I dont see how any of your ideas are restricted in the new system? There are still improved natural armor, skilled(stand up comedian) and breath weapon evolutions.
That's the impression I have as well... The new Eidolon format is a bit too restrictive for my taste. I really like the changes to the Summoner's spell list, though...
giant turtle: Any quadruped + size increase
Frost-breathing wolf: Any quadruped + energy attacks (Cold)
Miniature wisecracking dragon: Any quadruped + wings + skills in knowledge, bluff or perform (comedy)
|
The way I see it, Unchained Summoner is like a new Civilization game. Shiny and streamlined, but many fans will hate the lack of content and just stick with the old version.
Yeah the subtypes are limiting. They could use some clarification too. (Mount evolution on Devils???) But I foresee future support for Unchained that will add things like more archetype support, more Eidolon subtypes, and maybe some new evolutions.
But yeah it's slightly annoying that we're having almost half of our evolution pool spent on esoteric things like sonic resistance or a plus 4 on saves versus poison when the old Advanced Summoners let us build our fantasy creatures from scratch.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it's more restrictive, and that's a very good thing. Most non-PFS GMs I know flat-out barred summoner a from their games for the overpowered bits of min/maxing game-wreckers they were. I no longer GM PFS specifically because of the inability to bar summoners.
Perhaps the Unchained eidolon so will be slightly less overpowered. It is to be hoped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe just have the eidolon mechanically count as a devil, but be whatever the hell you want it to be? The fluff's just fluff. You couldn't get a "Summon Creature - Turtle" before, and you couldn't and can't summon something that's technically a dragon. Why does it matter what it actually is, so long as you can get the same evolutions?
I can see it being frustrating not having a blank canvas, but then again it's there to keep the eidolon from just being... A blank canvas. A lot of complaints stemmed from summoners being able to essentially make a fighter eidolon that was better than a fighter at first level; now it's more like an animal companion at first, but it gets more customizable as you level, similar to a PC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pre-unchained Summoner is either always banned or at least frowned upon.
Unchained Summoner has to live with the fact that they summon an actual thing instead of some extra-planar Play-Doh.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pre-unchained Summoner is either always banned or at least frowned upon.
Sweeping generalizations are always incorrect.
It doesn't really fit with the initial backstory of Padrig either, who was given a form based off the iconic summoner's imagination. Where are the rest of the chicken snake outsiders? Not in Unchained.
And Porteans aren't what Padrig is. There's nothing in Padrig's background that suggests he's like them.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pre-unchained Summoner is either always banned or at least frowned upon.Sweeping generalizations are always incorrect.
....'always'?
Isn't that a sweeping generalization?
The new unchained summoner is only restrictive if you ban the APG summoner (as PFS did). Otherwise, if your eidolon concept happens to match one of the new sub-types, the new version is better -- and if your concept doesn't match anything in Pathfinder Unchained, you have the old APG version to fall back on. If you are in a non-PFS game that allows the unchained summoner but not the APG summoner, take it up with your GM.
Pre-unchained Summoner is either always banned or at least frowned upon.Sweeping generalizations are always incorrect.....'always'?
Isn't that a sweeping generalization?
Hyperboles are always generalizations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained summoner loses out on the biggest appeal summoner has for me, namely the ability to make whatever Pokemon or abomination you want and have it fight by your side/as your mount. I don't care if you think it's lame/unoptimized, that's the appeal for me.
Pre-unchained Summoner is either always banned or at least frowned upon.Sweeping generalizations are always incorrect.....'always'?
Isn't that a sweeping generalization?
Hyperboles are always generalizations.
Wait...just noticed you used 'always' too.
Just to clarify: I was being 'cute' and saying that Scythia was making a sweeping generalization about sweeping generalizations.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sweeping generalizations are always incorrect.
Only a sith deals in absolutes.
Pre-unchained Summoner is either always banned or at least frowned upon.Sweeping generalizations are always incorrect.....'always'?
Isn't that a sweeping generalization?
Wait...just noticed you used 'always' too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can be a designer and not like what other designers make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is the same developer who believes the martial/caster disparity doesn't exist (and is just a huge lie perpetuated by a shadowy conspiracy), so citing his opinions on game balance as gospel is a little suspect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pre-unchained Summoner is either always banned or at least frowned upon.Sweeping generalizations are always incorrect.....'always'?
