New Archetype: Greenlord (Feedback needed)

[Dingo333]

Just a quick question, you say you don't really want the animal forms in wild shape, how do you feel about the elemental forms?

some are more powerful then the animal forms and plant seem rather weak to begin with (my opinion, I like this concept, just wishing for more options for plant side of WS)

In other thoughts, the plant companion. What are the base stats? are you going to alter small/medium/large plant creatures to make the base companion? what about the size of the druid's evolution pool and spells related specifically to the plant companion (see summoner spells for ideas)

 

[GlassEye]

I think the wild shape is working out nicely. Haven't had a chance to look over your plant companion ideas but I'll read it over eventually.

 

[Arknath]

Just a quick question, you say you don't really want the animal forms in wild shape, how do you feel about the elemental forms?

some are more powerful then the animal forms and plant seem rather weak to begin with (my opinion, I like this concept, just wishing for more options for plant side of WS)

Actually I'm perfectly fine with the elemental forms thematically. To me, nothing is more "raw nature" than the elements and even plants need air, water and earth to grow. Even fire can play a crucial part in the revitalizing of an area that is dead. As far as mechanically, I really think it helps keep the WS ability viable. The elemental shapes make up for the lack of animal shapes for sure, things like mobility (flight, swim, burrow, etc) and fighting prowess allow for the WS ability to be useful in most situations you'd need an animal WS for.

I'm a sucker for elementals...I love everything about them and I've even allowed the "para"-elementals in WS (the ice, lightning, magma, mud elementals from Bestiary 2). You are not alone in the wish for more plant options though, some of them are quite nasty as it is but it would be nice to have more options.

In other thoughts, the plant companion. What are the base stats? are you going to alter small/medium/large plant creatures to make the base companion? what about the size of the druid's evolution pool and spells related specifically to the plant companion (see summoner spells for ideas)

As far as the finer points of the "eidolon" concept, that's still to be determined. My first thought is to take the summoner's eidolon table and mimic it (if it ain't broke, don't fix it right?). Then, just give the plant companion bigger evolutions than the summoner's eidolon to make up for the lack of certain abilities that the eidolon gets - I'm talking mainly about evolutions in the UM book...specifically the "magic" evolutions where the eidolon gains spell-like abilities. The solution might be as simple as giving the plant companion plant-themed spell choices from the druid's list, but I don't know yet.

As far as the base companion forms go, I thought about what forms would work and I sincerely like the idea of the plant companion taking the shape that the druid wills it to take, much like a gardener would prune a bush or shrub into a particular shape. In that instance, the base eidolon shapes work just fine, even the quadruped. The only foreseeable issue with that is that the plant companion won't LOOK like any particular creature. It would be unique to each companion.

Re: spells, that's a great idea. I haven't played/DM'd a summoner in my games yet, so I had no reason to get familiar with the rules (RL stuff SO gets in the way of keeping up with all the cool new toys! ). I'll look into that for sure.

Incidentally, I was looking over the feats last night and I believe that I would alter the requirements of "eidolon class feature" of most summoner specific feats to say "eidolon or plant companion class feature". Also, to solve the portability issue of a plant companion, it would be similar to the eidolon summoning ritual that takes 1 minute but requires a seed to perform. I haven't thought about anything much more than the evolutions at this point, so I'll save that stuff for another update.

Thanks for the interest and spell idea.

 

[Arknath]

I think the wild shape is working out nicely. Haven't had a chance to look over your plant companion ideas but I'll read it over eventually.

Thanks, I think it's coming together. Hopefully will have more done today on the PC, but other stuff may limit me.

 

[GlassEye]

The only problem I see with using the eidolon concept (haven't looked over your specific iteration of it, yet) is that the eidolon is a much more powerful beast than the animal companion. I looked into this on a project of mine (since abandoned, sadly) where I was trying to make a cavalier/summoner multi-class valid using one combined mount/eidolon creature instead of two. Just looking at the advancement table the eidolon is at least four levels more powerful than the animal companion and that doesn't even consider application of evolutions.

