PDA

View Full Version : Jason already errated Summoner, playtest not even over!



Starbuck_II
2009-12-04, 11:12 PM
Sometimes I face palm over Pathfinder.

They have fans that worry about Summoner, but the Witch is the stronger class (9th level spells beats 6th level usually).



Eidolons and Equipment
Eidolons are limited in the amount of gear and equipment they can use. Their forms tend to shift over time, making certain types of gear impossible to use properly. Eidolons with the proper training and the limbs (arms) evolution can wield weapons. They suffer the normal penalties for wielding more than one weapon, regardless of the number of arms they possess. Eidolons cannot wear armor, due to their shifting form, but those that take the proper feat can use a shield. Eidolons can use some magic items. Each eidolon can wear up to two rings, if it has the limbs (arms) evolution. Each eidolon can wear a single magic item in the following slots: eyes, head, neck, and shoulders. An eidolon with the limbs (arms) evolution or the tentacle evolution can drink potions.

Any magic items possessed by the eidolon fall to the ground when the eidolon is sent back to its home plane, regardless of the reason. If this includes cursed items, the items immediately return to the eidolon when it is summoned again.

Rules Changes
In addition to the above language, the following changes are made to the summoner.

- Delete the sentence from the Summon Monster I class feature that reads: He can cast this spell as a standard action and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level).

- Add the following sentence to the Summon Monster I class feature: The summoner can have no more than 1 summon monster or gate spell in play at one time using this ability. If an additional ssummon monster or gate spell is cast using this ability, the first one immediately ends.

- Delete the Armor Training evolution.


They steal the armor useage of eidolon. They then nerf Summoning ability of the Summoner.
They are back to full round summoning (which was their unique boon over Conjurer Wizard), lowered Duration to 1 rd/level (meaning Conjurer has better duration), and limits Summoner to 1 creature/summon out at a time.

Vizzerdrix
2009-12-04, 11:16 PM
Don't know much about pathfinder but, ouch. See if the DM will allow a re-train or else fill yer pack with rocks and go for a swim I guess. Or just ignore the nerf.

jmbrown
2009-12-04, 11:20 PM
Wait a minute...

Pathfinder actually (officially, not homebrew we're talking about) introduced a class called Summoner and the summons are called Eidolons? The concept of an eidolon predates Final Fantasy IX by centuries but please don't tell me Pathfinders summoners also have horns.

Akal Saris
2009-12-04, 11:25 PM
Heh, I noticed this too.

On one hand, I'm very disappointed by the decision, because I really liked the summoner as it was (especially since I just started one for a game yesterday :P), and it's irritating to see it nerfed while the witch has every good battlefield control spell on top of all the healing stuff. Honestly, I was surprised at how well the class turned out in the first class, since the cavalier and oracle had been let-downs.

On the other hand, the summoner is pretty insane at levels 1-5, which is both the part that everybody is testing and also when the witch is relatively weak. So it's not entirely surprising that there's been so much overreaction.

Hopefully the summoner will get back the extended duration and standard action casting time, though the 1 instance of the SLA at a time solution is actually not a bad idea. Most fights tend to go summon, summon, haste, lower level summon, then mop-up anyhow.

9mm
2009-12-04, 11:26 PM
needed to be done; seriously swarming the field is a summoners greatest trick. limiting them to 2 (sla + eidion) makes sense, especially in Jason's warped world.

Starbuck_II
2009-12-04, 11:26 PM
Yeah, Summoner class can have horns if you take right evolutions. The gore attack is a choice when making the eidolon starting at 1st.

Mando Knight
2009-12-04, 11:28 PM
Wait a minute...

Pathfinder actually (officially, not homebrew we're talking about) introduced a class called Summoner and the summons are called Eidolons? The concept of an eidolon predates Final Fantasy IX by centuries but please don't tell me Pathfinders summoners also have horns.