Isn't that a sweeping generalization?
Just like an archery target.
Thing is ... Yes, I can pick up wings, quadruped, breath weapon, Performe (comedy) and a tail attack for my dragon. But under Unchained, that dragon has to be a div, or an elemental, or a psychopomp, or a devil ... It just seems pretty damn restrictive to me.
Thing is, it doesn't actually have to be one of the subtypes in-verse. Since, it doesn't actually give the subtype, it just gives abilities thematically appropriate to a subtype.
You can pick devil, and then it not be a devil. You're just using devil for the mechanics or whatever.
Except you kinda do still get limited. For some idiotic reason, they force you to abide by alignment restrictions, and you gain that alignment's subtype. If you pick the Devil, it might not technically be a "devil", but it will be Lawful Evil and have the (law) and (evil) subtypes. Want a serpentine Neutral Good or Lawful Good eidolon? Want a quadrupedal Lawful Neutral eidolon? Sorry.
Alignment restrictions are easily the stupidest aspect, and I would never use them in my games if I ever decided to use the Unchained version. It's just weird. Why include the "mandatory flavor" aspects? Why not just leave some templates with suggestions for what they are? Alignment has nothing to do with balance, unless the very concept of "Lawful Neutral summoner wants a dog-shaped (or worm-shaped) eidolon that matches his alignment" is antithetical to game balance.
Which is kinda weird, considering Balazar's flavor. I always saw summoners as just working with the "scraps" of the planes. I'm not sure why they needed so badly to fit (especially considering not everyone is playing PF in Golarion). So yeah, not a fan.
Alignment restrictions are easily the stupidest aspect, and I would never use them in my games if I ever decided to use the Unchained version. It's just weird. Why include the "mandatory flavor" aspects? Why not just leave some templates with suggestions for what they are? Alignment has nothing to do with balance, unless the very concept of "Lawful Neutral summoner wants a dog-shaped (or worm-shaped) eidolon that matches his alignment" is antithetical to game balance.
*Shrug* I think all alignment restrictions are stupid, so I just ignore them all.
I don't necessarily have a problem with a lot of the mechanics of the new summoner versus the old summoner...I mostly have a problem in that they took a very freeform game system (eidolons) and straight-jacketed them into very specific types with fixed alignments and only certain options...while not providing a whole lot of variety for those types. At present, a lot of concepts don't function well or elegantly with the new eidolon. For the unchained summoner to really shine, we need not only more types but probably also more outsider/related types to work with.
The subtypes work in any campaign.
And the subtypes are put in place so the Eidolon will fit into a fantasy worlds mythology not just for reasons pertaining to game balance.
Hopefully with future releases more subtypes will be added, or 3PP could take the initiative and publish a book on new subtypes.
Like what they did with the Unchained Monk and monk archetypes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally it makes more sense to me that a summoner basically summons what could already be summoned. I prefer the new flavor, really, because it makes more sense to me and I think actually opens up more options in some ways. If I'm now literally summoning something with the demon subtype, it feels more like I'm playing a wizard that bound an extraplanar entity or made a deal with it. Kind of has a true-speech feel, which I like. I didn't particularly like the flavor where I had an amorphous blob of anything and had to say "Oh, yeah, this is a demon, but it doesn't count as one, and... Yeah. It's just a demon. Even though I don't have enough evolution points to have basic demon attri- really. Go with it."
So I'll take your flavor concern, match it with a personal flavor win, and raise you a resolved flavor concern.
It also means that it's easier for new players to identify with the class and get into it, since it uses an established archetypal and iconic base. Plus, outsiders are fun, and I really like the elemental base.
So I'll take your flavor concern, match it with a personal flavor win, and raise you a resolved flavor concern.
Uh, one loss and one win don't make a winning grade. They make a 50% grade, also known as an "F". In other words, the real solution is to satisfy both sides, not please one and disappoint the other.
And, yes, obviously, "you can't please everyone". You can get closer than this. Lift alignment restrictions, for instance. Give options for more flexible eidolon types—options, mind you, so you can still have your devils and demons. But why not make a simple "Lawful Neutral" variety, and allow all three basic forms? Let players customize the resistances to fit (or not fit) the subtype they want. Why force alignments? Outsiders are so diverse as-is, can't we acknowledge the possibilities of snakelike lawful outsiders and lionlike devils? There's surely a middle ground between "play-doh" and "You can be a devil, a protean, or an archon. Devils and archons are humanoid, proteans are serpentine, 'cause there are never any exceptions to this in Golarion or Pathfinder lore. Have fun."
