what it's worth, this was the direction taken with the dragonrider base class from OtherWorld Creations.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 4, 2009)

Has anyone who is saying the Eidolon is greater than a PC playtested it, or just stared at the pages. Cause our Fighter did way better than the Eidolon, and the Paladin was on par with it against non-undead/evil opponents. I'm really not seeing how it is so broken.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 4, 2009)

Xendria said:


> Has anyone who is saying the Eidolon is greater than a PC playtested it, or just stared at the pages. Cause our Fighter did way better than the Eidolon, and the Paladin was on par with it against non-undead/evil opponents. I'm really not seeing how it is so broken.



 I'm undecided, but how was it built?
Did it have armor on? Did it go Bipedal, snake, or Quadrapedal?
Did it have spells? Details because the thing is very versatile.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 4, 2009)

Bipedal with an extra set of legs added on. Armor, Greatsword, Bullrush feats. I don't have the character on me, left it at my DM's, but it was well made. I mean I've seen builds with AC's over 40 but that's a waste of points in my opinion. Either way the fighter outshined the Eidolon on multiple occasions and also was more adaptable in combat, being semi skilled with a bow aswell (WF: Longbow, WS: Longbow, FS).


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 4, 2009)

*I guess my main question*

Is, if the summoner gets a pet, why doesn't the bard?  The summoner minus his eidolon is easily as powerful as the bard.

I suggest that the Bard class be revised to have a pet .

It can be a Warrior with the same class level as the Bard.  We'll call this pet his 'Friend'.  Surely without all those fighter bonus feats, he won't outshine the fighter.  He'll just be a guy in armor swinging a sword.

Would that be imbalanced?

Ken


----------



## Zurai (Dec 4, 2009)

For those that aren't following the Paizo boards, Jason handed down a little playtest errata today:

He defined how eidolons interact with gear (no armor any more, can only use weapons or shields if they have the arms evolution, can use two rings if they have arms, etc). No big surprises there -- anyone who ran the math could see how absurd eidolon AC got.

The other change was to the summon SLA. Now it's back to a full-round casting time and 1 round/level duration, _and_ the summoner can only have one use of the SLA active at any given time.

Should quiet some of the concerns. I think the summon changes were too far to the other side, but Jason said he's open to another change if it proves too weak.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 4, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I suggest that the Bard class be revised to have a pet .
> 
> It can be a Warrior with the same class level as the Bard. We'll call this pet his 'Friend'. Surely without all those fighter bonus feats, he won't outshine the fighter. He'll just be a guy in armor swinging a sword.
> 
> Ken




Bards get class features like Bardic music.
However, if remove those (or switch with Summoner) then it would be balanced.



Zurai said:


> He defined how eidolons interact with gear (no armor any more, can only use weapons or shields if they have the arms evolution, can use two rings if they have arms, etc). No big surprises there -- anyone who ran the math could see how absurd eidolon AC got.
> 
> The other change was to the summon SLA. Now it's back to a full-round casting time and 1 round/level duration, _and_ the summoner can only have one use of the SLA active at any given time.
> I think the summon changes were too far to the other side, but Jason said he's open to another change if it proves too weak.



I agree, if he took 2 suggestions: 1 at a time and 1 rd/level, that would be not too nerfing. But all three?
And he took away armor proficiency as a choice? Oh, no, now we just buy them mithral chain shirt like all the mages can wear. Armor proficiencty only matter if it has armor check penalty.


----------



## Dilandau Kale (Dec 4, 2009)

He meant armour for the eidolon

EDIT never mind that is what was being talked about


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Dec 4, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> And he took away armor proficiency as a choice? Oh, no, now we just buy them mithral chain shirt like all the mages can wear. Armor proficiencty only matter if it has armor check penalty.




1st off, A wizard using a mithral chain shirt under pathfinder suffers a 10% arcane spell failure chance, And you still suffer the penalty to attack rolls. this includes rays and touch attacks

2nd. It can not wear it due to it's form...meaning it will not fit and grants no AC. It has nothing to due with ACP it simply can not wear such. If your GM allows you to..well good for you, but under the rules it may not wear armor


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 4, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> "Introducing anything that grants a player additional actions - above and beyond the other players at the table - needs to be done with extreme care."
> 
> Which remains absolutely true.  If you design a class feature that grants additional abilities - regardless of what the rest of the class abilities are - a huge sign should pop up in your brain that says "You are entering dangerous territory - proceed with caution".




Personally, I find a game based on heroic medieval fantasy, in which characters *can't* have companions....whether that's a pet dog that helps savage those orcs, a tiger companion, a hawk you've trained to hunt, or an armoured warhorse you trample infantry, is in fact missing out on a lot, and is pretty incomplete.

Frankly, the whole poke-mount thing with the Paladin's mount in 3.5 was just silly IMO.

Maybe that's the point at which my desires for the game started diverging from WotC's attempts to find balance.  I'm not sure.  But much of the stuff that they started saying was either un-fun, or "took too much time away from the action" or "unbalanced because they gave extra XYZ" were things I felt were vital for immersion in the game world....

ie. encumbrance rules.  How much can your backpack actually carry?  Can you really carry away 15,000 coins and a bunch of items from a dragon's horde in a backpack?

Animal companions.  Having them scale in power based on character level was actually a good thing.

Having to think about things like "what do I do with my horse when I go into that dungeon"?  IMO, it just immerses characters in the game world instead of being able to snap their fingers, and poof, the horse disappears.  Maybe it means the fighter has a page who he leaves behind to take care of the horses.  Or the wizard has an apprentice and one of his duties is to take care of the wizard's horse while the wizard is in the evil castle.

