[APG] Summoner Still Worth Taking?

[Sylrae]

I really liked the original draft of the summoner. When it got nerfed, for the final playtest it was lacking some of the features I liked better. in APG it got a few of them back, but they gimped the Eidolon to the point where mostly I see people saying it's 7 pages of wasted space.

What are your thoughts?

Here's the Thread I was looking at from Paizo Forums.

Will you be using the APG Version? Or opting out and saying either Playtest or not use it? Or houserule the crap out of the class?

As Is. it kindof comes across as a arcane druid half-caster now.

 

[grufflehead]

I'm probably going to get a slap from a mod for this, but here goes - you did, after all, ask for our thoughts.

*Deep breath*

Nothing personal, but these 'this has been nerfed' threads decrying things that a person doesn't really are my number 1 pet dislike about messageboards. My opinion of the community here is, while we have plenty of Pathfinder players, we're not rabid optimisers (so 'build me an uber-<insert name of class>' threads tend to get short shrift) nor are we particularly bothered by the minutiae of the rules. What ever happened to creating a character and letting it develop over time, shaped by events? People who post optimal 20 level builds make me wonder why exactly they are playing the game.

I'm not it any way trying to stifle debate as everyone is entitled to their opinion, but just for info, there are 3 things people really need to consider:

- those guys who write the rules? They actually know a bit more about game design and balance than you, me and most of the geniuses over on the Paizo boards who run their mouths at the drop of a hat. Remember, the changes have been made in reference to a months long open playtest, rather than just 2 guys in a room deciding on a whim what they are going to do. Changes are based on testing and feedback from players.

- the APG weighs in at well over 300 pages. It has so many options in it, it's going to take me weeks to pick through them all. I work in an industry where a success rate of 95% is the standard to aim for; if 5% of the many class or race options, feats, traits, spells etc are ones I personally don't like, then that's absolutely an acceptable hit to miss ratio, so I just get on with it. Or don't play the game.

- people are quick to forget rule 0. If you as a GM want to let a player have the playtest version Summoner, go right ahead. If you want to play in a game and use a playtest Summoner, negotiate with the GM about it. If (s)he says no, go and look for another game if it bothers you so much.

Oh, and here's number 4 for free seeing as I'm in such a generous mood: regardless of the bleating, the Summoner is NOT by an stretch of the imagination a weak class - saying it over and over does not make it true. You (and plenty of others) may think it is noticeably less powerful now but it is still an extremely potent class. The most common argument I've seen for how it has been 'nerfed': It's not as powerful as a druid. So Paizo introduce a class which isn't as powerful as the one which, by a majority of people's reckoning, was the most potent class in 3.5, and that's supposed to be a bad thing? Aye, right, as they say round these parts...

Perhaps anyone who feels hard done by might like to try this little exercise: in 3.5, let's say you wanted to play a 'summoner' i.e. someone whose major shtick was to summon critters to fight for him/her (I saw this tried twice). Let's say you decide on Sorcerer. Try statting up a Sorcerer focussed on casting Summon Monster at 1st, 5th and 10th, and compare it to a 'nerfed' PF Summoner at those levels.

Houserule the crap out of it? Yeah, I'd houserule it with the ban stick - it's a dreadful class (IMESHO) which does nothing to enhance the game. It fulfills no role that can't be done by an existing archetype, so it's purpose is one-fold: power creep pure and simple. Difference is, I don't really feel the urge to start threads on various boards crying about it.

Grufflehead's 1st law of gaming: when a company introduces new material and options to an existing game, the power (tending to imbalance) of any new option is directly proportional to the number and relative volume of posters who jump onto messageboards and enthusiastically embrace it.

And there have been a lot of people saying that the Summoner is (sorry, *was*) the greatest thing since divine metamagic

 

[Kaisoku]

I'd much rather see Paizo release something that was a little on the weak side, than release a set of overpowered options.

Sure, you can always fix things and houserule them, but for Pathfinder Society play or just dealing with players demands, it's tough when a class starts wrecking your campaign, or telling a player "No" once you've learned your lesson.
If it's weak, then if it's noticeable in game, the DM can make adjustments upward.
Quite simply, players like being given boosts, and hate having things taken away. Since the DM sees the player face to face, it's better to have the "taken away" happen on the designer side.

Houserule the crap out of it? Yeah, I'd houserule it with the ban stick - it's a dreadful class (IMESHO) which does nothing to enhance the game. It fulfills no role that can't be done by an existing archetype, so it's purpose is one-fold: power creep pure and simple. Difference is, I don't really feel the urge to start threads on various boards crying about it.

It was said by a developer (can't remember which) that the APG base classes were supposed to be delving into new mechanics that may or may not be well received. Not being in core makes it easier to disallow if it's not to taste.
Hence the Inquisitor's half-divine caster and round-by-round scaling (which ended up being cut), the mount-specific cavalier with his challenges, the alchemists new casting method, the witch's spell list/familiar dependancy and hexes, and the oracle's divine sorcerer + curses.

In my own personal experience during Beta testing, I had a character playing a heavily modified version of the Summoner.
He was using an Undead version, that was around 100% of the time. I also didn't run it with the magic item sharing thing.

