Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Koumei]

Rogues are pretty shitty in Pathfailure, because they can't go Flasked Avenger on people. So most of their value is in the Abuse Magic Device skill (especially if Candles of Invocation are still in and unchanged: they get a bunch of those and do the "prepare your spells as though a Cleric 1 level higher than you actually are" thing to go "Look at me, I'm a higher level Cleric than the Cleric!"), not in their actual class features. Anyone with UMD can basically do the same thing.

[Mask_De_H]

Rogues are pretty shitty in Pathfailure, because they can't go Flasked Avenger on people. So most of their value is in the Abuse Magic Device skill (especially if Candles of Invocation are still in and unchanged: they get a bunch of those and do the "prepare your spells as though a Cleric 1 level higher than you actually are" thing to go "Look at me, I'm a higher level Cleric than the Cleric!"), not in their actual class features. Anyone with UMD can basically do the same thing.

This is true (although Ninjas can sorta hang since they get some meaningful abilities and the ability to turn into a Cuisinart). I was referring to the 3.X Rogue there; the one the SGT was run with. I don't think a Pathfailure Rogue would be able to go 50/50.

[Lago PARANOIA]

No, I'm sorry, that's 4e thinking. In a better game the other classes are part of the difficulty assumptions. If your level 6 bard can't hang with a level 6 cleric you're going to be shown up by the party's priest AND you're going to get your ass kicked by NPC Orcus cultists. If your vampire's shitty clan discipline list doesn't have a round-1 KO and a way to counter ambushes, you suck compared to your buddy's Toreador or City Gangrel and you're also going to get torn apart by NPCs of those same clans.

What part of 'necessary but not sufficient' is confusing you? Relative class parity isn't enough to make a new class Not Shit (at the very least, you could be playing in a game where are classes are shit). Passing difficulty challenges is also not enough to make a new class Not Shit. See 4E D&D. You need both.

Lago are you suggesting that there is no problem with the power behind literally the best classes in the game? You don't have a problem with the fact that those classes totally stump any level appropriate challenges that are sent against them?

It's only not as good as a wizard because the wizard's preparation-based casting and arbitrarily-large spell list means he can do a totally different set of tasks on a given day. The summoner has to settle for having only 80% of the most ridiculously versatile and powerful spells on the sorc/wiz list. Oh darn.

If the summoner was only a little less powerful than the Four Sisters, like the Witch and Oracle are, I'd excuse the class design. But right now, it's modestly but unacceptably inferior. Let's not rush oooh and ahhh over the summoner's supposedly good list. Yeah, they get earlier spell levels and they're crammed in tightly, but the summoner gets their spells so late that they get no concrete advantage in acquisition over any of the Four Sisters. Overall, you get fewer spells per day, less versatility, and the spells you do have crowd each other out. And for what? The eidolin is pretty okay, especially at low levels what with being customizable and a standard action, but I don't see any real advantage over -- say -- Animate Objects or Craft Construct. The summoner is pretty cool in that they spend less money to bling out on Pearls of Power, but at the overall cost to the game of making spell completion/trigger items more lopsided than they already are and making spell poaching even more ridiculously broken? No thanks.

The gap in power isn't like a beguiler compared to a wizard. It's like a warmage compared to a wizard. If we were using the D&D Wiki balance points, Summoner would be at Rogue level. Which makes it the best non-primary spellcaster, non-alternative resource management system'd (like psion or truenamer) class ever published. But that's not saying a whole lot.

I thought we where comparing things to just Wizards? I get the impression that in Pathfinder a Cleric is weaker than a Wizard past level 6 or so because Clerics haven't been getting the same love they where in 3.5. Clerics are still very powerful though, but under Lago's criteria if they are weaker than a Wizard they are underpowered.

It's extremely hard to get everything exactly balanced, especially when we talk about certain possible builds and DMing styles and possible encounter spreads. I thus allow a range of competence. And to me, summoners fall outside of it, being about on the level of a 3.5E flask rogue. They're handily outclassed by modestly min-maxxed sorcerers in all of their key areas and hopelessly outclassed by a sorcerer specifically looking to outgun them in their key role.

Bullshit. I get his point, and it's wrong. If the only way a new class to be worthy of praise is by being on par with the most powerful option, then you either go full-on Roy in gameplay or you set your books on fire in a nihilistic rage because the system's flaws require new material to either escalate the game into participation trophies (weaken challenges or boost PCs, same damn thing) or be fecal sandwiches with a side of fail.

The Oracle and Witch are pretty okay. They're marginally weaker than the Four Sisters to boot. Sort of like a cleric taking the Storm Lord PrC.