Food.  Yeah, characters should have rations  They don't just live on air.  And frankly, instead of just carrying weapons, armor, and scrolls, the character might need a bedroll, flint & steel, some torches, a mirror for shaving (and for seeing monsters around corners in a dungeon), soap (might be a good idea to take a bath if you're going into town after being on the road for 15 days), etc.

I just haven't seen animal companions be *that* disruptive.  But maybe my players just weren't trying to abuse the game (or even optimize)....I don't know.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 4, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> Ugh, sorry, I can't go along with that idea. PC's spending their actions to control their critters in 4E is one of the things I hate most about 4E. I'd hate to see that concept ported to 3E/Pathfinder.




Well, there are lots of examples of it in real life <sarcasm> .  Like, if a police dog is going to take someone down, the officer lets it off the leash, and then just stands there.  Or not.

Or a knight or horseback......rides into a mass of infantry, sword firmly in its sheath, and lets the horse trample people.  But no, he doesn't pull out his sword and whack the heads off infantry because....well, the horse needs to be told where to put its hooves.  Or, if he wants to pull out his sword and attack, the horse has to stand perfectly still and eat sugar cubes, so the knight can get in some attacks.

These are excellent examples of how trying to "balance" the game makes the game worse....and in many ways illogical.

Now, if a summoned monster resulted in a situation like where you've got two summoners facing off, and they each summon their Eidolon, and they're looking at their Eidolons, sweat beating down their faces as they issue mental commands to their creations, and the two Eidolons run up to savage each other in face to face combat.....well, that could work, flavour-wise.  When one of the Eidolons finally dispatches the other one, the wizard controlling the Eidolon that was just destroyed, falls to the ground, temporarily stunned, trying to get his wits together, and think of what spell to use to defend himself or escape, as the victor's Eidolon finally turns on the losing wizard, to rend him limb from limb.....

But for things like ranger or druid animal companions, or Paladin and Knight warhorses....not so well.

If they're going to do this, then the Summoner's abilities *without* the Eidolon need to be just as strong as the Summoner's abilities *with* the Eidolon.  Otherwise the class has become a one-trick pony, with only one option for how it's supposed to be used.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 4, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I did something similar in a Savage Tide campaign I ran in Argentina last year -- one of the PCs had a Dread Necromancer with numerous pets.
> 
> When giving orders, I ruled that ordering the first creature in any given round was a swift action, the second a move action , and the 3rd a standard action.  Persistent orders (like 'kill him' ) didn't have to be renewed each round, in this case.
> 
> ...




I could see a character being limited to a certain number of instructions per round....command one monster to do one think, and it's a free action.  Try to do it twice in a row (once each, with two monsters), and you can no longer take a full round action to do other things (for example).  And, as you say, if you don't give a new order (ie. you ordered your companion to kill an orc last round, and the job is still not done), then the companion keeps acting on the initial order......ie. if it takes 3 rounds for your wolf to kill the orc, in Round 2, the wolf doesn't stop biting the orc, and look at you to know what to do next.  He just keeps biting the orc.  It's only if another orc is chasing you with an axe, and you need the wolf to leave the first orc he's mauling, and stop the one chasing you, that you would have to give a second order.

Banshee


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 4, 2009)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Is, if the summoner gets a pet, why doesn't the bard?  The summoner minus his eidolon is easily as powerful as the bard.
> 
> I suggest that the Bard class be revised to have a pet .
> 
> ...



bard "companions" : ya know, this is just a thought that lept into my mind here, but bards having charisma as their major attribute, perhaps they can can take th leadership feat at level 7? with that kind of score that they need to be a successful performer, they would also get a pretty good cohort, imho.

with a char lvl of 7 min and a possible cha of 18 that gives a base leadership score of 11. add +1 for have a special power (spell casting through music) and subtract 1 for moving around alot and you hve a final score of 11, still. this does not include any chr buffs from magic items. witha score of 11 you would have a bard of level 7 with a level 7 cohort and 6 level 1 followers. that is quite the following!


----------



## Caedwyr (Dec 5, 2009)

Scott DeWar said:


> bard "companions" : ya know, this is just a thought that lept into my mind here, but bards having charisma as their major attribute, perhaps they can can take th leadership feat at level 7? with that kind of score that they need to be a successful performer, they would also get a pretty good cohort, imho.
> 
> with a char lvl of 7 min and a possible cha of 18 that gives a base leadership score of 11. add +1 for have a special power (spell casting through music) and subtract 1 for moving around alot and you hve a final score of 11, still. this does not include any chr buffs from magic items. witha score of 11 you would have a bard of level 7 with a level 7 cohort and 6 level 1 followers. that is quite the following!




The correct term would be "roadies".


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 5, 2009)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> 1st off, A wizard using a mithral chain shirt under pathfinder suffers a 10% arcane spell failure chance, And you still suffer the penalty to attack rolls. this includes rays and touch attacks



Riddle me this: What is the ACP for Mithral Chain Shirt?
Yes, there is 10% SF, but I'm referring to ACP.
I'm pretty sure this is zero.
Let us do the math: 
Chain shirt is -2, Mithral is +3. That means we have no penalty to Armor check Penalty category. We actually have +1 (but I don't think that means Mithral gives you bonus to attacks if not proficient in the armor, because that would be silly).


> 2nd. It can not wear it due to it's form...meaning it will not fit and grants no AC. It has nothing to due with ACP it simply can not wear such. If your GM allows you to..well good for you, but under the rules it may not wear armor



Barding. Did you forget animals *(and non humanoids) can wear armor.
It is listed in the PSRD.
Look under Mounts and related gear section in the equipment link.

Edit: Okay, read Jason's reasoning. Shifting form...that is his reason they can't wear armor.
I guess Barding won't help then. Though, that rationale seems forced and not well thought out.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Dec 5, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> Barding. Did you forget animals *(and non humanoids) can wear armor.
> It is listed in the PSRD.
> Look under Mounts and related gear section in the equipment link.




