• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

PRPG Advanced Player's Guide Playtest: Summoner and Witch

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

Hero
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

First Post
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.
 

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.
 

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

Boingy! Boingy!
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."

:eek:
 

Zurai

First Post
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.
 

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
 

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
 

Remove ads

Top