Summoning and the Hypothetical Battle Reality

[Black Knight Irios]

The only class with summons in PHB2 is the Invoker.

Wizard summons are for Arcane power, Druid summons are for Primal power.

So discussing those is even worse given the time till their release.

 

[satori01]

Hopefully there will be some changes w/ how Summoning works.
It might be easier to say Summoned Creatures Defenses = your own....but what compelling reason is there that a magical dabbler....say a Fighter that took the Wizard multi class feats and Paragon path should defacto be a better Summoner than a Straight Wizard....just due to higher Hit Points and the fact that a fighter can wear scale?

That is not balanced....that is plain stupid.

Wizards of the Coast had everything to make a quick and Easy and effective summoning list. You take the Damage, HP, AC table by role and tweak it for a player controlled monster and then combine that w/ something like a balanced Astral Construct power list from 3e for the role flavor .....and bingo you have a balanced and flavorful Summoning Table.


It is also just /sarcasm/ *Brillant* /sarcasm/ to make a class feature for the class w/ the least amount of Healing Surges, depend upon Healing Surges. In the PHB Healing Surges were for Second Winds, Leaders Powers, Healing Potions, and the occasional Ritual....in other words for healing.....and thus it made sense that Fighters had a lot, and Paladins that depend upon Healing Surges for Lay on Hands had even more than Fighters.

Then shortly after the PHB we get Adventurers Vault which basically adds more and varied potions that all require Healing Surges to use....which mechanically adds the funny thing that a Selfish Paladin that does not use Lay on Hands can drink a boat load of potions, while the Wizard can not.

Now, Wizards of the Coast is going to add class features that depend upon Healing Surges and not errata the Wizards class Healing Surge Value? Hopefully the Tome Implement will add Healing Surges.

Clearly the planning for the future of the system was a gigantic Question mark on a white board.....bravo......excelent foresight on evolving a feature that was clearly intended for 1 single purpose previously...limiting how much you can heal.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Well, a Wizard only has 3 fewer Healing Surges when compared to a Fighter with the same CON score. So, if a Wizard puts some points into CON and takes Durability, then he'd only be 1 surge behind the Fighter (10 vs 11 if we're talking a 14 CON).

As for the comment about how a Fighter might be better at summoning than a Wizard, that depends on your definition. Sure, his Summons might have more HP and a higher AC, but he's only going to have 3 Wizard powers (1 Encounter, 1 Daily, 1 Utility) after burning 4 feats. Unless he takes a Wizard Paragon Path or goes with a PMC that is.

This is what happens with multiclassing, and that's what keeps it balanced. The person that's actually doing the multiclassing will never have as many options as the person who actually has that class. They might pick up 1 or 2 decent summons, but they're not going to have like 4, plus a bunch of nasty AoE's and other satus effect dealing powers. Plus, they're pumping two attack stats (And STR won't help the Wizard power, while INT won't help the Fighter powers) and having to maintain both a weapon and an implement. Due to the upkeep on those two attack stats, they'll probably almost no points in either classes secondary stats. Hardly a "game breaking combo" here.

 

[Aenghus]

Summon powers have always been difficult to balance. I think the economy of action is a good thing, from the avoiding slowdown perspective. In my 3rd ed game the druid and his summoned menagerie was always the slowest round to get through.

It occurs to me a shielding swordmage could pick up a multiclass wizard summons and then shield it, for some nice synergy.

 

[Mengu]

Summon powers have always been difficult to balance. I think the economy of action is a good thing, from the avoiding slowdown perspective. In my 3rd ed game the druid and his summoned menagerie was always the slowest round to get through.

I hadn't thought of that. That's a very good argument for preserving action economy.

 

[ChristopherA]

Summon powers have always been difficult to balance. I think the economy of action is a good thing, from the avoiding slowdown perspective. In my 3rd ed game the druid and his summoned menagerie was always the slowest round to get through.