Save to use barding the mount must have the armor feat or it suffers like anyone else
and 2 the man who created the class, and his official ruling is they do not have the ability to wear armor of any type. So by the rules no you may not use any type of armor on it


----------



## Zurai (Dec 5, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> Barding. Did you forget animals *(and non humanoids) can wear armor.
> It is listed in the PSRD.
> Look under Mounts and related gear section in the equipment link.




As Hunter said, the ruling isn't that they lose the ability to spend evolution points on armor proficiencies (they do, but that's a side effect). The ruling is that they _cannot wear armor_. They also can't wear bracers, so no _bracers of armor_.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 5, 2009)

You guys missed my edit?

I wish that it was linked to the thread where he said this. I had to go to the forums and read it.

So the reason is they can't wear armor because their body can't wear it. They apparently shift too much.
(which means they really look like a freak. Shifting forms every couple moments).
Although, I guess if you polymorphed them they could wear it since it is no longer their body but the new forms.
I mean, they'd lose all those evolution abilities (other than Spell-like and stuff like that), but then they could wear armor.


----------



## Sylrae (Dec 5, 2009)

Mark Chance said:


> After more reflection, I think the major flaw with the summoner is that the class doesn't have to play a card from the battle deck when summoning a monster.
> Either that, or it should store specific monsters in magical containers.





Xendria said:


> you wish to play a summoner, there is an option for wizards to specialize in a school called "Conjuration." Try that out, I hear that's what they do. If that's not good enough, build a prestige class based on the SLA that you like and call it a day.



Conjuration wizards are pretty fail summoners. They’re not specialized enough. The only decent summoner class I've seen is the Malconvoker PrC, which was based on manipulating demons into doing good things. It was only ‘OK’.



BryonD said:


> It is a tricky balancing act.
> As is, the Eidolon looks too powerful for any combination to work.
> 
> Just for consideration, imagine a class that is exactly the commoner, except he has the ability to summon a permanent fighter of equivalent level. Cleary this is no different than giving a fighter a permanent commoner pet and is more powerful than a fighter without.
> ...



What if the Eidoloneer (Because it’s clearly not a Summoner if the emphasis is on being an (albeit really cool) Pokémon trainer). What if the Eidoloneer could only make move and swift and free actions while the Eidolon was out, and the Eidolon got full actions. To make a Standard or full-round action, the Eidoloneer has to drop the Eidolon (Free Action). Resummoning the Eidolon is Standard Action. The Eidolon shares Initiative with the Eidoloneer. As Ruemere suggested, his other abilities would consist of abilities such as 







ruemere said:


> Extradimensional security expert/hacker, tamer of outsiders, explorers of far realms.





BryonD said:


> On the other hand, if you take a commoner and let him summon two fighters of half his level, he will progress from a bit over powered to steadily more and more under-powered as he goes along.



Hmm. What if said two fighters gained a bonus to “To Hit”: A bonus to the dice rolls for BAB, without the extra attacks, which makes them hit as though they were both fighters of ¾ level or something, but in all other ways are only half? If you summoned multiple casters, they’d get a bonus as though they were higher caster level, possibly even full casters, which would only apply to things such as DCs. Maybe both get smaller bonuses to saves or AC. Just a thought on how to have more of the small ones without them becoming totally useless.


Mark Chance said:


> There's probably a fix for that. Another idea I had (not as good as the battle deck or magical container idea  ) is that the summoner's "consciousness" is split between himself and his eidolon. The summoner suffers a -X penalty to this, that, and the other thing any round the eidolon functions at full capacity. The eidolon suffers this same penalty any round the summoner functions at full capacity.
> 
> I'm not sure what I mean by "capacity."



 This is a pretty good idea also.


----------



## EroGaki (Dec 5, 2009)

Sylrae said:


> What if the Eidoloneer (Because it’s clearly not a Summoner if the emphasis is on being an (albeit really cool) Pokémon trainer).




My thoughts exactly. If the focus of the class is on a pet and it only has so-so summoning abilities, than the name should change. Eidoloneer is great if you look at it for what it is: someone who controls an eidolon. With the recent change, it is a sucky summoner.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 5, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> My thoughts exactly. If the focus of the class is on a pet and it only has so-so summoning abilities, than the name should change. Eidoloneer is great if you look at it for what it is: someone who controls an eidolon. With the recent change, it is a sucky summoner.




Tell that to Yuna. Or Rydia. As a matter of fact, if you asked anyone outside of D&D what a "Summoner" is, I'd bet you'd be far more likely to get a response that closely resembles the "Eidoloneer" rather than the "ISpamMonsterser", as it's far, _far_ more prevalent in popular culture and mythology.


----------



## Sylrae (Dec 5, 2009)

Zurai said:


> Tell that to Yuna. Or Rydia. As a matter of fact, if you asked anyone outside of D&D what a "Summoner" is, I'd bet you'd be far more likely to get a response that closely resembles the "Eidoloneer" rather than the "ISpamMonsterser", as it's far, _far_ more prevalent in popular culture and mythology.



You may get some responses that are final fantasy-esque. You'll likely get more 'Summoner'esque responses where the summoner uses a summoning circle and summons up demons, ala planar binding, and gets it to fight for him, if he can control it.

As for Final Fantasy-esque type responses, there are two kinds.

1) Summon spells are more like cool flavored evocations, they show up, do a single powerful attack, then dissipate.
2) Summon spells summon a large monster, and make you (and oddly, your friends) disappear, until it is called back or defeated, a-la pokemon.

You'll notice in all of these cases, the Summoner has Multiple things they summon in the same sort of way.

Yuna is a summoner, albeit one whose personality I found grating. Yuna summons more than a single creature (She can summon something besides ifrit), she gains more creatures she can summon over the course of the game. Likewise for summoners in FF4,5,6,7,fft,ff8,and ff9. So this is not like a Final Fantasy summoner either.

