[3.P] The Summoner's Handbook: A Guide to the Pathfinder Summoner

[tadkins]

So would you guys say the Summoner is the "official" version of the class, or the Unchained Summoner?

Just wondering, I'm very interested in the mechanics of the class, and am working on building a sample character right now. I'm still debating which of the actual classes to base it off of. I'm told the Summoner is illegal for PFS play; what is that exactly? Something I need to worry about for a regular game? Does the Unchained version have any actual advantages over the regular Summoner, or is it just the "nerfed and legal" version of a mistake they thought they needed to correct?

[Snowbluff]

So would you guys say the Summoner is the "official" version of the class, or the Unchained Summoner?

Just wondering, I'm very interested in the mechanics of the class, and am working on building a sample character right now. I'm still debating which of the actual classes to base it off of. I'm told the Summoner is illegal for PFS play; what is that exactly? Something I need to worry about for a regular game? Does the Unchained version have any actual advantages over the regular Summoner, or is it just the "nerfed and legal" version of a mistake they thought they needed to correct?

PFS is pathfinder society. It's organized play.

It doesn't matter normally.

The Unchained Summoner's nerf to Evolution Points in exchange for fallacious fluff disgusts me, not to mention the spell list that I don't think has any back compatibility. As far as I am concerned the Unchained Summoner has nothing to offer.

[tadkins]

PFS is pathfinder society. It's organized play.

It doesn't matter normally.

The Unchained Summoner's nerf to Evolution Points in exchange for fallacious fluff disgusts me, not to mention the spell list that I don't think has any back compatibility. As far as I am concerned the Unchained Summoner has nothing to offer.

Ah gotcha, thanks. So would you say that most DMs wouldn't have an issue with someone playing a regular Summoner in their games?

[Florian]

Ah gotcha, thanks. So would you say that most DMs wouldn't have an issue with someone playing a regular Summoner in their games?

The regular Summoner is perhaps the one class the gets blanked-banned on a lot of tables. Check some of the build advise threads and see how often the ban comes up.

[tadkins]

The regular Summoner is perhaps the one class the gets blanked-banned on a lot of tables. Check some of the build advise threads and see how often the ban comes up.

Blegh, that just seems really silly. Especially when you've still got classes like Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Witches running around rampant and untouched.

I guess I'll just try to build this character with the so-called "Unchained" chains around his neck. Thanks for the honesty, it's appreciated at any rate.

[Florian]

Blegh, that just seems really silly. Especially when you've still got classes like Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Witches running around rampant and untouched.

I guess I'll just try to build this character with the so-called "Unchained" chains around his neck. Thanks for the honesty, it's appreciated at any rate.

The thing is, it´s pretty rare to find players that can handle one of the full castes for full effectiveness, especially on a live table where you don´t have too much time to plan your actions or do a quick research on the rules/spells. This changes with slower-paced formats like PbP when you actually have time to think and plan instead of having to quickly react to your gm (and fellow players).

The Summoner is extremely easy to handle, so you make fewer mistakes and miss less opportunities to act, giving the class a huge boost to its "power floor".

[tadkins]

The thing is, it´s pretty rare to find players that can handle one of the full castes for full effectiveness, especially on a live table where you don´t have too much time to plan your actions or do a quick research on the rules/spells. This changes with slower-paced formats like PbP when you actually have time to think and plan instead of having to quickly react to your gm (and fellow players).

The Summoner is extremely easy to handle, so you make fewer mistakes and miss less opportunities to act, giving the class a huge boost to its "power floor".

Yup I suppose. That's part of what made the Summoner appealing to me too; fewer options but with a very strong focus. I probably wouldn't be one of those who'd make a full caster seem OP. I also liked how the Summoner was a CHA based class, so I don't feel obligated to RP as a genius.

I just look at the Unchained version though and see lots of straight-up nerfs to the original, and it makes me sad.

[Florian]

Yup I suppose. That's part of what made the Summoner appealing to me too; fewer options but with a very strong focus. I probably wouldn't be one of those who'd make a full caster seem OP. I also liked how the Summoner was a CHA based class, so I don't feel obligated to RP as a genius.

I just look at the Unchained version though and see lots of straight-up nerfs to the original, and it makes me sad.