I hadn't thought of that. That's a very good argument for preserving action economy.

Yes, this is an excellent reason for them to restrict multiple attacks per round. They are likely to take much longer than twin strike to play, since the wizard and his summoned creature are making very different tactical decisions - it isn't just a matter of rolling more dice.

Of course, it could cost a minor action, like a conjuration. There is no reason this couldn't be balanced. But the attacks would have to be much weaker. Making it a standard action allows the summoned creature to have potent attacks, while still being balanced. If your shtick is being a summoner, presumably you would find it most fun to have your creature be as mighty as possible, rather than summoning a weak critter to help out while you fight normally.

This, at least, is the game design theory. Whether they will actually balance things correctly remains to be seen. I do think the idea of basing hit points and AC on your own values is very strange. If they want the monster to scale with level, it would make more sense to have the values depend only on your level.

__________________
Come read my game design/analysis blog at: http://gamedesignfanatic.blogspot.com

 

[Skallgrim]

Furthermore, because this is a daily, the wizard will likely be summoning the Maw when he's in a fight worth using a daily - something above his level, or a fight that's harder. So the potential for the attack/damage coming his way is higher.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in this, but I am surprised by how many people say this. To my mind, a party of 5 5th level adventurers has 10 daily attack powers. Much of the time, their "day" will consist of maybe 4-7 encounters before an extended rest. Thus, the party should be able to use 1+ daily attack powers in each encounter.

I've been trying to get my party to do this, but they all "insist" on saving dailies for the "big" encounter. This means that the sub-level encounters are hard, the equal level encounters are brutal, and the above level encounters are fairly easy, as suddenly, 10 dailies are spent on them.

I have no empirical evidence, but I think that the encounter balance works better if the party thinks of their daily attack powers as a group resource, and doles them out over their expected "day" of encounters.

Looking at it that way, then the summoned creature seems like a reasonably effective ally the wizard can use in one fight, and then NOT have to split treasure or xp with, and which doesn't add to the xp value of the encounter. Seems better than a Mount, to me.

However, that's assuming that dailies aren't just for the "big fights", but are a limited resource which is drizzled out through the day (like healing surges).

 

[Rechan]

Much of the time, their "day" will consist of maybe 4-7 encounters before an extended rest.

That depends on the campaign and the DM.

I've never ran more than 4 encounters, ever, in an adventuring day. And that was pushing it.

 

[Ahglock]

Yes, this is an excellent reason for them to restrict multiple attacks per round. They are likely to take much longer than twin strike to play, since the wizard and his summoned creature are making very different tactical decisions - it isn't just a matter of rolling more dice.

I disagree. I think it will take maybe 15 seconds longer occasionally and usually not take any longer. Most rounds the movement is done before it started, so yeah all the summon will be doing is hitting things. Occasionally it will have to move and make a tactical decision, but unless the player is a really slow decision maker we are talking like 15 seconds or so.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not sure if you're responding to me...

It HAS to require a standard action to make it attack

I think you're being way too negative about it.

Well, my point is that anyone expecting a about-every-other-fantasy-game-other-than-4E summoning power will be disappointed.

Regardless of the fact that 4E is the first game I've seen where summoning is actually balanced. (Balanced in the specific "if you can make one summon each encounter, then it's balanced with my encounter sword trick or the wizard's encounter fire blast" sense, I should add)

And the really interesting question remains: can summoning (balanced this way) be fun? That is, can it meet the expectations fantasy novels and other games (most particularly editions 1-3 of D&D) have given us?

I'm suspecting the answer is "no". Thus my conclusion: summoners need to choose either fun or balance.

Of course that does not mean you or anyone can't have fun with 4E-style summoners. Again, when I use the word "fun", I mean with the pretext of "classic" summoners. That is, summoners who can summon actually useful critters without being paralysed themselves.

I hope this explains my position. Regards,
Zapp