Superior flexibility quite possibly got left out because they simply didn't have space. I sure hope we see something better in the future. My Hound of Acheron cannot wait forever! :P
|
Ironically, part of the problem with the problem with the APG summoner was in some ways it was already too restricted in the sense that you could build a somewhat overpowered dpr monster or skill monkey, you couldn't build a maneuver master, a ranged combatant, spell caster etcetera it couldn't be done effectively.
As a result people complained how overpowered the for monsters were.
With unchained none of that has changed but we are force fed a whole heaping of background and a half spent evolution pool.
So the unclaimed summoner is a hateful abomination if a class.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The subtypes work in any campaign.
No, they don't.
And the subtypes are put in place so the Eidolon will fit into a fantasy worlds mythology not just for reasons pertaining to game balance.
Except for when it actively clashes with a fantasy world?
As usual Paizo screws people over if they aren't playing in the One True Setting.
Yeah, they don't actually work in "any" campaign. Many settings, for instance, don't have proteans, but slaadi (oh, god, I better not have just summoned Ceaser). There are also formians, which I think are in Pathfinder, too. This is why vague options would have probably been better. I could create a Bipedal Chaotic Neutral frogman eidolon, or a hellcat, or an obyrith, or a retriever (well, sort of) without all this rigmarole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The subtypes work in any campaign.No, they don't.
And the subtypes are put in place so the Eidolon will fit into a fantasy worlds mythology not just for reasons pertaining to game balance.Except for when it actively clashes with a fantasy world?
As usual Paizo screws people over if they aren't playing in the One True Setting.
In a home game nothing requires you to use Unchained. In PFS you are already playing the "one true setting" willingly.
You are making it sound like they are messing with your personal freedoms... And it isn't that. Get over it. They did what they thought was best for them, their business, their organization. What would make things run more smoothly in the game they envisioned. This is someone else's sandbox, which I think most posters tend to forget. PFRPG is based on the skeleton of 3.5, modified by Paizo with a compilation of their house rules. It is essentially someone else's home game published.
If you don't like the rules, don't use them in your game. If you are willingly playing PFS, you knew walking in the rules were bound to change as needed for the benefit of the organization. That is just what happens in such scenarios, regularly. Stiffen up that lip, or find someplace else to play if you truly can't stand the changes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, good, we're already falling into "Don't like, don't play" and it's not even the second page.
Look. Personally, I believe summoners were broken before Unchained. It was, in my opinion, a problem. That's why I was really hoping a good fix from Paizo. Instead, I got something that's...in some ways almost worse.
Of course I'm not forced to use it in my games. But I am forced to choose between it and another crappy option. Which is kinda a shame. And to turn your argument around, if you don't like people complaining about (debatably) bad game design, you really shouldn't be on this thread. Or this subforum. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, good, we're already falling into "Don't like, don't play" and it's not even the second page.
Look. Personally, I believe summoners were broken before Unchained. It was, in my opinion, a problem. That's why I was really hoping a good fix from Paizo. Instead, I got something that's...in some ways almost worse.
Of course I'm not forced to use it in my games. But I am forced to choose between it and another crappy option. Which is kinda a shame. And to turn your argument around, if you don't like people complaining about (debatably) bad game design, you really shouldn't be on this thread. Or this subforum. :P
Actually it is "rule changes aren't personal attacks on you, because you aren't the center of the universe" and the moronic "one true setting" BS that was my point. Complaining is pretty much going to happen regardless, it is the internet obviously... That is fine and expected.
It is only "bad design" if it doesn't fit your criteria. It obviously fit Paizo's however, as this is their answer to a problematic class they decided on after dealing with it in PFS. YOUR game isn't their concern, they obviously want you to buy their product, but if you don't like bits or pieces of it, that work for them... It isn't a big deal. Rule 0 right?