Summons called eidolons predates Final Fantasy IX, pal. FFIV called 'em that, too. Not sure about the first three, but they're likely suspects, too.

Vic_Sage
2009-12-04, 11:29 PM
Making it so they can't wear armor is goddamn stupid, reducing the duration is a goddamn travesty, making it a full round casting seriously makes me wanna slap some sense into Paizo.

jmbrown
2009-12-04, 11:33 PM
Summons called eidolons predates Final Fantasy IX, pal. FFIV called 'em that, too. Not sure about the first three, but they're likely suspects, too.

I don't know what version of FFIV you were playing because neither the US FFII, the PS1 rerelease, or the GBA version called them eidolons.

Edit: Quick research later, eidolon is what they called them in the DS remake.

Ontopic, every Pathfinder thread I read is "So here's this cool new class... and here's how they nerfed it making it no longer cool." I've been meaning to crack open this massive book sooner or later but I can't really bring myself to follow Pathfinder at all if they're releasing errata left and right.

UglyPanda
2009-12-04, 11:35 PM
The second change is such a large nerf, the fact that it was made after the class was released to the public is saying something there. What did they honestly expect that class to do, summon a single monster and spend the rest of its rounds shooting a crossbow?

Gpope
2009-12-04, 11:35 PM
Summons called eidolons predates Final Fantasy IX, pal. FFIV called 'em that, too. Not sure about the first three, but they're likely suspects, too.

Getting off-topic, but no, they weren't called Eidolons in any of the original releases, Japanese or English. Or even the first few retranslations. Once they settled on calling them Eidolons in later games, they started using the term in re-releases of the old ones like FFIV.

Tiki Snakes
2009-12-04, 11:36 PM
I don't know what version of FFIV you were playing because neither the US FFII, the PS1 rerelease, or the GBA version called them eidolons.

Well, Wiki's disambiguation page says;


Eidolon (Final Fantasy), the name given to summonable creatures in Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy IX, and Final Fantasy XIII, known in other titles variously as Summons, Espers, Aeons and Guardian Forces

So at a guess he's playing anything other than the us version? :)

jmbrown
2009-12-04, 11:39 PM
I don't follow Pathfinder, but is all of this published material, as in stuff you pay for? This isn't the first topic on Pathfinder I've seen from you Starbuck_II and every single one of them is about some wacky new fix.

Is the errata as constant as I want to think it is because the one thing I hate doing in any system is following up on the latest errata. I'm a PC gamer and get my fair share of 'patches' every month. The last thing I want to do is check the forums frequently for the latest fix.

tyckspoon
2009-12-04, 11:50 PM
Is the errata as constant as I want to think it is because the one thing I hate doing in any system is following up on the latest errata. I'm a PC gamer and get my fair share of 'patches' every month. The last thing I want to do is check the forums frequently for the latest fix.

This particular one is more in the line of run-time corrections; the class hasn't reached official publishing yet, so any 'errata' are just the developers.. developing. Developing with unwise choices, IMO, but still using the open development process they built the core book with.

Somewhere
2009-12-05, 12:14 AM
Aside: On top of what others have pointed out about FF4...
1 & 2 didn't have summons. 3 had summons, and called them summons; at least back in the original NES version anyway. The usage of the term Eidolon in Final Fantasy started in 9.

Kris Strife
2009-12-05, 12:19 AM
Aside: On top of what others have pointed out about FF4...
1 & 2 didn't have summons. 3 had summons, and called them summons; at least back in the original NES version anyway. The usage of the term Eidolon in Final Fantasy started in 9.

III didn't get released state side until the DS version. But yeah, they called them summons in that. IV's summons were called Eidolon in the DS remake, never played any other version of it.

deuxhero
2009-12-05, 12:45 AM
Did they errata the hell out of the skill system yet? Because that actually (from what I read in the pathfinder SRD) sounded decent.

And as far as I can tell, the older verisons of 4 used "summon beasts" "summons" or something generic like that.

