The Gaming Den

Balanced Summoning doesn't really do anything at all. It doesn't let you summon things at a different alignment than they normally come out at. The only thing it does is lets you use the facet of summon monster where you summon two creatures from the next list down to summon two different creatures instead of two creatures of the same type. But since you're almost never wanting to summon two creatures of the next level down instead of one creature from the main list and if you did it would be because the next list down had a killer app on it, it's hard to imagine caring.

I could imagine some shenanigans involving casting summon monster VII to get a Liliend and a Fiendish Dire Bear. But we're also talking about 13th level characters and I already don't care.

-Username17

There is the Superior Summoning feat. While a strict ruling would let you summon two top-level monsters because Summon Monster is a spell that in of itself can conjure more than 1 monster, the consensus is that you generally only get that option when you pick the 1d3 SM-1 or 1d4+1 SMX-2 monsters. And there are plenty of occasions in which I'd want 3-4 hound archons or celestial tigers instead of a single celestial dire lion.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Is there something wrong with summoning a good-aligned fiendish hyena? Also glad to see that Lion King-style stereotypes still apply.

Yes. A hyena gets the alignment of the summoner. And you can only apply the fiendish template if you're neutral or evil.

Creatures marked with an “*” always have an alignment that matches yours, regardless of their usual alignment.

Thus since hyenas and wolfs inherit your alignment, it is impossible for them to have opposed alignments.

Ah, I got you. That's hilarious.

Wouldn't that just be a celestial creature then? (Summon * -1) That would be the simple option, but I guess that pathfinder can't be trusted to think of even that.

Balanced Summoning is one of those things where people come up with some idea tied to a theme, and fail to realize that as cool as they thought the theme was, it is still super garbage.

Like, in a Pathfinder game, I'm betting if you made a feat "When you cast a Summon Monster spell, instead of summoning 1d3 Xs from SMX-1, you can instead get two creatures, but they have to be different" that feat would still be super underpowered and not a big deal.

So to further limit this already shitty feat based on this stupid alignment theme that then also doesn't even work is just dumb piled on stupidity piled on idiocy.

*HEAD-DESK*

I...

I am just struggling with believing what is going on, on the Paizo forums currently.

I was trying to read some of the feedback threads for the new Class planned in Ultimate Intrigue, and I noticed a trend that has me utterly flabbergasted.

Class Playtest Released --> Feedback given with details on why class needs improvement and where it can be improved --> LEAD DEVELOPER comes into thread saying some version of "Don't be so negative! I made the Factotum and this class will be fine! No negative feedback counts unless its with playtesting! I warning you guys don't say negative things!" --> Original Posters get slightly upset but try to present evidence and numbers --> Other posters come into thread with "Class is great! NO MATH PREASE, RP ONRY PREASE! DIRTY POWER GAMERS WITH YOUR NUMBERS! LALALALALALA*fingers in ears spitting vitrol*" --> Constructive posters try to present logic and numbers to new posters and are ignored/attacked. --> Paizo locks thread due to it being "Too full of personal attacks" even though all such came from one obvious troll...

This is happening anytime a thread comes together with anything but "OH YES PLEASE TAKE MEI MONREY PREASE!!!! NEW CLASS = BEST CLASS cause can wear domino mask! Perfect as is please don't change. Ignore anything that says this is not perfect as is!"

The one big thing that has deviated from this is the fact that the new class originally had a five minute time to change from "Expert MAN! I have levels in Expert Yeah!" to "I talk in a rough voice and wear a mask and am totally different from expert man, due to gaining some weak class abilities and being at max one alignment step away from him!".

It was pointed out that making it so you could not even use your (weak) class abilities in expert man mode, and it takes five minutes to change, and combat is a thing, would just mean you would *DERP* never be in expert man mode so all things relating to expert man mode which is supposed to be the defining thing for this class where a waste of page count...

Paizo's response "That's something we will look into, but the class will only need a few simple changes."

*HEAD-DESK*

If you were playing in an all-vigilante campaign well away from the commoner PF gaming styles I could see the 5-minute delay just being something you'd all work around. If not, it's suicide. Given they're apparently trying to model comic-book superhero secret identities the 5 minutes to get into battle costume seems rather high, too.

On the why did they do that stakes:

Silent Dispatch (Ex): If the stalker vigilante knocks an opponent unconscious, kills the opponent, or otherwise renders the opponent unable to act before the opponent’s first action in a combat, the stalker can roll a Stealth check with a –5 penalty. The result indicates the Perception DC to hear the stalker’s attack (rather than the normal DC of –10 to hear pitched combat).