It's like a specialized pokemon trainer who only has one pokemon. But the pokemon is really freaking cool.

Hence Eidoloneer.


----------



## EroGaki (Dec 5, 2009)

Zurai said:


> Tell that to Yuna. Or Rydia. As a matter of fact, if you asked anyone outside of D&D what a "Summoner" is, I'd bet you'd be far more likely to get a response that closely resembles the "Eidoloneer" rather than the "ISpamMonsterser", as it's far, _far_ more prevalent in popular culture and mythology.




And you know what else Yuna and Rydia had? Actually powerful spellcasting at their disposal. Yuna was a competent white mage, and Rydia had white and black magic. All the Eidonloneer has is his pet, and less spells known than a sorcerer. If a sorcerer can cast know more spells and cast more often than the Eidoloneer, than the eidoloneer isn't much of a spell caster.

And as for the "ISpamMonsterer," Yuna had multiple summons throughout the game. When she was done with one, she had another. As did Rydia. There's your summon monster right there.  The Eidoloneer has _one _pet, a pet that will more than likely nerfed beyond all usefulness by the relentless horde of gibbering mouthers (guess who they are) who cry "broken" at anything they dislike, without playtesting it. Just like what happened.


----------



## EroGaki (Dec 5, 2009)

Sylrae said:


> You may get some responses that are final fantasy-esque. You'll likely get more 'Summoner'esque responses where the summoner uses a summoning circle and summons up demons, ala planar binding, and gets it to fight for him, if he can control it.
> 
> As for Final Fantasy-esque type responses, there are two kinds.
> 
> ...




Thank you.


----------



## Sylrae (Dec 5, 2009)

*bows*
I couldn't leave the Yuna argument without at least giving some kind of response.
This character is nothing like either of those.

I'll say this: The character is based on a pretty awesome concept.
But he's a pretty weak caster.

The Eidolon is kickass. But not in line with a 'summoner' concept. (As he's really your only summon)

He's like a Pokemon trainer, with one highly customizable, totally F***ing awesome Pokemon. Who eventually turns into a copy of said pokemon.

I'd say Drop the now crappy Summon SLAs, and replace with Mobility SLAs. Give him Expedious Retreat, Teleport, and Gate over the course of the levels as SLAs. Other things as Necessary. Possibly a Slow, or Invisibility. Just some run-away abilities.

Now we need some people to design a Pikachu Eidolon and my point will be made. Of course, eventually this pikachu will evolve into some kind of maneating awesome beast, but that's how pokemon should have been anyways.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 5, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> And you know what else Yuna and Rydia had? Actually powerful spellcasting at their disposal. Yuna was a competent white mage, and Rydia had white and black magic. All the Eidonloneer has is his pet, and less spells known than a sorcerer. If a sorcerer can cast know more spells and cast more often than the Eidoloneer, than the eidoloneer isn't much of a spell caster.




Rydia actually doesn't get both white magic and summons at the same time (she has white magic and black magic as a child and black magic and summons as an adult). And _everyone_ in FF10 is a competent white mage, because it's a classless system and anyone can go anywhere on the sphere grid; IIRC, only Yuna even has any unique abilities, and that's Summoning.

As for magic, the Summoner is a competent caster. They get save-or-dies/sucks at every spell level and most of the best buffing spells (even extending into the cleric and druid lists). They don't get _as_ many as a Sorcerer, no. But they do quite adequately mirror a Final Fantasy-style Summoner (far better than anything else in the history of the game has). In Final Fantasy terms, they're a combination of red mages and summoners -- slower spellcasting progression with access to a limited list of both white and black magic, moderate combat prowess, and access to summoning.

(I've noted elsewhere, but they're also actually a pretty solid base to make a Bleach-style Shinigami out of, for any Anime fans out there)

Anyway, a FF-style Summoner is something that has been missing from the game. An ISpamMonsterser is something that can be adequately (if not exceptionally) done just from the SRD with the variant conjurer. For definitions terms, FF-style Summoners are not ISpamMonstersers, because they don't summon more than one entity at a time (multi-summons like Knights of the Round, etc, aside; those are obviously still one "entity" being summoned) and that entity is considerably more powerful than the summoner. An ISpamMonsterser happily fills the battlefield with summoned celestial leopards, each of whom is significantly weaker than the ISpamMonsterser. They're two totally different characters to play.

Anyway, as it stands I actually think the nerf to the SLA went too far, if the SLA is going to remain in the class. I favor one or the other of the changes, but not both -- I'd rather the standard action, minutes/level, one-at-a-time summon, but a full-round action, rounds/level, spammable summon wouldn't make me tear my hair out. I just feel that the Summoner is a powerful enough class without the SLAs and without the summon spells on its spell list, and that those options detract from the intended point of the class. I'm a power gamer; if those options remain, I'm not going to bitch and moan. I just think the class can do without them, is all.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 5, 2009)

Zurai said:


> Rydia actually doesn't get both white magic and summons at the same time (she has white magic and black magic as a child and black magic and summons as an adult).



Rydia had a chocobo summon as a child as well as black and white magic. I remember using it to kill that octopus.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 5, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> Rydia had a chocobo summon as a child as well as black and white magic. I remember using it to kill that octopus.




Wow, it's been so long since I've played FF4 that I'd forgotten. She also summoned Titan at the start of the game. Sorry, statement withdrawn. Although child-Rydia is an even better analogue of the Summoner class in that case, because she hasn't lost her white magic yet but also doesn't get all the black magic either (in particular, she won't cast Fire until a story even later).