If Pathfinder and their apologist fanboys can't make a new non-primary spellcaster class on par with the Four Sisters, then they shouldn't. Every time they release shit like the Inquisitor and the Summoner it hurts the game. After reading this thread I actually think they create more harm to the game than releasing Hexblades and Swashbucklers. Mostly because enablers like you don't realize that going out of your way to fawn over 'not as shit as it could be' classes to continue to release half-assed non-fixes. Apologists like you are the centrist Paul Ryan fellaters of TTRPG design.

What? That isn't what Lago is saying at all.

Actually, ishy, that is exactly what I am fucking saying. Shall I repost the relevant reply for you?

[Lago PARANOIA]

And you defended the fucking Rogue as a "less than a Wizard" balance point that could (sorta) keep up in higher levels. Your pre-Races of War classes were tuned to that breakpoint. Shit, the Soldier and the Tome of Blue classes you made semi-recently are tuned to that breakpoint. The fucking Same Game Test, which is a part of this discussion, was in whole or in part your idea. Are you going senile or something?

Or maybe the reason why the rogue gets a pass is because it had a 30+ year narrative history before its initial incarnation and was made before a balanced methodology for 3E D&D was determined?

If the summoner had been included at the beginning of 3E D&D I'd be willing to work around or overlook its falling short. But after 10 years? Sorry, bub, it's time to put your foot down. Suboptimal design that flew at the beginning of the game isn't going to fly at this day and age.

[OgreBattle]

The Angry Peach avatar makes this whole argument moe to read.

[ModelCitizen]

What part of 'necessary but not sufficient' is confusing you? Relative class parity isn't enough to make a new class Not Shit (at the very least, you could be playing in a game where are classes are shit). Passing difficulty challenges is also not enough to make a new class Not Shit. See 4E D&D. You need both.

That's a hell of a non sequitur. Here, read what I wrote again:

In a better game the other classes are part of the difficulty assumptions. If your level 6 bard can't hang with a level 6 cleric you're going to be shown up by the party's priest AND you're going to get your ass kicked by NPC Orcus cultists. If your vampire's shitty clan discipline list doesn't have a round-1 KO and a way to counter ambushes, you suck compared to your buddy's Toreador or City Gangrel and you're also going to get torn apart by NPCs of those same clans.

If you have "level appropriate challenges" covered, you've also covered "other classes." That is, unless you're hung up on fixing 4e's problems from within the 4e design paradigm and have implicitly assumed that NPCs won't look anything like PCs.

[Juton]

It's extremely hard to get everything exactly balanced, especially when we talk about certain possible builds and DMing styles and possible encounter spreads. I thus allow a range of competence. And to me, summoners fall outside of it, being about on the level of a 3.5E flask rogue. They're handily outclassed by modestly min-maxxed sorcerers in all of their key areas and hopelessly outclassed by a sorcerer specifically looking to outgun them in their key role.

I think the Summoner is stronger than Rogue level, but I hope Virgil proves me right or wrong. There are 18 challenges for the CR 15 SGT, a Rogue should be able to complete 9 of those, I would expect a Summoner to be able to clear at least 80%+ of those challenges. If a Summoner can do that will you revise your opinion?

[Username17]

ModelCitizen, the fact that you sometimes fight other classes does not effectively compare classes, save in the extremely narrow arena of single combat. The Fighter would be a terrible class even if he passed enough monster challenges and did well enough in single combat against named NPCs to pass a SGT. The fact that relative to the other classes he has no meaningful ability to move the plot forward is also a huge problem.

Lago's point that you need to be able to pass a Same Game Test and you need to feel useful in direct comparison to the other PCs is fucking obviously true. I genuinely don't know if that applies to the Summoner or not, because I've never looked at their capabilities at high level closely.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you have "level appropriate challenges" covered, you've also covered "other classes."

What part of necessary but not sufficient is confusing you?

[ModelCitizen]

What the shit is Lago even... You know what, fuck it. Lago's delusions of intellectual superiority can't survive anyone other than Frank pointing out the flaws in his reasoning, so talking to him is a waste of my time.

ModelCitizen, the fact that you sometimes fight other classes does not effectively compare classes, save in the extremely narrow arena of single combat. The Fighter would be a terrible class even if he passed enough monster challenges and did well enough in single combat against named NPCs to pass a SGT. The fact that relative to the other classes he has no meaningful ability to move the plot forward is also a huge problem.

It doesn't, but that's because you're only looking at fighting. The nebulous "moving the plot forward" is really just investigation, travel, or resource acquisition to get a leg up on the antagonists. You can't test it with the SGT because there's more MTP involved, but "can I do an equal share of work out of combat" is mostly the same question as "can I make better plans than my enemies roughly half the time."

[MGuy]

Simplify this. Exactly what should the Summoner be doing that it can't do? Make this easier on someone who doesn't have a problem with the class at all.

