PRPG Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Summoner and Witch

[Sylrae]

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]

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]

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'.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.