Jason already errated Summoner, playtest not even over!

[Starbuck_II]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Is it even published yet? I thought it was still in play testing....

[Mauril Everleaf]

Still in playtest. This change is an official update to the playtest.

[Dienekes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Balance tweaks!? During a playtest!? PREPOSTEROUS!!