What's with the PFS and summoners.

[Desiani]

I was just kicked from a PFS group for being 'too effcient.' Not entirely sure why being too effcient is a bad thing in the first place.

I am playing a Human Summoner, no arechetype, using a more scouty Eidolin. Its a serpent base with the skill evo's in Stealh and Perception. My Summoner has max stats in Diplo, IntimiDate, Sense Motive and UMD. Now our group consists of 2 barbarians, 1 fighter, ranger and a Battle cleric who Inflicts rather then cures. I'm the only one who can talk to people. I also regularly use my UMD to heal the party because no one else feels like doing it.

Is this too effcient of a summoner for PFS or could they have possibley been tired of my 'Glory Hogging' because I am only mildly effective in combat but am superman outside of it?

[GreyBlack]

When Paizo first created the Summoner, they didn't think that a spellcaster with a fighter for a class feature would be too big a deal. Fact is that the Summoner is pretty well borked, as it's more useful than a familiar (already a borderline OP class feature) and then gave it action economy out the wazoo.

Tl; dr: Yes, summoners are too efficient. Paizo made them that way.

[Kurald Galain]

There are a handful of things (at least in my area) that PFS players consider overly cheesy and get you branded as a munchkin almost immediately, and the summoner is right on top of the list.

Because summoners might be upstaged by other casters at high levels, but PFS plays mainly at low level and at level 1-5 at least, summoners can be very visibly dominant.

[thompur]

The only problem I can see from that build is that, considering the make-up of the rest of the party, they may be upset that you prevented some combats with the use of your Eidolon and skills. Those classes don't exactly lend themselves to RP encounters.

[Desiani]

The only problem I can see from that build is that, considering the make-up of the rest of the party, they may be upset that you prevented some combats with the use of your Eidolon and skills. Those classes don't exactly lend themselves to RP encounters.

Ironically I was asked if I minded creating a character that could be a multipurpose character. To the point of negating combat, yea I do negate combat frequently. This is my characters one thing, he is a pacisfist from Cheliax. I told them before joining the table that my concept would be a heavy social character with a tendency toward resolving conflict before it begins, they were fine with this!

I understand that Summoner can be over tuned, I kept this downplayed by not focusing my Eidolin on combat and moreso a role that the ranger refused to play :/

[GreyBlack]

Ironically I was asked if I minded creating a character that could be a multipurpose character. To the point of negating combat, yea I do negate combat frequently. This is my characters one thing, he is a pacisfist from Cheliax. I told them before joining the table that my concept would be a heavy social character with a tendency toward resolving conflict before it begins, they were fine with this!

I understand that Summoner can be over tuned, I kept this downplayed by not focusing my Eidolin on combat and moreso a role that the ranger refused to play :/

The moral of the story is, if someone asks you to play a multipurpose character, play a bard.

[Psyren]

If you got kicked from the table and weren't breaking any rules, I would write an e-mail to your region's Venture Captain explaining the situation. Being effective is not grounds for dismissal.

[LTwerewolf]

I was told when playing in my first PFS game that the classes people look down on consist of summoner and witch. Summoners tend to be a little too powerful in your average op game (which most of PFS is low to mid op) and break the action economy so the other plays have to watch your 3-4 turns for every 1 of theirs. Witches are less about power and more about irritation for the DMs, as forcing rerolls just slows things down.

[Deadkitten]

It seems more of an issue with your party rather than your character. You're not stepping on any of their toes but you are FAR more versatile than any of the other party members. They compete with each other for their respective party roles and you occupy what they do not do, thus, seeming WAY more competent than you might actually be.

My sincerest apologies for apparently making a competent character.

[Desiani]

I was told when playing in my first PFS game that the classes people look down on consist of summoner and witch. Summoners tend to be a little too powerful in your average op game (which most of PFS is low to mid op) and break the action economy so the other plays have to watch your 3-4 turns for every 1 of theirs. Witches are less about power and more about irritation for the DMs, as forcing rerolls just slows things down.

Witches are fun. I always Scar my party mates to make it easier to keep tabs on them. Plus its always fun to take the Hidden House hex and cast misfortune/fortune and other spells from the comfort of your own home :p

[Barstro]

Witches are less about power and more about irritation for the DMs, as forcing rerolls just slows things down.

If rolling a blue d20 and a red d20 at the same time and accepting the lower number "slows things down" then the DM has issues well beyond "Witch".

I play a Witch in my current game (someone else already took Summoner). The rerolls happen often and usually end the fights so quickly that they save time.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled topic.

[Kurald Galain]

I was told when playing in my first PFS game that the classes people look down on consist of summoner and witch.

I've not heard of anyone look down on the Witch, at least not in my area. The only witch-related thing that people take issue with is the Sleep hex.

[LTwerewolf]

It was told to me at dragoncon after the DM asked Jason Bulmahn which ones he should tell his players to avoid for new games. Jason was walking around meeting and greeting. I didn't hear that specific conversation but when I talked to him he was a really nice guy.

[squiggit]

I've not heard of anyone look down on the Witch, at least not in my area. The only witch-related thing that people take issue with is the Sleep hex.

I've heard a lot of negative Witch comments at PFS. Mostly about them shutting down encounters with slumber.

Weirdly the number three class on the "omg you're a munchkin" list tends to be barbarian or gunslinger.

[Kurald Galain]

Weirdly the number three class on the "omg you're a munchkin" list tends to be barbarian or gunslinger.

Gunslinger I understand, because it really doesn't fit the setting, so people assume you're only playing it for power reasons.

Barbarian, well, it's true that a barbarian with some very obvious and straightforward build choices (high strength, big weapon, power attack) tends to upstage most other classes at low level because of its sheer damage output. PFS has a lot of caster characters whose only contribution to combat is pinging with a wand of magic missiles or an acid splash cantrip, after all.