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 5, 2009)

Zurai said:


> Wow, it's been so long since I've played FF4 that I'd forgotten. She also summoned Titan at the start of the game. Sorry, statement withdrawn. Although child-Rydia is an even better analogue of the Summoner class in that case, because she hasn't lost her white magic yet but also doesn't get all the black magic either (in particular, she won't cast Fire until a story even later).




Actually, she gets Fire while still a child, a little after joining your party. After Rosa has been healed, the group journeys to Mt. Hobs, where Rydia learns Fire to melt the ice blocking their path.


----------



## Clifford (Dec 5, 2009)

Ok back to the subject at hand. Summoners have a powerfully ally, True, the main issue being the fact is that its nearly as good as another character. That said druids animal companions also Become stronger Though not to a degree that the Edilon dose. I do agree that summoners Shouldent have Both a creature that is general superior to anything they can summon with a summon monster spell And summon monster spells also, I know that has something to do with their nitch. However, Maybe more abilitys that expand upon the Summoners connection to his Edilon. Some Higher spells cast at lower levels are ok but summon monster 9 at level six is Pretty powerful. Summoning a creature almost on par with their primary class feature.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 6, 2009)

Yeah, that summon monster IX is at 6th level. But 6th level for them is at level 16.

On the Eidolon. It is not as powerful as another player. Maybe a player who doesn't know how to play his class, or a player who doesn't know how to play the game period. I have had 2 sessions of play testing this and have not had one single issue where the Eidolon has out shined a player. It's ok that the Eidolon is more powerful than a druid's animal companion because Summoners don't get offensive spells or wildshape. Until you've actually playtested the class, don't judge how powerful it is against other players.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 6, 2009)

for those who have play tested it, would the need to juice up the spelol casting be an ok thing? I know it was nurfed, but if the spell casting is worse then a scorcerer, where the scorcerer also get aa bloodling power set, that can maybe even things out? 

If it seems as though I am ignoring the people how are exociseing caution, it is only because i am only reminded that this is a new class that is to be brough on par with the other core classes (rewporked via Pathfinder) and I see it as fair to keep it strong. I believe the fighter was compared to it as the one out shining it (the pokeman pet) as there are many many feats that they can take to buff up their combat, where the Eidalon gets nada.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 6, 2009)

I think they should scrap the summon monster SLA or remove summon monster from their spell list, because now its just redundant. I don't they need more arcane spells either. Someone said earlier in this thread they need more utility abilities, and I totally agree. Abilities to unsummon other peoples creatures would be great, and still keep in flavor with the class.


----------



## Sylrae (Dec 6, 2009)

Xendria said:


> I think they should scrap the summon monster SLA or remove summon monster from their spell list, because now its just redundant. I don't they need more arcane spells either. Someone said earlier in this thread they need more utility abilities, and I totally agree. Abilities to unsummon other peoples creatures would be great, and still keep in flavor with the class.



They could also use some/more mobility/escape spells/abilities. But yeah, the Summon SLA isnt really useful anymore.



Zurai said:


> Rydia actually doesn't get both white magic and summons at the same time (she has white magic and black magic as a child and black magic and summons as an adult). And _everyone_ in FF10 is a competent white mage, because it's a classless system and anyone can go anywhere on the sphere grid; IIRC, only Yuna even has any unique abilities, and that's Summoning.
> 
> As for magic, the Summoner is a competent caster. They get save-or-dies/sucks at every spell level and most of the best buffing spells (even extending into the cleric and druid lists). They don't get _as_ many as a Sorcerer, no. But they do quite adequately mirror a Final Fantasy-style Summoner (far better than anything else in the history of the game has). In Final Fantasy terms, they're a combination of red mages and summoners -- slower spellcasting progression with access to a limited list of both white and black magic, moderate combat prowess, and access to summoning.
> 
> ...





Zurai said:


> Wow, it's been so long since I've played FF4 that I'd forgotten. She also summoned Titan at the start of the game. Sorry, statement withdrawn. Although child-Rydia is an even better analogue of the Summoner class in that case, because she hasn't lost her white magic yet but also doesn't get all the black magic either (in particular, she won't cast Fire until a story even later).



Yes FF Summoners summon one thing at a time. The reason we said he isn't a competent summoner now, is he effectively is only a summoner of the eidolon. He cant summon different eidolons depending on situation. And his 'spam monsters' standard summoning isnt good.



Clifford said:


> Ok back to the subject at hand. Summoners have a powerfully ally, True, the main issue being the fact is that its nearly as good as another character. That said druids animal companions also Become stronger Though not to a degree that the Edilon dose. I do agree that summoners Shouldent have Both a creature that is general superior to anything they can summon with a summon monster spell And summon monster spells also, I know that has something to do with their nitch. However, Maybe more abilitys that expand upon the Summoners connection to his Edilon. Some Higher spells cast at lower levels are ok but summon monster 9 at level six is Pretty powerful. Summoning a creature almost on par with their primary class feature.



True. They won't stay long though. Not anymore. (Though by the time they get Summon 9 they stay for a pretty long time).


----------



## Chronologist (Dec 6, 2009)

I have a suggestion. I know the customization of the Eidolon is cool and all, but it's also very complicated for beginner players.

Why not change it so that it's like the Witch Hexes? One special ability from column A at every level from 1-7, one special ability from column B at every level from 8-15, one special ability from column C at every level from level 16-20.


----------



## Maidhc O Casain (Dec 6, 2009)

Chronologist said:


> I have a suggestion. I know the customization of the Eidolon is cool and all, but it's also very complicated for beginner players.




That's why it's called the '_Advanced_ Player's Guide!'


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 6, 2009)

Chronologist said:


> I have a suggestion. I know the customization of the Eidolon is cool and all, but it's also very complicated for beginner players.
> 
> Why not change it so that it's like the Witch Hexes? One special ability from column A at every level from 1-7, one special ability from column B at every level from 8-15, one special ability from column C at every level from level 16-20.