 

[Arknath]

The only problem I see with using the eidolon concept (haven't looked over your specific iteration of it, yet) is that the eidolon is a much more powerful beast than the animal companion. I looked into this on a project of mine (since abandoned, sadly) where I was trying to make a cavalier/summoner multi-class valid using one combined mount/eidolon creature instead of two. Just looking at the advancement table the eidolon is at least four levels more powerful than the animal companion and that doesn't even consider application of evolutions.

You may have to be more specific on what makes the eidolon that much more powerful (besides evolutions) to an animal companion. A quick glance at the two tables reveals this (E - eidolon, ACo - animal companion):

HD - E starts at 1HD, max 15; ACo starts at 2 HD, max 16 (advantage AC)
BAB - E good progression, max +15; ACo medium progression, max +12 (advantage AC)
Saves - both E and ACo have 2 good saves and one bad one (push)
Skills - E starts at 4, max 60; ACo starts at 2 max 16 (advantage E)
Feats - E starts at 1, max 8; ACo starts at 1 max 8 (push, although ACo maxes out one level earlier than E and E can use feats ACo cannot)
Nat. Armor Bonus - E starts at +0, max +16; ACo starts at +0, max +12 (advantage E, esp since it doesn't HAVE to be put in Nat. Armor)
Str/Dex Bonus - E starts at 0, max +8; ACo starts at +0, max +6 (advantage E)
Evolution Pool, Max Attacks - No equivalent for ACo, advantage E albeit a big one
Special - E gains Darkvision, Evasion and Improved Evasion (1 level earlier) over the ACo; ACo gains 1 extra ability increase over E (advantage E)

AC "wins" - HD, BAB

E "wins" - Skills, Armor bonus, Str/Dex bonus, Special

Push - Feats (sorta), Saves

The eidolon def gets more than the AC, but I think this will be a good exercise in determining the size of a plant's evolution pool since the animals that you can draw with the animal companion have abilities of their own (similar to evolutions, but less powerful).

Not that this invalidates your argument, I think it IS cause for consideration into the size of the plant companion's evolution pool...maybe even something akin to the rate at which tricks are awarded for ACs. Also the amount and type of evolutions that are even possible could be adjusted.

Good thing to consider, thanks.

 

[GlassEye]

BAB - E good progression, max +15; ACo medium progression, max +12 (advantage AC)

AC "wins" - HD, BAB

I'm not sure how you figure the Eidolon's good progression loses to the Animal Companion's medium progression. Looks like an eidolon win to me. Take that away and the only way an animal companion is superior is through HD. And evolutions make a major difference in the capabilities of the eidolon over the animal companion.

Rather than statting out a whole different mechanic (eidolon) for the Greenlord's companion I think it would be better to follow the animal companion table and create a few companion's equivalent to the regular animal companions.

 

[paradox42]

Removing some Evolutions from the list of possibles helps a little, but I would not allow the Summoner's base Eidolon forms for this Plant Companion. This thing is unique, so it should have its own starting form, particularly given that it won't necessarily resemble anything else when it gets bigger. Make the Plant Companion "less" than the existing Eidolon base forms, and you go a good way towards solving the balance issues between Eidolon and Animal Companion.

As a starting point, I suggest the following: (based mostly on the Dragon article, feel free to reject/refine as you will)

Plant Companion
Starting Statistics: Size: Medium; Speed 30 ft.; AC: +3 natural armor; Saves: Fort (good), Ref (Bad), Will (bad); Attack Slam (1d4); Ability Scores STR 12, DEX 10, CON 14, INT 2, WIS 10, CHA 10; Special Qualities Plant traits.

No free Evolutions for the Plant. That right there takes 5 effective Evolution points away from it (true; add up the free ones the base Eidolon forms all get), and makes it strictly less powerful than a Summoner's critter.

The lower INT goes a long way toward that as well, though unlike an Animal Companion this one can use Evolution points to get smarter. With an INT of only 2, this Plant Companion would start with just 2 skill points (and only gaining 2 per HD in the future), so if the Greenlady doesn't spend Evolution points on increasing INT, it'll always be less skilled than an Eidolon of the same level.