It doesn´t make me sad. I play P&P RPGs for a long time now and can even remember a certain wood-grained box holding some very cheaply stapled booklets. What I care about is whether something fulfills the aimed for design points or not, these being tied into the greater system behind it.

[tadkins]

It doesn´t make me sad. I play P&P RPGs for a long time now and can even remember a certain wood-grained box holding some very cheaply stapled booklets. What I care about is whether something fulfills the aimed for design points or not, these being tied into the greater system behind it.

It's just funny how the other "Unchained" classes are awesome redesigns of the original, while the Unchained Summoner is literally a mistake being corrected.

[Florian]

It's just funny how the other "Unchained" classes are awesome redesigns of the original, while the Unchained Summoner is literally a mistake being corrected.

I can´t really agree to your assessment.

Take your time an think about why serious optimizers don´t use the unchained Barbarian or Monk and you´ll see that some dome grades are obvious, others are not.

[tadkins]

I can´t really agree to your assessment.

Take your time an think about why serious optimizers don´t use the unchained Barbarian or Monk and you´ll see that some dome grades are obvious, others are not.

I assume it's because serious optimizers aren't playing barbarians and monks, but god wizards and clericzillas?

[Florian]

I assume it's because serious optimizers aren't playing barbarians and monks, but god wizards and clericzillas?

Nah, and that´s the difference between PO and TO. For the former you choose a starting point and see where optimization can lead to, of the later you look at all available options and see how you can combine the most powerful options available.

Edit: To be blunt about it - The GitP Forums suffers from having people claiming they´re intelligent and knowledgeable about the topic, but most of the time failing to understand that basic difference.

[noob]

Nah, and that´s the difference between PO and TO. For the former you choose a starting point and see where optimization can lead to, of the later you look at all available options and see how you can combine the most powerful options available.

You are wrong too: po means practical optimisation which means optimisation done according to the table in order to make character that you will use or optimisation to make characters that will be allowed to play by many gms.
Theoretical optimization(or TO) is about doing characters that makes sense with at least one reading of the rules no matter how contrived it is without caring about the ability to play it in a real game and while often trying to get something good(but also trying to find new loophole even if that does not makes a better character).
For example typpy made a competition about making monks that could beat the elder evils while being as much as possible monks and this competition was TO since it was based on making characters that would work according to raw without caring about whenever any gm would let you play it.
For example in TO you can decide to make a level 20 commoner and beat everybody with wbl or make a character that can become anything at any time but it is not based on always doing the best character ever with all materials since else there would be only two TO builds: pun pun(level 2 build) and level 1 wizard with ninth level spells who starts spamming ice assassins of pun puns.
TO is about making theoretical characters possible to do with the rules and which would probably not be allowed at any table not about making the best character.
So for example a level 20 character who deals 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 ^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 damage and have no other ability would be TO even through it is an under-optimal choice when compared to a level 20 cleric.

[Florian]

@noob:

You mistake a very toxic outgrowth of D&D culture with the real thing. Take your time and think about why certain discussion only work by willfully ignoring a good chunk of the rules and mainly focus on what effect can be achieved by by combining RAW material.

[upho]

Nah, and that´s the difference between PO and TO. For the former you choose a starting point and see where optimization can lead to, of the later you look at all available options and see how you can combine the most powerful options available.

This.

And I'd like to add another very important difference between PO and TO: PO is practical optimization, which is optimizing for a real game and taking all related factors and consequences into consideration. This means not only that some TO builds might not perform very well due to being overly focused on doing one specific thing while neglecting other areas important in a real game, but also that many of them push mechanical power too far and thereby actually become less optimized by making the game less fun.

TO has no such concerns and usually only cares about RAW limitations.

Edit: To be blunt about it - The GitP Forums suffers from having people claiming they´re intelligent and knowledgeable about the topic, but most of the time failing to understand that basic difference.

Oh, I dunno 'bout that. I think most of the regulars and class guide writers here seem to have a good understanding of the differences, at least those focused primarily on PF stuff.

