Summoning

[Lephys]

I think this idea is awful. Summons are precisely that--thralled creatures. They are pawns. They are not companions. The notion that the summoner would be bonded to fodder--let alone by their (effecitvely) HP, is counter-intuitive. This reads and feels like a gimp and a nerf, nothing less. The only instance where something along this lines might hold any water, would be where a caster may bargain a portion of their (actual) health in order to petition a demon or similar creature to battle. As a general mechanic though, it's absolutely terrible.

Point taken, but I think "awful" is a little strong of a word. I was clearly exploring the aspect of summoning from a mechanical/objective standpoint, and was simply observing ways in which it could be controlled in relation to all other means of playing through the game and overcoming combat encounters that DON'T involve using an army of pawns.

 

To put it simply, I'm trying to look at summoning as an equally viable means of doing battle as any other. I don't want to see a Wizard just get a bunch of little fodder spells that come with no risk, then a bunch of big, powerful spells that always have a chance of simply backfiring and killing my whole party (not even taking into account AoE/targeting... just as a chance that the spell definitely hurts me and my party rather than helps in any way or simply does nothing). So, I don't want to see that used as a "balance" for summoning any more than I'd like to see it used as a balance for any other general method of combat.

 

Summoning is, mechanically/functionally, just a different form of magic. You could hurl a fireball, OR you could summon a fire elemental that then runs around dealing fire damage. Obviously they're not the same thing -- you wouldn't want the fire elemental to be matched exactly to the effects of the fireball spell (gets one attack, creates an explosion, deals fire damage in a radius equal to the fireball spell, etc.). But, the point is, when you're using a fireball, you're directly launching offensive energy at the enemy to directly harm them. When you summon something, you're STILL Trying to take down the enemy, you're just actively converting energy to a different form: an ally (in whatever form).

 

I've never understood why so many people are so cool with summoning just being some risky gamble between great benefits and misfortune.

 

So, maybe we don't use HP/stamina damage from summoned things as a means of balancing it. Again, point taken. I think there's a valid reason for that, and you made it clear; it doesn't make as much sense, because they're completely separate beings. So, I guess that leaves control. If you get to summon a bunch of things, and they're your weapon, then they still need to function as a part of your summoner's active efforts/control over the battlefield, just like a Fighter's sword, or a Wizard's spells, etc. The point here is, I don't want to see summoning be "you just summon a bunch of stuff, then you can't do anything else." I don't want to see a summoner be JUST a summoner and nothing more, unless there's specifically a class called "Summoner," which there isn't in PoE.

 

Which is why I'm defaulting to the assumption that, if you can summon things, you can probably also cast offensive spells, buffs, defensive spells, etc. You wouldn't want a Wizard to be able to cast a Chain-Lightning spell that does low damage but just keeps bouncing around for like a minute on the battlefield until something kills it, AND acts as a target and an HP sponge, all whilst the Wizard's casting other spells the whole time. You'd balance a spell like that, for the same reason that you'd balance a summon.

 

Making them fodder is dumb, to be honest. If their weakness is what balances your ability to summon 4 things, then there's no point in summoning LESS THAN 4, and there's almost no point in even having summoning, as opposed to other spells. There's no reason to treat summons so simplistically. You might as well just be summoning turrets or something. Then, the farther you go, the more pointless the already-weak ones become. OR, you can summon big powerful ones, but with a chance that you'll actually just screw yourself over?

 

That's nonsense. The tougher the fight, the more necessity there is for you to reach for the higher-shelf of your summoning capabilities, but the higher the shelf you pull from, the greater the chance that you're going to make the fight even doubly tougher:

 

A) You get NO aid, instead of useful aid, so your spell is pointless (in terms of providing any benefit for the toughness of the fight)

B) You just created yet another hostile creature.

 

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. The more you need a powerful summon (if you've dedicated your build/capabilities to summoning), the more the system discourages you from using it, because crazy crazy chance.

[JFSOCC]

Why so complicated?

 

Per summoner, 1 summon spell. Cast another? The original summon(s) dissapears. Since not all party members can summon, that keeps it in check.

Why remember more summon spells for a wizard then (with the cooldown system in mind)? Well, If the summon does, cast another spell.