Prior to this talent being in the game almost all GMs would just let you do something like this IMO. Now a significant number will think that you need to be a member of one class, one subclass of that class, and have a specific talent available only to that subclass (but not one which all stalker vigilantes will have). Including this talent in the game reduces options.

On a note that isn't about the vigilante (because I couldn't give less of a shit about even more new classes unless they're something amazing, which vigilante clearly is not, and I'm pretty sure pathfinder has surpassed 3.5 in glut of base classes now), what are some den-favored ways to approach playing a wizard? I know of necromancers (debuffing and making undead minions and playing with souls), summoning-focused wizards, blasters, mind controllers, etc., but I always feel a bit stuck trying to figure out what sort of wizard to make at any given time, and was wondering what sorts of wizardry styles others here favor?

Div wizards are always nice. You only have to ban one school (evocation) and everything else is gravy. Plus, its always fun going 'Oh yeah, so the McGuffin is exactly this way and also here is a layout of the dungeon, treasure, and all the traps.'

Divination Wizards reign supreme in Patfinder.

You want to take the Foresight Subschoon from the APG to exchange the shitty bonus-by-touch ability with the awesome ability to pre-roll a d20 for something you might need to roll on in the next round. Also, later on you emit an aura of luck bonuses for your friends, or hinder your enemies with no save allowed.

You want Flexible Wizardry as your first feat. Prepare two spells partially within a single slot and finalize your selection as a full-round action when the situation arises.

Antariuk wrote:You want Flexible Wizardry as your first feat. Prepare two spells partially within a single slot and finalize your selection as a full-round action when the situation arises.

Is that really worth a feat?
If I can waste a full-round, I can usually waste 15 minutes to prepare any spell.

ishy wrote:Is that really worth a feat?
If I can waste a full-round, I can usually waste 15 minutes to prepare any spell.

Well, you can do that with as many slots as you have Int bonus, so I think it's absolutely worth a feat. And saying that a full-round action equals 15 minutes in terms of viability is pretty far-fetched if you intend to play an actual game and not just spout internet wisdom.

Antariuk wrote: Well, you can do that with as many slots as you have Int bonus, so I think it's absolutely worth a feat. And saying that a full-round action equals 15 minutes in terms of viability is pretty far-fetched if you intend to play an actual game and not just spout internet wisdom.

I dunno, man. Typical spell load out would be your bread and butter combat enders, with some open slots for utility-oh-shit-I-don't-have-a-scroll-for-that situations. Set up like this, I don't think you'd have too much trouble finding 15 minutes to prep a spell.

Covent wrote:*HEAD-DESK*

I...

I am just struggling with believing what is going on, on the Paizo forums currently.

Paizo. Paizo never changes.

ishy wrote:

Antariuk wrote:You want Flexible Wizardry as your first feat. Prepare two spells partially within a single slot and finalize your selection as a full-round action when the situation arises.

Is that really worth a feat?

No.

Pearls of power allow a wizard to gain a prepared spell by using a standard action; it is better than the feat, and yet nobody use it during combat. As you said, if you can spend 1 round doing nothing, you can probably spend 15 minutes doing nothing.

Covent wrote:*HEAD-DESK*

I...

I am just struggling with believing what is going on, on the Paizo forums currently.

Is that really so hard to believe? This is their modus operandi when it comes to criticism.

RelentlessImp wrote:

Covent wrote:*HEAD-DESK*

I...

I am just struggling with believing what is going on, on the Paizo forums currently.

Is that really so hard to believe? This is their modus operandi when it comes to criticism.

I have read that thread, I just started Pathfinder after all of that right before the APG.

It was a good time then...

The blatant quashing of valid criticism I have not seen like this since what is mentioned in that thread...

Not to in any way to say that it is not true it is just shocking to me to see it this bald faced.

*Sigh*

The quality of books has been just going down down down ever since Ultimate combat, and even that was less well done then what came before.

That combined with this makes me not want to buy Paizo products at all. I think I am going to switch to some other system for my next game.

Sorry for the Rant, just I cannot believe how dumb this is.

Covent wrote: The blatant quashing of valid criticism I have not seen like this since what is mentioned in that thread...

Quit lying.

RelentlessImp wrote:

Covent wrote: The blatant quashing of valid criticism I have not seen like this since what is mentioned in that thread...

Quit lying.

You know what I think you are right. There was that and the whole water ballon thing.