Sweeping generalizations are always incorrect.Only a sith deals in absolutes.
man i was going to say that
edit: on topic, I never summoned actual outsiders, the concept didn't even really come to me. to me the eidolon was an outsider that WAS something called an eidolon, an outsider that has no form. they need something to give it form and that's why it bonded to a summoner, because without a summoner they're nothing, they don't even have a personality.
now for some reason an outsider attached itself to your hip
so even if 3PP and the like come out with more types of outsiders, i'll still never actually use the new outsider. basically, how do you even make a structure to cover things like the eidolon being conceived from your imagination, or the eidolon being part of your fractured psyche. or even like i originally started, an outsider that doesn't have form until given one.
Oh, good, we're already falling into "Don't like, don't play" and it's not even the second page.
Look. Personally, I believe summoners were broken before Unchained. It was, in my opinion, a problem. That's why I was really hoping a good fix from Paizo. Instead, I got something that's...in some ways almost worse.
Of course I'm not forced to use it in my games. But I am forced to choose between it and another crappy option. Which is kinda a shame. And to turn your argument around, if you don't like people complaining about (debatably) bad game design, you really shouldn't be on this thread. Or this subforum. :P
Actually it is "rule changes aren't personal attacks on you, because you aren't the center of the universe" and the moronic "one true setting" BS that was my point. Complaining is pretty much going to happen regardless, it is the internet obviously... That is fine and expected.
It is only "bad design" if it doesn't fit your criteria. It obviously fit Paizo's however, as this is their answer to a problematic class they decided on after dealing with it in PFS. YOUR game isn't their concern, they obviously want you to buy their product, but if you don't like bits or pieces of it, that work for them... It isn't a big deal. Rule 0 right?
yes they answered the problem summoner by instead making a class that is unyieldy flavor wise turning people away from playing it at all. basically they just traded mechanical problems for fluff ones.
as it is ,i'm just having summoners use the new spell list and that's that.
I'd like to think both can live in the same universe. For example, the Unchained Summoner would make a great "witch doctor" who bound a powerful being in their service but totally not be a shaman. The APG templates for eidolon types were ridiculously expensive which didn't let you work with them until the late game. That is good. Outside of such lateral (??) concepts, I'd probably still want to use the APG summoner. I think PFS' wholesale ban on the APG version was uncalled for and more than a few shades of shady.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But why are you forced between the two? You should be able to easily modify the rules.
^ This ^
Oh, good, we're already falling into "Don't like, don't play" and it's not even the second page.
Look. Personally, I believe summoners were broken before Unchained. It was, in my opinion, a problem. That's why I was really hoping a good fix from Paizo. Instead, I got something that's...in some ways almost worse.
Of course I'm not forced to use it in my games. But I am forced to choose between it and another crappy option. Which is kinda a shame. And to turn your argument around, if you don't like people complaining about (debatably) bad game design, you really shouldn't be on this thread. Or this subforum. :P
Actually it is "rule changes aren't personal attacks on you, because you aren't the center of the universe" and the moronic "one true setting" BS that was my point. Complaining is pretty much going to happen regardless, it is the internet obviously... That is fine and expected.
It is only "bad design" if it doesn't fit your criteria. It obviously fit Paizo's however, as this is their answer to a problematic class they decided on after dealing with it in PFS. YOUR game isn't their concern, they obviously want you to buy their product, but if you don't like bits or pieces of it, that work for them... It isn't a big deal. Rule 0 right?
yes they answered the problem summoner by instead making a class that is unyieldy flavor wise turning people away from playing it at all. basically they just traded mechanical problems for fluff ones.
as it is ,i'm just bagging summoners use the new spell list and that's that.
No certain people feel it is unwieldy flavor wise, but part of the problem many others (not myself mind you) had was that the original was way too open. Further compounded by things like the synthesist archetype. It was a minmaxer's class (not that anything is wrong with that either) and it was annoying to keep track of and double check to make sure it was properly and legally built. This is against what they wanted for PFRPG in the beginning (way back when they were doing the Open Beta rules). They wanted to simplify things, to ease the game experience to make it more fun and enjoyable.
Making a class that had to be checked and double checked for validation, isn't what they wanted. Mechanical issues are things that have to be resolved in certain ways. Fluff issues... Who cares re-fluff as needed, it's fluff and doesn't break any type of "balance" issues. I personally would take solid mechanics over convenient fluff any day. I can change the fluff for my purposes. They simplified the the eidolon creation, they made it easier for the GMs to verify, they did what was good for their product and brand. It is a good move for them and in line with what they want for the class, as well as the game as a whole. Because after all, it is their game, and we are just buying prepackaged rules from them to use essentially.