Those two aspects (which have been heavily restricted in the Beta and now final version) never really was an issue. It was the "full healing once per day, but otherwise no healing" that kinda made for an awkward awesome-but-not. And the permanent Large/Huge thing. That made for some pretty easily gained terrifying bonuses that bordered on absurd.

Also, this was a good opportunity to really define a modular creature creation system with evolutions, allowing for more than just the "big brute" idea.
As it was, player's demands meant I had to make some of my own modifications so body type and mode of travel was a little more universally applicable, and rules for Tiny-sized creatures.

In the end, the mechanic is actually quite neat, and I'd love to see a class built around Shapeshifting that used evolutions as it's mechanic.

 

[renau1g]

Perhaps anyone who feels hard done by might like to try this little exercise: in 3.5, let's say you wanted to play a 'summoner' i.e. someone whose major shtick was to summon critters to fight for him/her (I saw this tried twice). Let's say you decide on Sorcerer. Try statting up a Sorcerer focussed on casting Summon Monster at 1st, 5th and 10th, and compare it to a 'nerfed' PF Summoner at those levels.

Houserule the crap out of it? Yeah, I'd houserule it with the ban stick - it's a dreadful class (IMESHO) which does nothing to enhance the game. It fulfills no role that can't be done by an existing archetype, so it's purpose is one-fold: power creep pure and simple. Difference is, I don't really feel the urge to start threads on various boards crying about it.

I'll disagree with you here. I tried to play a summoner in 3.5e, with very poor results. I love the idea of a PC calling on extraplanar aid, I really dig the way Drizzt has Gueniviere (sp?) and it is to me a really fun way to play. Having a permanent ally in the Summoner is far, far better than just summoning a creature for 1 round (at level 1) even 5 times per day.

There's no other class that can do what the summoner does, actually by this reckoning the barbarian seems like it should be cut, as the fighter can cover the role of melee weapon wielder. It's not power creep, it's a really cool option for those looking to try something that 3.5e didn't offer (which is consequently why I mostly stopped playing 3.5e games). Also, summon monsters are almost useless at higher levels, but the eidolon seems likely to hold his own at least. (although I haven't seen the final version)

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

We're about to find out - probably in a big way - in a game I'm GMing!

I like the Summoner, but NOT for the ability to summon lots of critters. I love the idea of the Eidolon! It's different, it's cool (to me, at least), it opens up a vast area for role-play. Were I to play a Summoner - and I've got a couple of ideas I'm itching to try out - I'd use his Eidolon almost exclusively because to me that's the coolest thing about them.

It's still a very powerful class - a ninth level summoner with an 18 CHA could (with maximum rolls) drop 35 Lantern Archons down into the middle of your carefully prepared scenario. Hard to argue against the potential effectiveness of such a tactic. On the other hand, that assumes maximum rolls, that the Summoner isn't doing anything but spamming critters, and that the bad guys in your (carefully prepared) scenario aren't doing anything to stop him.

So the jury's still out for me. I haven't seen one played yet, but I'm about to . . .

{A brief aside, as this is supposed to be a thread about the Summoner and I don't want to hijack it}
I'm with grufflehead regarding optimization. Power gamers frustrate me both as a player and as a GM.{End Aside}

 

[renau1g]

We're about to find out - probably in a big way - in a game I'm GMing!

I like the Summoner, but NOT for the ability to summon lots of critters. I love the idea of the Eidolon! It's different, it's cool (to me, at least), it opens up a vast area for role-play. Were I to play a Summoner - and I've got a couple of ideas I'm itching to try out - I'd use his Eidolon almost exclusively because to me that's the coolest thing about them.

{A brief aside, as this is supposed to be a thread about the Summoner and I don't want to hijack it}
I'm with grufflehead regarding optimization. Power gamers frustrate me both as a player and as a GM.{End Aside}

Agreed about the Eidolon, otherwise the sorcerer is not much different (as gruffle pointed out).

 

[BlubSeabass]

The one thing I didn't like about the changes presented in the preview was the mutual excluding nature of SLA and your Eidolon. But after seeing some of the spell-list, I'm totally cool with it.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

In the end, the mechanic is actually quite neat, and I'd love to see a class built around Shapeshifting that used evolutions as it's mechanic.

What a GREAT idea! "You must spread some experience points around before giving to Kaisoku again." (Again!)

 

[grufflehead]

Luckily I made my save vs rant. Just...

Having a permanent ally in the Summoner is far, far better than just summoning a creature for 1 round (at level 1) even 5 times per day.

Nail. Head. Hit.

I have not yet seen a single player say the reason they want to play one is for the Summon Monster ability - it's all about the Eidolon. So not really a 'summoner' is it? And for reference, it's very possible (because I've been down a game with one) to have Summon I 8 times per day at 1st level, which last for 1 MINUTE (not 1 round), and cast as a STANDARD action (while it's full round for anybody else). For a throwaway ability that no-one seems to care about, that's ridiculously powerful.

However, that is my final word on the subject. As I said, there are always going to be parts of the book someone doesn't like - this is top of mine.

 

[renau1g]

I have not yet seen a single player say the reason they want to play one is for the Summon Monster ability - it's all about the Eidolon. So not really a 'summoner' is it?

Well to quote the beta rules "A summoner begins play with the ability to summon to his side a powerful outsider called an eidolon."

Seems like a summoner to me...