[John Magnum]

but "can I do an equal share of work out of combat" is mostly the same question as "can I make better plans than my enemies roughly half the time."

Can you elaborate on this? I really don't understand the contortions you're going through to assert that SGT can discern out-of-combat proficiency.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago's delusions of intellectual superiority can't survive anyone other than Frank pointing out the flaws in his reasoning, so talking to him is a waste of my time.

Okay, let's try this one more time.

For a class to be considered good, it must:

[*] Be of rough parity with the upper tier of classes. For d20 D&D, this would be full-casters. For 4E D&D, this would be the martial power source.
[*] Be able to take on generic challenges the game says that it should.

If you're only able to do the upper, you can totally have a situation where all of the classes are turkey and unable to perform. But the classes are still fair. No games come to mind where this is the case.

If you're only able to do the latter, then it's very possible that you have a class overly easy game (4E D&D) or that the balance baseline is out of whack (3E D&D).

The SGT analyzes whether a class meets the second caveat. But that's not enough. Saying that a class meets the SGT challenges tells us that it fulfills a necessary condition of being a good class but isn't a sufficient condition because it may not meet the first.

I contend that TGD puts too much faith in the SGT because the game balance is so lopsided and the power level scales so much that for the vast majority of d20 classes ever published meeting caveat #2 pretty much ensures caveat #1 -- though we've had some close calls, like with the Miniatures Handbook's Warmage. However until now we haven't really had a class that meets condition #2 but not condition #1.

The d20 engine has been out for 10 years. 3E D&D has literally been the most examined and dissected rulesset in history, with over a dozen 3rd companies leaving their mark on the rules. For any big-name d20 Publisher, especially the current regent to the D&D throne, to not publish a class that meets this paradigm is shameful.

Exactly what should the Summoner be doing that it can't do? Make this easier on someone who doesn't have a problem with the class at all.

This is a surprisingly broad question. The Summoner actually does a lot. If the primary casters were banned at the table but we were allowed to use classes like the rogue, Tome Fighter, warblade, inquisitor, etc. they would have a place at the table.

However, except for the eidolon there's really nothing on the summoner's list that a sorcerer can't do better. And the eidolon isn't even all that great to begin with. It's certainly not useless by any means and at low levels it's actually quite boss. But there's no reason to pick up a summoner past the low levels if your DM lets you run a sorcerer. Most people won't even recognize that there's a problem. But it is a problem. And it's not as easily dismissed as the gap in power between a druid and a cleric or even a sorcerer and a cleric.

Can you elaborate on this? I really don't understand the contortions you're going through to assert that SGT can discern out-of-combat proficiency.

The summoner has quite a lot of utility both on the battlefield and off of it. They have teleport, the planar binding line, magic jar, mass charm and dominate, etc.. If they weren't being directly compared to other primary casters that would be enough to make them a recommended fixture of any party.

However, primary casters have been around a lot longer and are stronger. And unlike a rogue or a White Raven warblade or even a cheesed-out BoEF bard, the summoner doesn't really get any uniquely powerful schticks that they can feebly wave about when the full casters are bragging.

[koz]

Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but your quote tags are broken, fix them maybe?

[Koumei]

Mister Sinister at least made one good thing out of this trainwreck of a discussion.

[koz]

Mister Sinister at least made one good thing out of this trainwreck of a discussion.

By rolling out a tired old meme? Why thank you, Koumei - that's a nice thing to say.

[MfA]

However, primary casters have been around a lot longer and are stronger. And unlike a rogue or a White Raven warblade or even a cheesed-out BoEF bard, the summoner doesn't really get any uniquely powerful schticks that they can feebly wave about when the full casters are bragging.

It has a non SR avoid or die rocket launcher long before conventional casters.

[Mask_De_H]

Witch gets Slumber as an Su at 1st and is a full caster, so not quite.

And I don't even understand how Lago can say "yeah, they have all the greatest hits of the most powerful class in the game, but they're still shit.". I understand not being as good as the full casters (Bard casting, lack of flexibility), but saying they're shit? Their big trick is fucking the action economy in the ass in a repeatable, level appropriate manner. That's not shit, especially with the Summon Monster buffs Lago jerked it to a couple pages back.

Anyway, anyone copped that Paths of Prestige book yet? Is it on the SRD?

[Lago PARANOIA]

I understand not being as good as the full casters (Bard casting, lack of flexibility), but saying they're shit?

Here's an analogy: imagine if someone published a 3.5E cleric class that handed out a bonus feat every four levels but you were permanently a spell level behind starting at level 4. It'd still be pretty level appropriate but there's no reason to play it out of the low levels over a cleric. Except for the bonus feats it doesn't do anything special.