PinkysBrain
2009-12-05, 12:59 AM
limits Summoner to 1 creature/summon out at a time.
All the other changes I can stomach ... this is stupid. The conjurer should not beat the summoner at his own game.

Mauril Everleaf
2009-12-05, 02:21 AM
Keep in mind that the summoner still gets Summon Monster on its spell list, so it can fill all its slots with Summon Monster (level) spells and toss out a pretty healthy number of critters. And have the beast of an eidolon out all the time and get a free top level summon. The conjurer wizard doesn't really beat him.

Anyway, I think the one at a time SLA nerf is perfectly fine. I would have house ruled that in my games if it weren't official. However the 1 round casting time and rd/level (not min/level) nerf were overkill. That seems to also be the response on the Paizo boards. There have been about a hundred posts immediately after Jason posted this "fix" to say "One of the three! One of the three! We were giving you three suggestions! You were only supposed to take one of them not all of them!"

So, in all likelihood, it'll go back to standard action, min/level summons, but only one use of the SLA at a time. Spell slot summons are still kosher.

Innis Cabal
2009-12-05, 02:24 AM
Is it even published yet? I thought it was still in play testing....

Mauril Everleaf
2009-12-05, 02:33 AM
Still in playtest. This change is an official update to the playtest.

Dienekes
2009-12-05, 02:33 AM
good job reading the title of the thread, boss.

But yeah, interesting.

Personally I like the changes (generally) as I believe they bring the thing to a nice mid tier (which it probably was anyway, I'm not too great at that tiering business).

Comparing it the wizard is a bit ridiculous though, since a wizard can do everything better than anyone.

Innis Cabal
2009-12-05, 02:41 AM
Well, I guess I don't get the problem then, chief, since if its not out of play test, and this is found to be a poor idea it'll change. Whats the point of getting upset. Or at least, whats the point of doing it -here- when you could try to point it out to them and get it fixed.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-05, 02:43 AM
Well, I guess I don't get the problem then, chief, since if its not out of play test, and this is found to be a poor idea it'll change. Whats the point of getting upset. Or at least, whats the point of doing it -here- when you could try to point it out to them and get it fixed.That would require going to the Paizo forums, which is never a good idea if you disagree with the company about anything.

Innis Cabal
2009-12-05, 02:51 AM
Then I quess the main cofusion is...if you don't agree with the company on anything. How is this so shocking? Or even worrysome...it seems that this is par for the course. I myself would withhold judgement untill the final product is out...but I guess thats not how everyone operates.

Zincorium
2009-12-05, 03:05 AM
Then I quess the main cofusion is...if you don't agree with the company on anything. How is this so shocking? Or even worrysome...it seems that this is par for the course. I myself would withhold judgement untill the final product is out...but I guess thats not how everyone operates.

You're conflating complete disagreement with an absence of complete agreement.

If you don't like an aspect of Pathfinder, then from what I've heard you're advised to not be too vocal on the forums about that dislike. Blows my mind if it's true, but stranger things have happened.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-05, 03:21 AM
You're conflating complete disagreement with an absence of complete agreement.

If you don't like an aspect of Pathfinder, then from what I've heard you're advised to not be too vocal on the forums about that dislike. Blows my mind if it's true, but stranger things have happened.

I have heard tales from the dark depths of the internet, that, even when support for an argument is brought forth (no mater how in depth it may be), if it disagrees with the current path of Pathfinder it is "flaming" or "trolling" or "ban excuse X," at the very least ignored.

If someone with more Google-Fu than myself could, I know I've seen a few threads linked where someone from BG gave a well done argument on X and was very much ignored by the supporters of Pathfinder.

As for the nerf itself, if the summoner can no longer use more than one SM at a time. WTF indeed.

Innis Cabal
2009-12-05, 03:22 AM
I'd think its rather hard to play test if thats the case. I mean, no real way of knowing without seeing first hand...