Unlike both the Eidolon and the Animal Companion, this Plant Companion only has one good save, which is a fairly big hit; however, it starts with a better AC bonus than any Eidolon and uses the Eidolon table for natural armor advancement, so it stays ahead permanently. Combined with all its Plant immunities, and aside from the lower Reflex save, this Plant Companion is superior to both Eidolon and Animal Companion defensively. I'd be okay with that, personally, since in combat it's usually offense that counts.

A Druid has a better spell list than a Summoner, so it's appropriate for a Druid's companion to be less powerful. The real question here is, do the Plant Companion's superior flexibility (with Evolutions) and defensive capabilities end up making it Better than the Animal Companion in the general sense? Comparing ability scores and attacks with the base Animal Companions given in Core says "no" to my view.

 

[Arknath]

I'm not sure how you figure the Eidolon's good progression loses to the Animal Companion's medium progression. Looks like an eidolon win to me. Take that away and the only way an animal companion is superior is through HD.

Wow...that must have been the time my evil twin was sitting at my computer typing...total miss on my part. I concede to your correctness.

And evolutions make a major difference in the capabilities of the eidolon over the animal companion.

Rather than statting out a whole different mechanic (eidolon) for the Greenlord's companion I think it would be better to follow the animal companion table and create a few companion's equivalent to the regular animal companions.

True, though I was basing my comparison off of your earlier statement

Just looking at the advancement table the eidolon is at least four levels more powerful than the animal companion and that doesn't even consider application of evolutions.

So I was purely comparing advancement tables and not extra abilities not listed on those tables...that's probably where my confusion came in.

So, now that I sit and compare the abilities of the eidolon and the animal companion, I see the disparity between them. I think I took paradox42's initial mention of the eidolon TOO literally. The original intent of the article has the plant companion "evolving" over time, no doubt to counter the lack of plant creature options in 3.5 (and now Pathfinder).

So it's back to the drawing board. I still may use the evolution point system as it does make sense (if nothing else simple to get rid of the "evolution delay" mechanic in the article) or I might develop level minimums for certain powers.

Thanks for righting the ship as it were before I spent too much more time on it...what I've done might be salvageable.

 

[Arknath]

Just a note, I didn't see paradox42's post until after posting my previous post with that in mind...

Removing some Evolutions from the list of possibles helps a little, but I would not allow the Summoner's base Eidolon forms for this Plant Companion. This thing is unique, so it should have its own starting form, particularly given that it won't necessarily resemble anything else when it gets bigger. Make the Plant Companion "less" than the existing Eidolon base forms, and you go a good way towards solving the balance issues between Eidolon and Animal Companion.

As a starting point, I suggest the following: (based mostly on the Dragon article, feel free to reject/refine as you will)

Plant Companion
Starting Statistics: Size: Medium; Speed 30 ft.; AC: +3 natural armor; Saves: Fort (good), Ref (Bad), Will (bad); Attack Slam (1d4); Ability Scores STR 12, DEX 10, CON 14, INT 2, WIS 10, CHA 10; Special Qualities Plant traits.

No free Evolutions for the Plant. That right there takes 5 effective Evolution points away from it (true; add up the free ones the base Eidolon forms all get), and makes it strictly less powerful than a Summoner's critter.

I have to say that this was similar to something I'd done already but didn't post. I was going to create a base form called "vermicular" until i realized that it was ultimately the starting form of serpentine, so I scratched it. Plus, the other shapes all had 7 Int, and I couldn't see the PC having a higher Int than 2. I was also going to give them default evolutions, but I think I like this better.

A Druid has a better spell list than a Summoner, so it's appropriate for a Druid's companion to be less powerful. The real question here is, do the Plant Companion's superior flexibility (with Evolutions) and defensive capabilities end up making it Better than the Animal Companion in the general sense? Comparing ability scores and attacks with the base Animal Companions given in Core says "no" to my view.

This is a pretty masterful understanding of the PFRPG rules, I think. I'll run back to the lab and see what I can work up regarding the evolutions. Might post this on my site when i get it pretty-fied...