I guess I just never noticed before as I always attributed it to "Crazy" SKR. Now I know it is not just him it is the company line.

That does make breaking away a little easier.

Every time someone makes the fallacious arguments like that "it's ok to suck, because it's about roleplaying!" or "It's fine because the GM can tweak and adjust everything to cater to your bullshit" or the like, my soul cringes.

As for the wizard question, I was actually more asking about the sorts of spells cast, like how some may favor filling the field with summoned monsters, or using necromancy to raise the dead or fuck your soul, or shooting out save or dies, that sort of thing. I apologize if I wasn't clear before.

And just a micro-rant on the things that cheese me off in pathfinder and paizo: god dammit FAQs, stop sucking and making no sense and being stealth "errata" that noone needs. Stop talking out your ass about "feedback" and "open playtesting" and then shitting on the very concept, and for Mora's sake, stop flooding us with new base classes, I really think there are more than enough of those already. Oh, and fuck the unchained summoner, its spell list has been shat on, and now I can't have my dragon eidolon without some serious retooling of stuff. In fact, fuck unchained in general, it's basically a big book of half-baked unfinished houserule suggestions that fail in implementation, like the action system that accounts for so little.

Covent wrote:I guess I just never noticed before as I always attributed it to "Crazy" SKR. Now I know it is not just him it is the company line.

That does make breaking away a little easier.

This is one of my favourite examples to show people paizo developers are crazy.
paraphrased: Frank: evoker rays that do 1d6 dmg are terrible
BM: well make the rays do 1d6+int
paizo dev: Then a 18 int wizard will do more damage than a greatsword and I can add rogue levels to sneak attack with it for even moar dmg! Why would anyone play a fighter then?
BM: Fighters with 18 Str do a lot more damage.
Paizo dev:I wasn't talking about fighters, I was talking about how a 18 Int wizard using his wizard abilities does more damage than the 10 Str wizard does with a greatsword! Wait.... greatswords do a lot of damage, uhmm I uhmm didn't have my stats wrong, I was just thinking about bastard swords. Wizards don't get proficiency in greatswords, because they are not supposed to be able to do so much damage!

ishy wrote:This is one of my favourite examples to show people paizo developers are crazy.
paraphrased: Frank: evoker rays that do 1d6 dmg are terrible
BM: well make the rays do 1d6+int
paizo dev: Then a 18 int wizard will do more damage than a greatsword and I can add rogue levels to sneak attack with it for even moar dmg! Why would anyone play a fighter then?
BM: Fighters with 18 Str do a lot more damage.
Paizo dev:I wasn't talking about fighters, I was talking about how a 18 Int wizard using his wizard abilities does more damage than the 10 Str wizard does with a greatsword! Wait.... greatswords do a lot of damage, uhmm I uhmm didn't have my stats wrong, I was just thinking about bastard swords. Wizards don't get proficiency in greatswords, because they are not supposed to be able to do so much damage!

The most galling thing about this is how Rob just kind of assumes greatsword damage with no ability mod added is somehow equivalent. The lack of finesse in his terrible answer is somehow the most offensive bit of it.

I...

I just took the time to read that and some of the other very early alpha threads and I have no words.

I sort of feel ashamed I have given Paizo money.

Wow...

Just, wow.

Orca wrote:If you were playing in an all-vigilante campaign well away from the commoner PF gaming styles I could see the 5-minute delay just being something you'd all work around. If not, it's suicide. Given they're apparently trying to model comic-book superhero secret identities the 5 minutes to get into battle costume seems rather high, too.

On the why did they do that stakes:

Silent Dispatch (Ex): If the stalker vigilante knocks an opponent unconscious, kills the opponent, or otherwise renders the opponent unable to act before the opponent’s first action in a combat, the stalker can roll a Stealth check with a –5 penalty. The result indicates the Perception DC to hear the stalker’s attack (rather than the normal DC of –10 to hear pitched combat).

Prior to this talent being in the game almost all GMs would just let you do something like this IMO. Now a significant number will think that you need to be a member of one class, one subclass of that class, and have a specific talent available only to that subclass (but not one which all stalker vigilantes will have). Including this talent in the game reduces options.

Actually, in Pathfinder (and 3.5 D&D) it is actually a DC -10 to hear combat.
This 1/2's it, but also lets you stealth while in melee attacking.

You can't normally do that. (Sniping is ranged attacking).

So this should just be a basic feat, but it has value.

Now GMs might let you magical tea party (a logical hand wave though), but RAW you need that ability.