 

No artificial hardcap, nothing difficult to explain to people, no statistics that have to be balanced with summons in mind. Just... the summons themselves need balance. Sound good to me...

It's a fair argument, but I believe at least some people would like to make a summoner as their key player. Someone capable of fighting through pawns. With this hard limit you're essentially saying you can't do that. Whereas with a soft limit it's difficult still for people to make a summoner character, but not impossible if they invest in it.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I don't categorically hate the idea of a stamina drain associated with the summoned creature(s), but it does raise some concerns. The whole point of summoning a creature is usually to add some combat ability to the party. Should the cost be too high you're left with a depleted summoner and the creature isn't around long enough to do all that much good.

 

2nd Ed./3.X charms/dominates and summons are incredibly powerful compared to the higher level raw damage spells because the summons give the party 1) disposable hit points 2) an extra action/actions every round 3) an assortment of resistances and abilities often not available to the party -- and they're able to do this all with one spell.  Summons should feel very useful and powerful, but they should not become the de facto tactic.  If it reaches that level, it's not really a tactic at all; it's just the thing you keep doing in every fight.

[anameforobsidian]

That's not even including the massive positioning advantage summons give the mage who uses them.  Low level summons could be used to block and trap enemies without caring a whit about their armor/defenses/or abilities.  A favorite tactic of mine was to use wish to summon a bunny swarm, and then frantically start casting / using ranged attacks while the enemy was plowing through a field of bunnies.

[Hassat Hunter]

And here I thought my post was short, simple, to the point.

But looking back with a few people completely misinterpretating it, I guess it wasn't after all.

 

So let's go to the basic level... summons a la Baldur's Gate 1 (freestyle) was a problem, all could see that.

So sollutions would be;

* Keep it like that (bad).

* My suggestion; Devise a rule-system governing summons that remains constant, consitent and logical. Apply this to both the party and any enemies.

* Arbitrary limitations or exceptions. Like BioWare say simply "summon limit is 5. Why? Cause it's so." or how JE Sawyer recently mentioned INT AoE bonus being Friendly Fire free. Arbitrary restriction to work around gameplay flaws which have no logical sense, consistency, and are flat-out just a cheap fix. The less cheap fixes, the better IMO.

 

As soon as a consistent system is in place, you can work around using that as base, and work around it, leading to coherence and proper balance. Or you can do the BG2 way, were they balanced summons by making weak spells get more summons, then strong spells just one. And notice the cheap fix actually completely counteracts with the spells design. 5 Monster I spells? Forget it. 5 Summon Diva's... sure, go ahead, rampage EVERYTHING. Bad design overall.

Does we wish to repeat that or actually put some thought in it this time while we can?

That is very simple. You make a valid point. To that effect, why have all of these complicated Confusion spells? A Confusion spell is a Confusion spell. No need to distinguish between them at all. Never mind areas of effect, duration, potency, damage types, blah blah blah. It's a spell. You get one. It doesn't matter if you want to cast against multiple targets, or apply different effects to different enemies. You get one Confusion spell. You cast it. When it's done, you cast another one. No artificial hardcap, nothing difficult to explain to people, no statistics that have to be balanced with spells in mind. Just... the Confusion spells themselves need balance. Sound good to me...

Like I said, I find it strange my post could be so misinterpretated, like above. It looks like all that got through was SIMPLE.

Nothing about the parts that balance would be tied to the spells itself (say, how BG2 tried that with making Summon I spawn 4 beings and Summon Diva 1, but then... not messed up by the artifical summon limit?)

Nothing about the one cast per summoner, and replacement spells would replace the summon if it was still present.

None of that made it through, and I ask, why?

 

Did I made my point so unclear that the system would allow summoners, casters, 1 summon spell cast at a time? That there would still be various spells to choose from? But if you cast a new one with the old still in effect (per caster, mind) the old would expire.

No more would summon I cast 5 cheap summons as per it's own effect, then wreck itself on the arbitrary summon limit. If Summon I is balanced around 5 summons, so it is. But it wont disallow another caster to use another summon spell, maybe balanced around being with itself.