Mauril Everleaf
2009-12-05, 03:25 AM
As one who has been critical on their boards, vocally critical, and not banned, I have something of a hard time believing some of the horror stories that have been trotted out as the norm for their boards. Are they true? Probably. Are they common? I'm either somehow spared the "wrath" of the Paizo mods, or it's not nearly as common as the banned posters want people to think.

Rixx
2009-12-05, 04:32 AM
Balance tweaks!? During a playtest!? PREPOSTEROUS!!

lord_khaine
2009-12-05, 05:22 AM
Well, this did not so much resemble tweaks, as crushing blows from the nerf maul.

Akal Saris
2009-12-05, 09:13 AM
However the 1 round casting time and rd/level (not min/level) nerf were overkill. That seems to also be the response on the Paizo boards. There have been about a hundred posts immediately after Jason posted this "fix" to say "One of the three! One of the three! We were giving you three suggestions! You were only supposed to take one of them not all of them!"

So, in all likelihood, it'll go back to standard action, min/level summons, but only one use of the SLA at a time. Spell slot summons are still kosher.

That about sums up the situation from my POV as well.

And anyone who thinks that criticizing Paizo isn't allowed on their forums probably hasn't been there during these class playtests. First the majority of the posters were worried about the summoner being too strong, now they are upset at Paizo because it's too nerfed :P

It does give me a pretty good idea why WoTC never did these free playtests for its classes though. It's practically impossible to sift through 2,000 suggestions, mostly from people who are playing level 1 or 2 summoners or who are just Final Fantasy fans and cheered to see the class, and find the useful comments.

Starbuck_II
2009-12-05, 09:16 AM
I don't follow Pathfinder, but is all of this published material, as in stuff you pay for? This isn't the first topic on Pathfinder I've seen from you Starbuck_II and every single one of them is about some wacky new fix.

Is the errata as constant as I want to think it is because the one thing I hate doing in any system is following up on the latest errata. I'm a PC gamer and get my fair share of 'patches' every month. The last thing I want to do is check the forums frequently for the latest fix.

I check Pathfinder occasionally. I have no current D&D group and like to keep my options open. I might find a 3.5, pathfiner, or 4th group on future.

I really liked the Summoner as well.
Sadly, this errata (and the Monk one) are only posted on forums so you have to go to there to see them. Usually it is something Jeremy or Jason (both the designers) say is a errata.

This is not a very often thing they do.

Stephen_E
2009-12-05, 09:38 AM
I have heard tales from the dark depths of the internet, that, even when support for an argument is brought forth (no mater how in depth it may be), if it disagrees with the current path of Pathfinder it is "flaming" or "trolling" or "ban excuse X," at the very least ignored.

If someone with more Google-Fu than myself could, I know I've seen a few threads linked where someone from BG gave a well done argument on X and was very much ignored by the supporters of Pathfinder.

As for the nerf itself, if the summoner can no longer use more than one SM at a time. WTF indeed.

I've strongly disagreed with some of their stuff and never got banned or anything. I've also been less than complimentary about Jason, the head designer, agains without copping anything special.

The people I have heard complain aboiut such activities were from their own mouthes more than "disagreeing" or "uncomplimenatry" about the system or designers.

Burning vitriol and disgust would be a better description.

Other talked as if they'd been booted, but on further discussion you would find out they walked because their brilliant critisms and insightful suggested changes were ignored.

Stephen E

Zincorium
2009-12-05, 10:18 AM
Ah. It's hard to justify joining a forum for a product that you can't convince yourself to buy, so it's not like I'd have joined just for S&Gs.

I will note that 'errata' per se isn't commonly put out in the testing phase, but different versions of something (perhaps based on player input) make sense, as you still need to test the errata'd version for balance- not that any RPG studio I'm aware of actually does that.

The fact that a standard 3.5 conjurer wizard, let alone a conjurer wizard from the pathfinder SRD, will do better at summoning monsters to beat stuff up, makes me wonder as to the rationale for the class. If you are a specialist at something, in this case summoning things to fight for you, either you are the *absolute best* at it or you might as well not exist.