That's why I'm declaring the class shit. Even in a party of the four sisters there are minor reasons to play a kited-out warblade, rogue, warmage, or even bard. There is absolutely no reason to play a summoner past level 6 if you're allowed to play any of the original primary spellcasters.

This shouldn't be news to anyone, but the 'tricks' that a summoner get like 'breaking the action economy' and 'teleport, magic jar, AND planar binding'? You can get all of that by being a straight sorcerer. Getting to cast summon monster as a standard action that lasts for minutes is pretty nice, but wizards and sorcerers get tricks with summon monster that contemptuously eclipse it. Not least that they can use race and class features that plunder that very spell off of the summoner list and give them the finger.

Anyway, anyone copped that Paths of Prestige book yet? Is it on the SRD?

I own it. As in, a legitimate copy. There's not much worth talking about in the book. The Hellknight is marginally superior to taking cleric levels if you're not worried about domain abilities. If you want to play a gish it's pretty okay, too. You get full-casting, come in at level 5, 3/4ths BAB, and an ASF chance reduction. Certainly better than Eldritch Knight.

The Veiled Illusionist is OMG boss for a blaster cleric, though. You get a list of so-so sundry buffs but the real kicker is that every level in the prestige class you get to pick an sor/wiz illusionist spell of your choice as a spell known.

None of the other prestige classes are really worth talking about. They either require a substantial feat investment, cause you to lose caster levels, or require you dropping out of one of those lucrative (for Pathfinder non-casters) archetypes early. I'll take another look though.

[Juton]

I'm not that familiar with summoning in Pathfinder. What can a Sorcerer do that a Summoner can not summoning wise?

[Lago PARANOIA]

What can a Sorcerer do that a Summoner can not summoning wise?

The Abyssal bloodline has a level 15 feature that lets you summon an extra critter whenever you summon a fiend. There is a robe that lets you count as 4 levels higher for the purposes of your bloodline. There is a feat (Supreme Summons) that let you dump an extra summon onto the board whenever you summon more than one.

The Sorcerer has access to the Contingency spell.

The Sorcerer archetype Razmiran(sp?) priest, that at level 8 onwards lets you use spell completion/trigger items without expending a charge or item as long as you expend a spell slot of equal or greater value.

There is yet another feat that lets you cast summon monster as a standard action as long as the summoned creature matches your alignment component. In case you're concerned about having to be a certain alignment to summon certain kinds of fiends, don't -- keep the above caveat in mind and UMD.

As icing on the cake, a human sorcerer gets an extra spell known per level.

I'm sure you can connect the dots.

[Krusk]

Witch gets Slumber as an Su at 1st and is a full caster, so not quite.

Witches are pretty beast from my experience. They are basically wizards, but get to use con for casting, because all witches are orcs and half-orcs. They give up a few of the top spells, but get access to enough "I win buttons" that you still get to play with the big boys. Plus you know, con based full casters.

Also, D6 hit die, and various free SLAs mean you're bringing a lot to the table.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-rac ... -witch-orc

[echoVanguard]

How exactly is Con-based casting superior to Int-based casting? More hit points and a better fort save, sure, but fewer skill points (and you could apply Int to reflex if you really wanted to). Although I will admit that the idea of a full spellcaster with a 7 in every mental stat is kind of funny.

echo

[Username17]

How exactly is Con-based casting superior to Int-based casting? More hit points and a better fort save, sure, but fewer skill points (and you could apply Int to reflex if you really wanted to). Although I will admit that the idea of a full spellcaster with a 7 in every mental stat is kind of funny.

echo

Changing size and form gives you very large bonuses to Constitution, while bonuses to Intelligence are few and far between.

Constitution based casters can get Save DCs that are "stupid".

-Username17

[andreww]

The Abyssal bloodline has a level 15 feature that lets you summon an extra critter whenever you summon a fiend.

Yes but the rest of the Bloodline is awful so you suck for 15 levels. Claws, inherent strength bonuses, maybe 1 feat you might actually want to take and a bonus spell list with perhaps two spells on it you might actually want. I could see a Summoner cherry picking this with the Eldritch Chain fets but I would never take it as a sorcerer.

The Sorcerer archetype Razmiran(sp?) priest, that at level 8 onwards lets you use spell completion/trigger items without expending a charge or item as long as you expend a spell slot of equal or greater value.

It only allows you to use divine spells but yeah definately a strong effect.

There is yet another feat that lets you cast summon monster as a standard action as long as the summoned creature matches your alignment component. In case you're concerned about having to be a certain alignment to summon certain kinds of fiends, don't -- keep the above caveat in mind and UMD.

Nope, you cant get it. Sacred Summons is only available if you have the Aura class feature, so pretty much limited to just clerics. It does potentially make clerics the best of the bunch when summoning as 1 round cast times are horrible and animals on the summon lists gain your alignment type regardless of their own alignment.