What's the point of a mage summoner when clerics can do the same ?

Grenouillebleue

First Post
I've been flipping through the pages of the various D&D books I have and I can see no real reason to ever go Wizard/Sorcerer instead of cleric if you wish to specialize in summoning.

The Cleric gets the same Summon Monster I-IX but also some extra Planar ones.
The Cleric has d8 hp, armor, two good saves.
The Cleric can take the summoning domain for extra goodness

So, apart from any roleplaying perspective, what would make you choose an arcane caster instead of a cleric if you wish to go the summoning route ?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Grenouillebleue said:
So, apart from any roleplaying perspective, what would make you choose an arcane caster instead of a cleric if you wish to go the summoning route ?

Specialist Conjurer variant in UA... trade your familiar for the ability to cast Summon Monster as a standard action...

-Hyp.
 


Clerics have alignment restrictions. My good wizard can summon demons and fiendish servants if need be. My good dwarven buddy the fighter/cleric can't.
 

A mage isn't held to alignment restrictions.

A specialist mage could cast more summoning spells than a cleric, unless the cleric has the summoning domain. The ultra specialist mage option from the complete mage, or a sorccerer, would cinch this.

A mage gets bonus feats, so its easier to have feats that enhance summoned creatures, and not be a one trick pony.

Its easier to cast spells, especially full round spells, from the back, where a mage usually is. A cleric is usually need near the front.


Personally, I would call Druid ftw, especiallt in Ebberon with the moonspeaker PrC. Druids cet alot of spells that are specifically used to enhance summoned creatures.
 

The evil conjurer can summon angels and have them kill babies in front of paladins. An evil cleric can't add the extra insult of using good creatures do evil things.
 

Grenouillebleue said:
Isn't the Abrupt Jaunt variant from PHB II better ?

It depends. If I'm a summoner, I'd prefer the fast summoning. If I'm a conjurer who doesn't do so much summoning, I'd like Abrupt Jaunt.

Regardless, the fast summoning is an option available to wizards and not clerics, so it's a point that might make someone go that way.

-Hyp.
 


Voadam said:
The evil conjurer can summon angels and have them kill babies in front of paladins. An evil cleric can't add the extra insult of using good creatures do evil things.

FWIW, not in my campaign. Angels/archons/guardinals are the supreme force of good. Summoned or not, they should know better.

I understand that this is not by the RAW, however.
 

Grenouillebleue said:
I've been flipping through the pages of the various D&D books I have and I can see no real reason to ever go Wizard/Sorcerer instead of cleric if you wish to specialize in summoning.

The Cleric gets the same Summon Monster I-IX but also some extra Planar ones.
The Cleric has d8 hp, armor, two good saves.
The Cleric can take the summoning domain for extra goodness

So, apart from any roleplaying perspective, what would make you choose an arcane caster instead of a cleric if you wish to go the summoning route ?

Clerics are restricted by their deity on what they can summon with the Summon Monster spells; if your god is good, he won't let you summon fiends. Summon something evil, spell gets the [Evil] tag, god says you can't cast it.

Clerics get the Planar Ally line of spells, arcane casters get the Planar Binding line. With Binding you pick what you get, with Ally the choice is made for you. It's who your god thinks you need, the caster doesn't get any particular imput.

Plus there are some rather cool specialist variants floating around that make Conjurers pretty sweet. Abrupt Jaunt being a big one, Fast Summoning is another.


One of the best summoning specialist chracters I've seen personally was a Druid/Wizard (Spec: Conj)/Mystic Theurge. Access to Summon Monster, Summon Nature's Ally (spontaneously, even), and Planar Binding. Mm mm good.
 

Remove ads

Top