But I also think this topic can easily be misunderstood unless you actually play in the same games as the posters you're disagreeing with and/or know their play style. For example, I'm pretty certain Snowbluff here is more than sufficiently aware of the differences between PO and TO, but I can also understand why some of his related comments might give people the impression that he isn't. And I'm guessing this is mainly because quite a few of the games and groups he plays in have no problems with him playing very powerful characters, and typically also expect and require that he does. This doesn't in any way mean Snowbluff is more likely than say you or me to unintentionally ruin a low op game because he doesn't know how to adapt or doesn't understand the difference between PO and TO.

@ Snowbluff Hope you don't mind me using you as an example to get my point across. And please let us know if I'm wrong!


Back on the topic of Summoner vs Un-Summoner:

Blegh, that just seems really silly. Especially when you've still got classes like Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Witches running around rampant and untouched.

Not really, partly because while the Summoner doesn't have as high an optimization ceiling in higher levels as full casters, its floor is considerably higher. More importantly, no other class is as likely to outshine non-caster classes in their focus areas. During all levels, a summoner can easily be a better skill-monkey and scout than the rogue or the ranger, a better melee combatant than the fighter, and also a better caster than any other 6/9 caster. And because of the extremely powerful spell list granting earlier access to key spells like haste, in some parties/games the summoner's casting can very well be as effective as that of a wizard during a few early levels.

Another reason why many GMs have problems with the summoner is that it's spell list also introduces cheaper magical items, for example allowing for wands of haste at almost half the normal cost.

That said, if you're going to play in a party consisting of decently built and played full casters, I think a summoner is highly unlikely to feel OP and overshadow the rest of the party. Just don't bring for example a melee optimized eidolon to a party with a melee focused T5 martial.

I guess I'll just try to build this character with the so-called "Unchained" chains around his neck. Thanks for the honesty, it's appreciated at any rate.

Unless your GM is inexperienced and/or unusually nervous about potential balance issues, I don't think there's any need for going that far, actually.

Instead, I suggest you do some serious PO, meaning you adapt your build to fit with the party and game so that you're less likely to become OP, hog the limelight and/or waltz all over the toes of other party members. That typically means for example that the master summoner and synthesist is off limits. And I'd also recommend you use the Unchained spell list and Large/Huge evo benefits and the pounce cost and level limit instead of the original versions, thereby giving your GM a lot less to worry about.

[noob]

@noob:

You mistake a very toxic outgrowth of D&D culture with the real thing. Take your time and think about why certain discussion only work by willfully ignoring a good chunk of the rules and mainly focus on what effect can be achieved by by combining RAW material.

Well there is one thing: often it is not by ignoring rules like you say but rather using the fact that in English any sentence can be interpreted to say anything.
for example someone says "whales eats plankton" someone might think "he means that in general whales eat plankton" someone else might think "he means that whales eats only plankton" and yet one other person might think "he means that right now all the whales are in the process of eating plankton even those who are dead"
All the interpretations were possible with the English language but at least one of them was really extremely dumb.
Here TO is about making interpretations that makes silly results and by reading each sentence in the weirdest way you can have any set of rule mean anything OR Doing things most gms would not allow at their table(there is somewhere one table where there is a team of one D2 crusader, one pun pun, and one chtulu symbiotic level 40000 wizard that does not makes it less TO: on the immense majority of the tables that kind of team would not be allowed).
Do not forget that words are contextual: if you went in a region where hello is interpreted by half of the people as "burn in hell and suffer forever infinitely" then it would be one of the meanings of hello as long as you are interacting with people of this region.

[tadkins]

Not really, partly because while the Summoner doesn't have as high an optimization ceiling in higher levels as full casters, its floor is considerably higher. More importantly, no other class is as likely to outshine non-caster classes in their focus areas. During all levels, a summoner can easily be a better skill-monkey and scout than the rogue or the ranger, a better melee combatant than the fighter, and also a better caster than any other 6/9 caster. And because of the extremely powerful spell list granting earlier access to key spells like haste, in some parties/games the summoner's casting can very well be as effective as that of a wizard during a few early levels.

Another reason why many GMs have problems with the summoner is that it's spell list also introduces cheaper magical items, for example allowing for wands of haste at almost half the normal cost.

That said, if you're going to play in a party consisting of decently built and played full casters, I think a summoner is highly unlikely to feel OP and overshadow the rest of the party. Just don't bring for example a melee optimized eidolon to a party with a melee focused T5 martial.

Ah, I understand now. As someone who likes to play casters though it's never my goal to try to outshine the party. Don't want the attention and don't want to be "that guy". xD Control/buffing wizards and clerics are what I typically like to play in D&D/PF.

I'd have the same mindset when it comes to the Summoner. Just want to be as supportive as possible. That said, regarding this character, I had a specific plan in mind for my Eidolon. I would call him "The Fury of the Mountain". Under the Unchained rules, I'd build him as an Earth Elemental with a couple of Frost-based evolutions (thinking Energy Attacks and Breath Weapon). Basically my own hulking rock monster. I don't think that would overshadow a dedicated melee, but even so my goal would be to use him as a tank/flanking buddy for the melee characters.

Unless your GM is inexperienced and/or unusually nervous about potential balance issues, I don't think there's any need for going that far, actually.

Instead, I suggest you do some serious PO, meaning you adapt your build to fit with the party and game so that you're less likely to become OP, hog the limelight and/or waltz all over the toes of other party members. That typically means for example that the master summoner and synthesist is off limits. And I'd also recommend you use the Unchained spell list and Large/Huge evo benefits and the pounce cost and level limit instead of the original versions, thereby giving your GM a lot less to worry about.

For sure. My intent is just to play a regular vanilla Summoner.

[Gugu5]

Is it possible to use the points of the free evolutions when leveling up? Eg the Bite of the quadruped, could i just unpick that evolution at level 2? And would i get the Points back? Some RAW somewhere?

[Grasharm]

No if you unpick it you get what you paid for it back which is 0. You evolution pool is determined by your level plus modifiers. The free evolutions don't modify your pool they modify the cost of those evolutions.

[DeZrog]

Useful table I made, showing what Pathfinder Eidolon Evolutions by Level you can take:

gaming-strategy.com/role-playing-games/dungeons-dragons/pathfinder-eidolon-evolutions-by-level

I'm hoping Saph will eventually add it to his guide. I'm not high enough level to post links, apparently... sigh.

DeZrog

[FlipFlopJK]

I'm read the "Killer Centaur" in Eidolon builds, but i didn't understank the bonus attack and bonus dmg in Attack routine, if someone can tell me what type of counts he did, thk

[upho]

I'm read the "Killer Centaur" in Eidolon builds, but i didn't understank the bonus attack and bonus dmg in Attack routine, if someone can tell me what type of counts he did, thk

Certainly. But before I do, note that the guide is unfortunately hopelessly outdated (last update was six years ago), and as far as I've understood it most likely won't be revived by Saph. Which means there have been tons of errata and official rulings from the Paizo devs since those sample builds were written, and some of those changes may have resulted in the numbers being wrong according to the current rules. Not to mention that there's probably more than five times as many options available now, so many of those builds aren't particularly good at showcasing what the eidolon is capable of today, nor which options are required/preferable for the eidolon to excel at a certain job or in a certain combat role/style.

Anyways, the Killer Centaur's attack bonuses in detail as far as I can tell:

• +1 greatsword +18/+13 +8/+3 bab, +10 str, +1 weapon enhancement bonus, -1 size.
• Bite and claws +16 +8 bab, +10 str, +1 greater magic fang, -1 size, -2 secondary natural attacks with Multiattack

And damage:

• +1 greatsword 3d6+16 3d6 Large sized greatsword, +15 str, +1 weapon enhancement bonus
• Bite 1d8+6 1d8 Large sized bite, +5 str, +1 greater magic fang
• Claws 2d6+6 2d6 Large sized claw (1d6) with Improved Natural Attack (1d8) and Improved Damage evo (2d6), +5 str, +1 greater magic fang Note that the damage die size increases from the Improved Natural Attack feat and the Improved Damage evo would no longer stack according to current rules. So there's no point in getting them both for the same attack. (You can however still get two damage die size increases via the Strong Jaw spell.)
• Rend 2d6+21 2d6+6 as claws above, +15 str This is also incorrect and should be 2d6+15. The damage from Rend is the claw's damage die (2d6 in this case) + 1 1/2 Str (15 in this case). Though the Rend evo's poorly written description may suggest otherwise, you don't actually add 1 1/2 Str to the claw's total damage, as Saph apparently has done here.

Hope this answers your question!