And thus design and arbitrary limit wont clash since no-one put up such an arbitrary limit that wrecks potential gameplay designs in the first place. Acting before thinking and nullifying efforts with stupid restrictions (the limit) should be something avoided this time around.

Seems there's a lot of people that don't really understand, enjoy or use summoning spells but still want to design them for other people to use. It's like having fashion experts designing combat equipment for the army - in other words, no fun for the poor sods that have to use the garbage. You can cut all the complexity out of something and it'll be balanced, but it'll be boring as hell. It won't effect you of course - you won't use them anyway. It'll just effect those who want to use summoning spells as a primary weapon, only to find out they've once again been given squeaky play mallets while everyone else is using a weapon.

Well, way to press a stamp on me. I don't use summons, I just want to design them for others.

Ever thought that, no, that's not the case. I love summoning. I also know there are some errors with it, that it takes thinking to add them properly. That I don't want to repeat the BG1 mistake of no limits, but also not BG2's mistake of a silly arbitrary limit. That summon spells could potentially be very powerful, limited by only itself and it's properties (like some sacrifice or long cooldown). That there would be many potential spells to choose from with it's cons and pro's, rather than having just the same one spammed all over (except maybe just the lowely spamspell summoners would have for cheap fights with low cooldown aside from the powerful ones).

So, yes, I definitely like summons, and design them for ourselves, to benefit the people who love using them. It's a bit insulting to read above description aimed at me then.

And even non-casters could have their summon, be it figurine or wand. A probably lesser power and lower cooldown or limitary supply way, but not none at all.

We're still supposed to play as a team. I do believe a summoner should have more of a support role. This isn't an action-RPG or MMO as mentioned where it's just you, alone, as summoner. You have a whole group along with you. There's no NEED for the summoner to raise such a powerful army that nothing can stop him or her, there's the rest for the party for. If the summoner could raise a force as big as an entire party by itself, that just makes the summoner broken, in need of a fix.

Therefore the summoner should probably have a bigger variety of summon spells, and larger power than others, but nothing that would replace a fellow teammate. Most of it would still be a supporter.

There's no need to think of a summoner here or compare it to a summoner in a stand-alone game, when this is all group focused.

While I am sure some people would love to solo, and would complain that it's a lot harder for the summoner, does it need to change. Should there not be a support class just cause a few individuals like to take the game on unintended. And cannot take into account a supporter would be akin to a 'hard mode', nope it needs to become more powerful.

We don't all need to be mages with superdead spells, or fighters who crush heads. A lot of times the cleric, his healing spells, his buffs, his assistance, is far more important to the battlefield than the damage dealers. And I see the summoner like that... but also with some kick-ass beasties to plow away at enemies. Support. Just more combat-focused than a healer.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that... at all.

Nor can I see how that would get boring or weak in a team-oriented RPG.

 

STOP trying to act like this is a game where the summoner needs to fend for itself. He needs to cope with everything. This game is not MEANT to be solo'd. Start thinking of it's role in a team.

And pardon me, but if your vision then is calling upon 10 super powerful entities, I think you... are wrong.

It's a fair argument, but I believe at least some people would like to make a summoner as their key player. Someone capable of fighting through pawns. With this hard limit you're essentially saying you can't do that. Whereas with a soft limit it's difficult still for people to make a summoner character, but not impossible if they invest in it.

And how exactly would that be incapable?

You'd still be able to swap out beasties even. First summon a tank, then summon a damaging summon to finish it off.

The only difference with another system would be the first tank summon wont remain around.

It would require people to think, to play into the events going on, if they want the summoner role. Rather than just summon 5 beasties and let them do the whole battle.

Tell me how this would make it impossible?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Hassat Hunter, with your way you can get around Bioware's 5 summon limit. With 6 party members, each could summon a Planetar using a spell and then you would have 6 Planetars rampaging everything. And that's not counting the figurines.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Hassat Hunter]

Yes, you could.

But then you need 6 summoners in PoE... good luck with that...

 

Figurines would replace summons, so using a figurine while a Planetar is summoned would undo the Planetar in question (and as thus, are perfect for summonless classes).

 

Anything else that's totally the intention you want to point out to me ?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You don't need 6 summoners, you could have four. eg. Fighter has a figurine. Rogue has a figurine. The other 4 can summon. You now have 6 summons, getting around Bioware's 5 summon limit.