Errata'ing wizard/sorcerer/druid/cleric spells might seem like a bit of work and unnecessary hassle, but if a class with lesser abilities is too powerful, then all of those need to have that aspect of their abilities nerfed like planar shepherd.

Akal Saris
2009-12-05, 11:27 AM
The big argument going on over there at the moment, however, is whether the summoner is actually supposed to be better at Summon Monster spells than the other classes, or if the main focus of the class is really the eidolon companion.

Personally I'm far more interested in the Summon Monster aspect, but it seems to be an even split among the fans over which half is more important.

Mauril Everleaf
2009-12-05, 11:37 AM
The eidolon-focus side of the argument comes down to basically, "If you want your schtick to be conjuring critters to the field, play a druid or conjurer. If you want to play a bard with an incredible animal companion, play the summoner. You don't like the name? Well, the oracle isn't about divinations either..."

Nero24200
2009-12-05, 12:14 PM
I don't think the nerf was too much..though...why can't Eidolons use armour but can use weapons? Isn't it easier to have a suit of armour fit a creature (a horse being a good example) than it is to train a creature to use a weapon?

Sliver
2009-12-05, 12:17 PM
They can use a weapon if they take the feat. They can't use armor because they always change.. From what I gather anyway, didn't read more then the first post explaining about them..

Mauril Everleaf
2009-12-05, 12:20 PM
The fluff reason for no armor is that the eidolon's form is ever changing and can't support armor (though why Wilding armor couldn't work is beyond me). The mechanical reason for the nerf was that they already get ridiculous natural armor and adding +5 full plate on top of that made them impossible to hit in melee. Rather than spend a lot of time trying to tweak the NA progression, Jason just cut the armor. Again, I'm hoping a more reasonable solution will be arrived at.

deuxhero
2009-12-05, 12:56 PM
Doesn't magical armor automatically change form to fit the user? How does constant changing prevent that from working?

sofawall
2009-12-05, 12:57 PM
Doesn't magical armor automatically change form to fit the user?

No. 567890

D-naras
2009-12-05, 01:22 PM
... The mechanical reason for the nerf was that they already get ridiculous natural armor and adding +5 full plate on top of that made them impossible to hit in melee. ...

The natural armor isn't that ridiculous. It doesn't get over +8 until 12 level which is over the level that most people play, and even then, it's not enough to justify having your eidolon get hit on every attack. Seriously, it's AC without armor is similar to bruser monsters that you are able to power attack for full (in 3.5 at least) and still hit a reasonable amount of times. And even if you focus it's evolutions on natural armor you still get a max of +10 (at 20 level, when it's base natural armor is +16). 36 AC without DEX bonus isn't that much IMO at 20 level.

I think it should still get Light Armor Profficiency, and the rest for one additional evolution point each. That way it should have pretty good armor early on and competent later.

olelia
2009-12-05, 01:24 PM
No. 567890

Fear the supporting text!


Size And Magic Items

When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn’t be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items.

There may be rare exceptions, especially with racial specific items.

Armor for Unusual Creatures

The cost of armor for nonhumanoid creatures, as well as for creatures who are neither Small nor Medium, varies. The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same.

ericgrau
2009-12-05, 01:40 PM
+8 natural armor in addition to normal AC boosts (armor, other items) would be ridiculous though. Then you're impossible to hit.

imperialspectre
2009-12-05, 01:40 PM
The eidolon is still a 100% fighter replacement. Since the summon SLAs all work off the same 3+Cha uses/day pool, you wouldn't want to swarm the battlefield - the summon monster spells are more for utility than combat anyway.

It's a nerf, but it's not that big of a nerf. The full-round cast time is idiotic, but then basically every decision that comes down from Jason these days has at least one serious flaw.