For a beggining: I'd suggest pounce, claw attack, etc.
Basically, make the eidolon a bear/lion type creature (quadraped).

It would be best if they gave example eidolons of various levels and type in the book and one of eah type (so level 1: Quad, bi, and Serpent, Level 5 one of each, etc). This would help beggining make on the fly versions until they decided to read the book and work out combinations.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2009)

Mowgli said:


> That's why it's called the '_Advanced_ Player's Guide!'



Agreed.  I'm completely on board with having good starter stuff out there.  But I hate the oft-repeated idea that everything should be shackled to beginner level.


----------



## EroGaki (Dec 6, 2009)

I have a thought: is an Eidolon limited to the first base form that is chosen, or can that be changed along with all of its evolutions when the Summoner gains a level? Unless I missed it, that has not been clarified.


----------



## Zurai (Dec 6, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> I have a thought: is an Eidolon limited to the first base form that is chosen, or can that be changed along with all of its evolutions when the Summoner gains a level? Unless I missed it, that has not been clarified.




Currently, the base form cannot be changed.


----------



## fuindordm (Dec 7, 2009)

I just read through the new classes and the summoner is certainly one I'd like to try out in play. 

I too think it fills a role that has been neglected too long, and I think the specialist wizard doesn't cut it. The summon monster spells simply don't last long enough for you to use the creatures in any way but combat, generally speaking, and that's too bad. You have planar ally for long-term service, but it takes a long time to get to it and there's no middle ground.

One problem with the Eidolon is that it's a bit too much like Astral Construct--it comes entirely out of the player's mind, and it's not rooted in the game world. What is the eidolon, really? Is it a monster from the collective unconscious, completely under the summoner's control? Is it an independent entity and ally? If the latter, what does it get out of the arrangement? I'm not saying that the player shouldn't get to build the eidolon--that's a fun aspect of the class--but that the character should know the answers to these questions and that these answers should have an impact on the class. Perhaps in addition to the choice of "form", they should choose the eidolon's source of power.

To address both problems (or what I perceive as problems; YMMV), consider the following:

The eidolon is an independent patron, capable of manifesting an avatar through its bond with the summoner. This means that while it is closely allied and effectively under the player's control, it also has its own goals and agenda that may create interesting conflict from time to time. (Think 'intelligent weapon' rather than 'willing slave')

The other thing the eidolon does is help the summoner form specific relationships with extraplanar creatures capable of being summoned. The summoner can choose one specific creature every other level (for example, Leo the celestial lion) that they can call with a Summon Monster spell of the appropriate level. This creature will remain for 1 minute per level rather than 1 round per level, or perhaps even longer, although it still returns after being reduced to zero HP or performing a major service. The Summon Monster spells can still be used to call any creature on the list, but only Leo will stick around for longer than usual.  If Leo is reduced to zero HP, he can't be called back for a few days.

For extra immersion, require the player to match the alignment of the eidolon with the alignment of the named summons--no more than one step difference in any direction.
Ben


----------



## Maidhc O Casain (Dec 8, 2009)

_I_ think fuindordm (Ben) wins! These excellent (IMHO) suggestions add tons of flavor to an already flavorful class _and_ make the summon spells relevant again.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 8, 2009)

fuindordm said:


> I just read through the new classes and the summoner is certainly one I'd like to try out in play.
> 
> I too think it fills a role that has been neglected too long, and I think the specialist wizard doesn't cut it. The summon monster spells simply don't last long enough for you to use the creatures in any way but combat, generally speaking, and that's too bad. You have planar ally for long-term service, but it takes a long time to get to it and there's no middle ground.
> 
> ...




*BLINK*
You may want to post that on the Paizo boards, if you haven't already. It sounds very cool to me. 

The Auld Grump, reminds me a bit of the WotC Remnants.


----------



## fuindordm (Dec 8, 2009)

Thanks for the kind words, both of you.   I just wish I were in a position to playtest these ideas... I've got my book, but no game in sight for the moment.

Ben


----------



## ancientvaults (Dec 8, 2009)

Call me cruel, but I am letting a player run a Summoner but with a twist. The eidolon will be more like a tulpa and at each evolution it will strain to be free and independent of the summoner. If it gets the chance to break free it will be an independent creature, a thought-form made manifest in physical form and under its own control. 

Such a creature would long to become a power in its own right and would strive to evolve through its own actions.

If the eidolon breaks free a summoner may conjure another, but there will always be a slight chance of the creature breaking free and becoming a creature under its own power as the new one evolves. 

This throws in a little unpredictability as I find the class too stable considering all of the summoning and conjuring of creatures. Magic should be dangerous and it should backlash every so often.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 8, 2009)

[encouragement]
Ancient vaults, 
You are right. You are cruel. But, I do like the idea!

fuindordm ,
I am with the others in saying : Kudos to you!
If you can, please post that idea on Piazo. You too Ancient vaults!
[/encouragement]


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 8, 2009)

The Summoner looks powerful on paper. I'm wondering if it will be powerful during play. The lack of magical items will make it a bit player at high level in many of the most important battles. It's damage will fall far behind player characters making the summoner fall behind as an asset to the group.

Will most groups allow the summoner to take his share of nice magic items to boost his eidolon in power enough to be a useful group asset? I wonder.

The summoner won't be able to use many offensive powered arcane items such as wands and staves due to their limited spell list. Their primary form of damage will be physical from the eidolon. So they will probably need access to the same type of magic items a melee character will need, though they can provide some of the boost through spell enhancements.

It'll be interesting to see how an eidolon does past level 12 or so. Will it become a minor nuisance during battles or will it still be a solid contributer as the ACs of enemies rise with the help of magic items and you start fighting creatures with potent damage resistance and attacks. 

The summoner seems like a wizard that does melee damage through his creature. Thus competing with the melee classes in the group for shine time with some additional arcane assets that may help now and then. Not sure if he will be as useful as a wizard or sorcerer, but will be interesting to see how the class plays out. I hope we get some solid playtesting for this hybrid type arcane class. D&D has always lacked a highly effective summoner, though such figures are fun fantasy characters.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Dec 8, 2009)

Celtavian said:


> The summoner won't be able to use many offensive powered arcane items such as wands and staves due to their limited spell list. Their primary form of damage will be physical from the eidolon. So they will probably need access to the same type of magic items a melee character will need, though they can provide some of the boost through spell enhancements.




They can get some damage output from their summons. A couple Lantern Archons adds up (each has 2 rays/rd, touch attacks).


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 8, 2009)

*re*

Still not much damage compared to a constant stream of offensive spells such as _fireball_, _horrid wilting_ and direct killing spells like _wail of the banshee_ or _disintegrate_. You'll get a small number of attacks per round from a creature that can be killed fairly easily if focused on if it isn't properly buffed and equipped.

Most heal spells will be targeted on the player characters. The class can't heal its own summoned eidolon, which leaves him at the mercy of the PC cleric. The fighter will do more damage. The rogue will probably do more as well. 

I get the feeling the summoner will become a less effective part of the group as the party gets higher level unless he is allowed to collect magic items like a melee character that enhance his eidolon. Even then he may well lag in damage and the ability to effect a combat outcome with the lack of potent, encounter changing spells.

I would have rather seen the base abilities of the summoner such as hit points, BAB, and the like lessened to make the eidolon into a creature just less powerful than a fighter in melee combat. I would rather see the summoner as pure wizard type with very powerful and focused summoning abilities than this strange hybrid summoner that is expected to enter melee. That combination rarely works effectively, especially at high level unless they have access to the same type of magic items the melee classes are vying for. 

The BAB of such hybrids is usually too low to land blows as often as a fighter. And they hit for less damage even when they do hit than the fighter or rogue, substantially less damage which makes them less and less effective as they rise in level.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 9, 2009)

> I would rather see the summoner as pure wizard type with very powerful and focused summoning abilities than this strange hybrid summoner that is expected to enter melee.




As said a billion times. This isn't another wizard, and that's not what they want it to be. They want something unique and different. If you want a pure spell caster play a sorcerer or wizard.



> Most heal spells will be targeted on the player characters. The class can't heal its own summoned eidolon, which leaves him at the mercy of the PC cleric.




This depends on how bad your party's cleric is. My group healed the Eidolon just as much as the fighter, if not more so. It all depended on who seemed to need it more at the time. They treated it just as if it was a front line party member. And I beg to differ that you can't heal your Eidolon, the class has Use Magic Device as a class skill.



> I get the feeling the summoner will become a less effective part of the group as the party gets higher level unless he is allowed to collect magic items like a melee character that enhance his eidolon.




Honestly, our summoner put more into his Eidolon's weapon than anything for himself. I really don't see how this is a problem at all. Especially when the cleric had the craft feats to make the weapons for it. I don't get why he wouldn't be able to collect magic weapons and such for his Eidolon.



> Even then he may well lag in damage and the ability to effect a combat outcome with the lack of potent, encounter changing spells.




_Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, Shield, Magic Fang, Protection from Chaos/etc., Barkskin, Bull's Strength, Haste, Protection from Arrows, Spider Climb, Fire Shield, Greater Invisibility, Nondetection, Protection from Energy, Stoneskin_ ... Now that's just up through 3rd level. Those are all spells that can be cast on the Eidolon to make it quite formidable in combat. Our fighter on the other hand, did not have his own wizard casting these on him. As for offensive, that's what the Eidolon is there for. If you wanna cast fireball that bad, again, Use Magic Device is a class skill. The Summoner cast Nondetection and Greater Invisibility on himself and just enjoyed the fight while healing his Eidolon.



> The BAB of such hybrids is usually too low to land blows as often as a fighter. And they hit for less damage even when they do hit than the fighter or rogue, substantially less damage which makes them less and less effective as they rise in level.




Tell that to all the monks out there. BAB is not everything. Yes, a fighter will be better at straight melee damage. Paizo got it perfect because that's how it should be, HE'S THE FIGHTER.  Just because your not the hardest hitting member of a party doesn't mean your worthless. Otherwise no one would print bards, monks, paladins, or druids. 

Overall, I think the class is well done. Yes it needs some tweaking, but honestly, its in a niche of its own and fits that niche perfect.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 9, 2009)

Xendria said:


> As said a billion times. This isn't another wizard, and that's not what they want it to be. They want something unique and different. If you want a pure spell caster play a sorcerer or wizard.




I didn't ask for a sorcerer or wizard. I would like a summoner designed around the wizard model or should I say arcane caster for BAB and saves. A summoner that enters battle is fairly useless.





> This depends on how bad your party's cleric is. My group healed the Eidolon just as much as the fighter, if not more so. It all depended on who seemed to need it more at the time. They treated it just as if it was a front line party member. And I beg to differ that you can't heal your Eidolon, the class has Use Magic Device as a class skill.




Sure, Use Magic Device and take all the scrolls and healing items from the cleric. Maybe your group runs in encounters where heal spells aren't spread like they are in ours. That is a matter of different play styles. But our DM usually designs main encounters where the fighter can die in a round or two and once he is low it requires focused healing by the cleric to keep the party alive. Maybe in most cases the cleric will be able to heal the eidolon, but that won't work real well in my group. Maybe our group runs against more difficult opposition than standard.





> Honestly, our summoner put more into his Eidolon's weapon than anything for himself. I really don't see how this is a problem at all. Especially when the cleric had the craft feats to make the weapons for it. I don't get why he wouldn't be able to collect magic weapons and such for his Eidolon.




This is probably more of a problem with our playstyle. We play in a magic somewhat light campaign. We're level 6 and our paladin doesn't have a magic sword yet. We have three +1 magic weapons spread throughout the group. So trying to equip an eidolon might no fly in my group. Not sure how other groups run.




> _Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, Shield, Magic Fang, Protection from Chaos/etc., Barkskin, Bull's Strength, Haste, Protection from Arrows, Spider Climb, Fire Shield, Greater Invisibility, Nondetection, Protection from Energy, Stoneskin_ ... Now that's just up through 3rd level. Those are all spells that can be cast on the Eidolon to make it quite formidable in combat. Our fighter on the other hand, did not have his own wizard casting these on him. As for offensive, that's what the Eidolon is there for. If you wanna cast fireball that bad, again, Use Magic Device is a class skill. The Summoner cast Nondetection and Greater Invisibility on himself and just enjoyed the fight while healing his Eidolon.




I'm not much concerned about up to 10th or so level. It's once the party starts fighting high end demons and creatures that can see through invisibility and have high ACs where the eidolon will start coming up short.





> Tell that to all the monks out there. BAB is not everything. Yes, a fighter will be better at straight melee damage. Paizo got it perfect because that's how it should be, HE'S THE FIGHTER.  Just because your not the hardest hitting member of a party doesn't mean your worthless. Otherwise no one would print bards, monks, paladins, or druids.




Notice that monks received a BAB enhancement for their best attacks and for combat maneuvers. Otherwise they would be as unattractive as before at high level. Just like rogues still are and druids using wild shape. No one in my group likes playing druids or rogues because they are lacking compared to other classes against the types of encounters we face. From a DMs perspective it's very hard to balance an encounter so that it will be challenging for an paladin or fighter and still allow a druid or rogue to be very effective. They are far outshadowed by the fighter, ranger, and paladin in ability to hit. If you want a monster to last against a paladin, ranger, and fighter, you have to make it's armor class so high that a rogue or druid will have trouble hitting it with their standard BAB.

Bards in my group are generally utility focused and rarely enter combat. 



> Overall, I think the class is well done. Yes it needs some tweaking, but honestly, its in a niche of its own and fits that niche perfect.




My concerns may primarily be because of the type of encounters my DM designs and the lower number of magic items filtering in. Maybe in a standard campaign the summoner is fine. 

I think it will be weak in the campaigns I play in. Fighter, ranger, paladin, and monk will far outstrip it in damage. And if your primary power source is melee damage from a summoned outsider, that isn't going to be fun. Now rogue will at least have a stronger role in the group.

I'll give this a test run to see how it works. But I was really hoping for a class designed more like a sorcerer save that summoned creatures constitute the progression path.

Like it would have been great to have a summoner specialized in summoning elementals, one specialized in summoning devils, one specialized in summoning azatas, one specialized in summoning creatures from the edge of space and time, etc, etc. I think that would have been much cooler. Maybe that will be covered with Prcs or something.


----------



## Xendria (Dec 9, 2009)

Well, Paizo built the class with an average or standard game in mind. If your going on slow experience as well as slow treasure progression you should be fine. But from what you said it doesn't sound like you are. Granted you guys can play your game the way you want (hence the beauty of D&D) but I just see it as sorely limiting your campaign by removing these support classes. 

To help out, just do what I did for our conjurer we had, create your own prestige class with your DM. I had no problems with my player doing it with me, but yet again, not every DM is the same. Give it a shot, because the idea you have there is a good one, just maybe not unique enough to warrant a base class.


----------



## Nyeshet (Dec 9, 2009)

A lot has been said about Eidolon imbalance. What if the Eidolon started out as small, could become medium at level 6 for 3 pts (currently where large is located), large at level 11 for 4 pts (currently where huge is located), and perhaps huge at level 16 for 5 pts (currently a non-existent option)? Or perhaps huge can be removed altogether as an option. Or some other system might be set up with 2, 3, & 4 pts for increased size from small (to medium, large, huge), but with higher levels required to access such (say lvs 5, 10, 15)?

The decrease in size should noticeably affect the creature's effectiveness in combat - especially at lower levels, and if what I've read in a few posts is correct, it is more the over-effectiveness of the Eidolon that proves problematic for balance.

As for the SLAs, I think having only one active at a time is limit enough. Personally, though, I like the idea of allowing more - but requiring a will save or spellcraft check that increases in difficulty as the number of summoned creatures increases. If they fail - the creature is summoned, but it is not under the control of the summoner. Perhaps it is even antagonistic to the summoner who just called it away from whatever it was doing on the other plane. Not under the control of the summoner, the summoner cannot directly dismiss or banish it without the appropriate spells to accomplish such. This would discourage summoners from summoning too many at once while allowing for the option - and tempting them to occasionally consider or attempt multiple summons, perhaps to their detriment.

The idea stated on the prior page - that of the Eidolon itself perhaps gaining freedom each time it is enhanced or its characteristics altered - is interesting, but what if it were instead this: 

Each time the eidolon is summoned for 24 hours a will save or spellcraft check is made by the DM for the player. If it fails by 10 or more the ritual fails and the creature is not summoned. However, if it fails by 5 or less the creature is summoned - but the binding is weak. At any time during the next 24 hours the DM can make a will save for the creature - gaining a bonus equal to the degree by which the summoner failed their save / check. Should the DM succeed the creature breaks free and is able to act on its own initiative for a few rounds before automatically returning to its native plane.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 10, 2009)

*re*

Overeffective at lower levels? I I can see that. But at high levels I can't see the eidolon being more effective than a PC save for perhaps a few very specific builds backed up with a nice amount of magic items. I hope we get some high level play test results soon.


----------