[ZornWO]

Well, way to press a stamp on me. I don't use summons, I just want to design them for others.

 

To be fair, I suspect that passage was referring to my post, which explicitly stated I wasn't that into summoning.  Meaning that, as I said, in BG2 especially except for Mordy Swords or Planetars (which were very OP), the summoning spells are heavily overrated imo for most of the game - and I'd love a game where the summoning system was more interesting/complex, and again, there was a lot of great discussion in the thread which generated some thought.  Though, if someone's aim is to have a pure summoner, especially a solo one, then I can see why having a risk to some summoning spells that they'd rebel would be unappealing as it'd create a need for contingency plans that wouldn't rely on those summons.

[Hassat Hunter]

You don't need 6 summoners, you could have four. eg. Fighter has a figurine. Rogue has a figurine. The other 4 can summon. You now have 6 summons, getting around Bioware's 5 summon limit.

 

Which, again, is EXACTLY the point. No arbitrary limitations... people cry 'nerf' at me, and now complain I allow more than BG2. Make up minds what I am please .

And, with something like the powerful Diva being summoner only, not for other wizards/spellcasters, well, having 4 of them is solved too (unless you have 4 summoners, but like I said, that's most likely a suicidal party combination). And summoners should feel valuable for having the more powerful summons.

All in all, I did thought all this through... odd, ain't it?

[Mr. Magniloquent]

2nd Ed./3.X charms/dominates and summons are incredibly powerful compared to the higher level raw damage spells because the summons give the party 1) disposable hit points 2) an extra action/actions every round 3) an assortment of resistances and abilities often not available to the party -- and they're able to do this all with one spell.  Summons should feel very useful and powerful, but they should not become the de facto tactic.  If it reaches that level, it's not really a tactic at all; it's just the thing you keep doing in every fight.

 

It's important to remember, that your statement hold true only if they work. Much like how casting Dominate on that fighter breathing down your neck is a wonderful play if it works. There is a good chance you won't get to cast a second spell if it doesn't. With the addition of counter spells like Dispel Magic, Remove Magic, Break Enchantment, Mind Blank, etc., that precious expended spell slot and action might not garner you very much at all.

 

Spells like Dismissal, Banishment, Death Spell, Death Fog, and more go a long way in abating the threat of summoning spells being too powerful. Not every foe can cast spells though, and artificial hardcaps on quantity summonable is a clumsy and false-feeling mechanic for balancing summons. I truely think that creating a mechanic where summoners must exert control over their summons provdies solutions to this problem. Individual summons can be balanced ordinarily, then be assigned an invisible value which would determine the amount of control necessary to hold them. Weaker summons would require less, more powerful summons would require more. Some, like the P:E equivalent of Pit Fiends--or even Celestials for that matter, may not even be controllable.

 

The method and discretion would be to the player, while operating within the context permitted by the established balance of the designers. Between this and hard-counters, I find it hard to think that the best of all proposals can't be had.

[Darkpriest]

 

Summoning should be implemented very carefully. The summoner and his summons together still represent only one character in the party and their combined power should reflect that. If a summoner can conjure up five ogres to do his bidding, then what incentive is there to have a fighter in the party instead of just another summoner?

 

This is my main concern with summoning.   Tossing an additional ally onto the battlefield, even if all it's doing is soaking up attacks, is immensely valuable.

 

 

perhaps, there is some resource system that could manage that, for example the more summons you throw the less other spellcasting you can do, so you can either get more meatshields or toss more powerful and crowd controlling spells. I'd rather have my summoning abilities limited by resource management and not arbitrary number of summons  / spell duration cap. It really annoys me in all sorts of games, that even when you reach super high levels of power, killing groups of enemies with a single lift of a finger, you cannot contest with in summoning contest with some low level dungeon random encounter caster....

 

It mostly makes summons useless in games. For example NWN series was really bad in that regard when it comes to summons (as well as shape shifting).

 

Plz, when designing things like shapeshifts / summons, make sure that the player should be limited only by his resource management. be it relevant corpses/ingridients/spell components/power or focus sustain