D-naras
2009-12-05, 01:45 PM
@ericgrau Yes but the summoner spends a reasonable chunk of his WBL on it. An that +8 is available starting at 10. By then monsters that want to hit your AC will have the attack bonus to do it, sadly enough.

Instead of Armor Profficiensy, couldn't there be an evolution that adds the Summoner's CHA modifier on the Eidolon's AC? 2 or 3 points should be a reasonable cost for that.

Kaldrin
2009-12-25, 12:20 AM
And I cast thread resurrection.

Any idea if this full round/1 round duration thing stuck? I don't want to waste my time even looking at it if that's the case. If you ask me the real abuse is the eidolon at higher levels, but the 1 summon at a time (aside from the eidolon) deal was alright.

harpy
2009-12-25, 09:17 AM
I have yet to see an encounter where someone was spamming summoned creatures as actually enjoyable to anyone save for the spammer. The DM sees the encounter get shut down and not provide any challenge to the players, and the rest of the characters are completely overshadowed by one character.

So I'm kind of surprised they even made a summoner class and if they can wack it down so that it can't constantly pump out more critters then I'm all for it.

Kaldrin
2009-12-25, 11:26 AM
I have yet to see an encounter where someone was spamming summoned creatures as actually enjoyable to anyone save for the spammer. The DM sees the encounter get shut down and not provide any challenge to the players, and the rest of the characters are completely overshadowed by one character.

Well, I wouldn't play it that way if I was in a larger group. I'd have my Eidolon/Summoner and use just them with the occasional summon for flanking bonuses for the rogues. To tell the truth it sounds like they're trying to limit the class due to classless players. But, it's still looks playable as a support class and tactical augment.



So I'm kind of surprised they even made a summoner class and if they can wack it down so that it can't constantly pump out more critters then I'm all for it.

I think in a smaller party it would make the difference between life and death, but in my opinion that should be an optional rule set in there somewhere. If you're in a smaller group feel free to waive the 1 summon limit.

I just don't like the idea of the summon ability now being useless for the first several levels, since it does nothing but act as extra monster summon spells. The duration of 1 minute would have been a real boon.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-25, 12:49 PM
I have yet to see an encounter where someone was spamming summoned creatures as actually enjoyable to anyone save for the spammer. The DM sees the encounter get shut down and not provide any challenge to the players, and the rest of the characters are completely overshadowed by one character.

Having played a summoner, I have.
When the combat environment massively sucks, and the party is about to be totally punked, having someone to throw up a wall of fodder as blockers and flankers, or as ways to subvert environmental difficulties like darkness, water, or flying creatures, is greatly appreciated by many players.

Yes, druids who animal growth giant crocodiles are very irritating, but there are quite a few other situations where having a long list of spontaneous allies is very nice.

Ashiel
2009-12-25, 02:56 PM
I have yet to see an encounter where someone was spamming summoned creatures as actually enjoyable to anyone save for the spammer. The DM sees the encounter get shut down and not provide any challenge to the players, and the rest of the characters are completely overshadowed by one character.

So I'm kind of surprised they even made a summoner class and if they can wack it down so that it can't constantly pump out more critters then I'm all for it.

In one of my longer running tabletop games (1-25), spamming summon monster * and other summoning spells wasn't only common, but one member was built around it (Wizard/Malconvoker) and the party's sorcerer did a fair amount of it through both summon monster VIII and the shadow conjuration spell line.

I'm happy to report that the entire group loved it actually. Many times the other characters would request summon assistance to run interference, or give them some breathing room. Like Tiktakkat has pointed out, they are incredibly useful as bonus blockers, extra tanks, and so forth.

Part of this was probably due to the fact our games don't make use of single big bad monsters, but groups of monsters which are much more dangerous, due to the ability to focus fire or hamper multiple characters.

The only time I've ever found "summons" to be annoying was actually when a player was playing an animate dead cleric, and didn't want to actually keep track of his undead himself, which made more work for me.

Just food for thought. :smallsmile: