Talk:Summoner (3.5e Class)
Rating
I give this Prestige Class a 4/10 because It's simply not balanced, and is unfinished, it would not fit into a normal game.75.157.3.206 15:50, 11 February 2008 (MST)
- This rating has been nullified with the implementation of the new Rating System. --Green Dragon 14:32, 21 February 2008 (MST)
Rating
Formatting - 4/5: I give this a 4 out of 5 on formatting because, although it follows the preload very closely, no links are present either to the class features or to the SRD. --Green Dragon 14:32, 21 February 2008 (MST)
Formatting - 4/5:I give this a 4 out of 5 on formatting because not enough links to the SRD exist. --Green Dragon 22:22, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- Look at this now. Missing everything other then the class features (basically). --Green Dragon 14:00, 9 October 2009 (MDT)
Abandoned?
I found this on the canidates for deletion. Shall anyone take up the mantle or shall it sink into the abyss? (I may, depending if I can get a feel for it later). -- Eiji 09:10, 10 June 2008 (MDT)
- We should leave it with the Stub template. --Aarnott 07:42, 8 August 2008 (MDT)
Name Change
This class hasn't been touched for almost a year, and it is still woefully incomplete (a stub). I have a class of the same name that is entirely complete, and works like a conjuration version of a dread necromancer. Could I take over the name Summoner (DnD Class)? Surgo 11:57, 8 October 2008 (MDT)
- Yes. Is your class currently on D&D Wiki, or were you thinking you would just overwrite the information here? --Green Dragon 12:44, 8 October 2008 (MDT)
- It's on D&D Wiki as one part of a book-length article, which I'm currently splitting out into individual class and PrC pages. Surgo 12:48, 8 October 2008 (MDT)
Redone
The class has been totally redone. It is a stub no more! Surgo 14:29, 8 October 2008 (MDT)
- Look much better like that. --Lord Dhazriel 14:31, 8 October 2008 (MDT)
Rating
Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because frankly, even people who are not familiar with Frank & K's stuff can't say this is overpowered. It simply feels like just any other class (that's a good thing by the way) → Rith (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2009 (MDT)
- Not enough content present to see the power fully (epic, etc etc). --Green Dragon 13:59, 9 October 2009 (MDT)
Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is a simply class to understand, and the class features cover all bases. → Rith (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2009 (MDT)
- Not enough wording present to see the wording fully (playing a, etc etc). --Green Dragon 13:59, 9 October 2009 (MDT)
Formatting - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because massive portions of the preload are missing, and interwiki linking is lacking. → Rith (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2009 (MDT)
Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the flavor in this class is paticularly lacking, since there isn't any. → Rith (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2009 (MDT)
2nd level Sudden Extend, Alternative Provision
From the class description: "At 2nd level, the Summoner gains Sudden Extend as a bonus feat. If she already has Sudden Extend, she may gain any metamagic feat that she qualifies for instead."
Solid choice of bonus feat for the summoner, who struggles with that round/level duration at early levels. But I'm not so sure about the provision for when she already has Sudden Extend. Many metamagic feats only specify having one previous metamagic feat as their prerequisite. So a player can easily manipulate this class feature by taking Sudden Extend at level 1 and then grabbing almost any metamagic feat they want at level 2 (e.g. Sculpt Spell, Sudden Maximize). Being able to take almost any metamagic feat as a level 2 class feature seems to have little to do with the flavour of the Summoner. And compare this to a wizard who has to wait until level 5 to get his first bonus metamagic feat!
Just a suggestion, but how about this as an alternative:
"At 2nd level, the Summoner gains Sudden Extend as a bonus feat. If she already has Sudden Extend, she gains one additional use of Sudden Extend per day."
Sudden Extend 2/day as an improvement on the usual 1/day is balanced, in my opinion. It is still weaker than the metamagic rods of extend (see SRD::Rod), which are 3 uses per day. Basically the character can get Sudden Extend twice and they stack, but it costs a feat to do it. It's not something character optimizers are likely to be tempted by, but is still nicer to the Summoner than something like "if they already have Sudden Extend, they gain no benefit." That'd be too mean.
The 4th, 9th, 14th and 19th Extended Summoning class features could be left as they are. Or they could be changed to also give an additional Sudden Extend per day. 2mtomh 04:32, 25 August 2009 (MDT)
Rating
Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the fact that a summoner has so many abilities, particularly the armored summon, lends itself to being a severely overpowered class. The premise is great, however! --149.152.63.198 16:11, 5 October 2009 (MDT)
- No. This class is not finished; as such these rating can be safely disregarded. This article is still at a template stage, to say the best. --Green Dragon 13:54, 9 October 2009 (MDT)
Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the wording was very clear, and the file contained all the information neccesary. --149.152.63.198 16:11, 5 October 2009 (MDT)
- No. This class is not finished; as such these rating can be safely disregarded. This article is still at a template stage, to say the best. --Green Dragon 13:54, 9 October 2009 (MDT)
Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because all in all, it matched the template perfectly, and has so far dovetailed seamlessly into my campaign, with the exception of being minorly overpowered. --149.152.63.198 16:11, 5 October 2009 (MDT)
- No. This class is not finished; as such these rating can be safely disregarded. This article is still at a template stage, to say the best. --Green Dragon 13:54, 9 October 2009 (MDT)
Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the class in unique, and is hendled very well. This has the potential to be far more unbalaced than it is, and has been created very well. --149.152.63.198 16:11, 5 October 2009 (MDT)
- No. This class is not finished; as such these rating can be safely disregarded. This article is still at a template stage, to say the best. --Green Dragon 13:54, 9 October 2009 (MDT)
Unfinished?
This article has enough material to make it playable, so why is it considered unfinished? I'll even finish it myself, if I have to. -- Danzig 07:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not unfinished, per se, it's just not formatted to the extent that it could be. -- Jota 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
<nowiki>
Rating
Power - 5/5 I give this class a <5 out of 5 because This is extremely powerful class. Extremely broken at 1st level --~~~~
Wording - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~
Formatting - 3>/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because Things need to be more clear --~~~~
Flavor - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~
<nowiki>
Rating
Power - 1/5 I give this class a 1 out of 5 because overpowered --~~~~
Wording - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~
Formatting - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~
Flavor - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --~~~~