(of course, to a more skilled player that doesn't make the barb overpowered, that just means that an acid splash wizard is doing it wrong :smallamused: )

[Psyren]

Weirdly the number three class on the "omg you're a munchkin" list tends to be barbarian or gunslinger.

IME it usually goes Magus, Summoner, Witch, Gunslinger.

Barbarian I've never seen anyone have a problem with.

[squiggit]

IME it usually goes Magus, Summoner, Witch, Gunslinger.

Barbarian I've never seen anyone have a problem with.

Magus I see from time to time too. Especially if you're using Arcane Mark. Ooh. That's a death sentence.

Barbarian has died down a bit but for about a month or so I saw a strong sentiment of "Barbarian and Synthesist are the two most broken classes in the game and invalidate everything else".

[Kurald Galain]

IME it usually goes Magus, Summoner, Witch, Gunslinger.

I think here it goes Summoner, Gunslinger, Witch (but only with slumber hex) and Magus (until people point out that he does less damage than the aforementioned barbarian :smallbiggrin: )

Barb isn't generally considered OP because of how straightforward it is. Straight from core, and of course you're going to wield a big weapon and use power attack because what else would a barb pick? Those choices are too obvious to be considered munchkinny.

[Extra Anchovies]

I think the issue is that PFS refuses to accept that there can be a T2 character who isn't a full-caster :smallbiggrin:

On a serious note, I second what Psyren suggested about contacting your Venture Captain. PFS is supposed to be organized play, and "the DM kicks you for being good at things that the other party members are not good at" is not organized play at all.

[Psyren]

I think the issue is that PFS refuses to accept that there can be a T2 character who isn't a full-caster :smallbiggrin:

Summoners are full-casters though. Thanks to the discounted spells and the free SLAs they are not the 2/3 casters they appear to be.

I don't think kicking a player for using one is the right thing to do but I'm not going to pretend they're as balanced as they could be either.

[Talya]

Summoners are full-casters though. Thanks to the discounted spells and the free SLAs they are not the 2/3 casters they appear to be.

I don't think kicking a player for using one is the right thing to do but I'm not going to pretend they're as balanced as they could be either.

If the party has any of wizard, cleric, druid, witch, arcanist, or even oracle or sorcerer, they have no business complaining about a summoner. A summoner may be tier 2, but they're a rather low tier 2. They are absolutely not a full caster, they can't begin to compete with oracle/sorcerer in that regard.

[Kurald Galain]

If the party has any of wizard, cleric, druid, witch, arcanist, or even oracle or sorcerer, they have no business complaining about a summoner. A summoner may be tier 2, but they're a rather low tier 2. They are absolutely not a full caster, they can't begin to compete with oracle/sorcerer in that regard.

Not at high levels, but most of PFS plays at very low levels. And yes, second-level spells plus a free beatstick tends to trump second-level spells on a "plain" caster.

[Ssalarn]

Summoners are full-casters though. Thanks to the discounted spells and the free SLAs they are not the 2/3 casters they appear to be.

I don't think kicking a player for using one is the right thing to do but I'm not going to pretend they're as balanced as they could be either.

Agreed 100%

Summoner is absolutely a Tier 2 full caster, and he's probably actually the strongest class available for the PFS levels (1-12). He's a pre-optimized conjurationist with great buffs and access to powerful spells at levels no other character can cast them, who also happens to have a critter in his pocket that can be murder machine, skill-monkey, tank, or even wand jockey (usually a couple of those simultaneously). He will also always have the largest number of the highest level spells available thanks to his SLA, and it happens to be the most useful and versatile spell line in the game, cast faster and with insanely longer durations than anyone else can cast it.

I generally don't even use the ritual to summon my eidolon, instead picking up summon eidolon so I can apply Augment Summons and similar feats to it if I need it and otherwise freely cast my summon monster SLA and other control and buff spells.

[Psyren]

I had a longer response to Talya typed up but I'll just point at Kurald/Ssalarn's posts and say "that."

And yes, everyone knows wizard, oracle and sorcerer are stronger. Notice though how almost nobody complains about them outside of message boards like this one? It's because building one that can so thoroughly eclipse the martial and skill-based classes - never mind being able to overshadow both simultaneously - is simply not as easy for the average player as doing so on a summoner is.

[Desiani]

What's wrong with a magus with arcane mark?

[Psyren]

What's wrong with a magus with arcane mark?

The trick there is that arcane mark is a cantrip (and thus, unlimited use.) Because it's a standard action magus spell you can use it during spell combat, and because it's a touch spell you can deliver it with spellstrike. Ergo, once you get spellstrike, you can use your weapon to deliver the mark instead of the normal touch that is part of the spell, giving you an extra weapon hit.

It basically gives every magus two attacks at 2nd level for "free." (The truth of the matter though is that they take a to-hit penalty, and you have to concentrate/cast defensively to do this if you're in melee, though of course the concentration DC for a cantrip is pretty easy.) It's not a big deal but, some low-level purists are not fond of multiple attacks coming online so early.

It's like TWF, only it doesn't cost you a feat and you do full damage with both hits.

[eggynack]

It's like TWF, only it doesn't cost you a feat and you do full damage with both hits.
Seems a bit like whirling frenzy, especially as it doesn't sound like you get even more extra attacks later on.

[Snowbluff]

The trick there is that arcane mark is a cantrip (and thus, unlimited use.) Because it's a standard action magus spell you can use it during spell combat, and because it's a touch spell you can deliver it with spellstrike. Ergo, once you get spellstrike, you can use your weapon to deliver the mark instead of the normal touch that is part of the spell, giving you an extra weapon hit.


We do the same thing with (Sacred Geometry) Quickened Detect Poison with Imbue Arrow around here.