PRPG Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Summoner and Witch

[Zurai]

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]

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.

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]

He meant armour for the eidolon

EDIT never mind that is what was being talked about

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

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]

"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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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.