Summon Buff Changes

[Irongron]

I definitely agree with the logical inconsistency with zoo and mass zoo, though sequencers went into development long before mass zoo was conceived.

As for the other, also good, point regarding why spells even wouldn't work on summons, my thinking, initially, was that as 'unreal' creatures (called from other planes etc) they couldn't be affected normally by certain magical effects. Really though, one has to be creative as to why.

In the very first iteration of this idea the suggestion was to remove the ability to cast enhancements upon summons entirely. The exception for AoEs, and even sequencers, came much later.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Loremaggedon sucked, but we're all still here. If you think it didn't suck, you're living in some weird fantasy land.

I actually not only didn't think it sucked I actually thought it was a very good thing. And yes, I used to live in a weird fantasy land named Arelith. But I always thought that every class having x abilities plus time stop and mords to be very weird.

I will admit that the game was simpler then, which may have been the appeal some of the old heads have for the past. You only had three builds to worry about as far as competitive pvp went, as opposed to 10-12. But from a game design perspective its way better now, even with all the flaws and kinks that have come about with the endless tinkering. I have plenty of issues with the current balance, in particular the nerfs to ab stacking and CoT, since it's made a skilled player with a stealthy dex build the king of all kings, but loremaggedon had nothing to do with that.

Are these changes going to turn out to be as good? Can't say for certain until it plays out some. I was instantly sure of the lore changes though, this one I can't say that.

[-XXX-]

What it does balance-wise is capping the margin by which summons can be buffed now, as summoner classes aren't equal in that regard. Now there are multiple avenues of reaching similar results, instead of having everything stack. That ensures that everyone has comparable tools in their kit.

Random example: clerics don't get mass zoo spells, but since a CL 30 ESF:conju PC peaks at even str values, there isn't really much difference between giving it bull's str and casting the bless+prayer combo - both translate into +2 AB (and +2 dmg for the former and +1 dmg and some other useful stuff in the latter case) for the summons in the end.
Before this change clerics could just stack everything and have more powerful summons than everyone else... all while retaining the ability to wreck face themselves (unless healer path ofc.)

[Ithalan]

I definitely agree with the logical inconsistency with zoo and mass zoo, though sequencers went into development long before mass zoo was conceived.

As for the other, also good, point regarding why spells even wouldn't work on summons, my thinking, initially, was that as 'unreal' creatures (called from other planes etc) they couldn't be affected normally by certain magical effects. Really though, one has to be creative as to why.

In the very first iteration of this idea the suggestion was to remove the ability to cast enhancements upon summons entirely. The exception for AoEs, and even sequencers, came much later.

I think a better criteria would be to prohibit spell effects that change stats or provide a defensive advantage in combat, whether they be from singe-target or mass versions.

Right now the capability of some classes to mass-buff their summons mean that the aim of all this, reducing the possible variance in a particular summon's power to the variance of a small set of pre-packaged buffs, hasn't really been achieved anyway.

Likewise some single-target spells that really have no impact in combat have ended up on the prohibited list. Regular Invisibility for example is solely a utility spell for sneaking around, as it it is stripped away entirely the first time the target of the spell attacks something, but making your summon invisible to sneak by something is now impossible (and just further encourages the much cheesier tactic of making it wait somewhere, then sneaking by yourself and doing a -fetch at the destination).

[Irongron]

Are these changes going to turn out to be as good? Can't say for certain until it plays out some.

I honestly don't know either, even with the lore change I wasn't certain. They both depend a good deal on what comes after - a change is made, and then the server gets built around that.

Players were super upset with lore, and quite a few full on abusive. Overnight it look away a massive amount of power, to go from being able to use level 9 spells, infinitely? Players were walking around with stacks of consumables that when deployed made most content trivial. Even if I didn't approve of the abuse, I well understood the pain.

Here, while the two updates are very different, the above situation is the same. Unlike everyone else my Arelith time is chiefly spent watching players do dungeons, and we had arrived at a situation where for a large part, it was a game played with the associate tool. I would routinely watch dungeons get cleared with a single summon, that took minimal damage, and bosses steamrolled just by applying haste to them.

The comment I keep reading in regard to this update is 'Well why not just rebalance all summons?' But this simply isn't possible, if some are fully buffed and some are not. The difference between them is much too vast.

Either I balance them assuming they are fully buffed, in which case buffing is a must, or i balance them assuming they are not, in which case they are massively OP when cast upon. This is why the decision was first taken to remove the ability to cast on summons entirely, and balance from there - indeed, it remains the most sensible solution.

Then on reflection I decided it would be far more enjoyable for players if they could buff them a little, choosing between a limited number of 'kits', and then balance with those in mind. Before I decided that? This update would simply have been 'you can no longer cast on summons at all'. Imagine how that would have gone down?

Another point, regarding my unilateral, zero feedback/discussion decision here. This idea for sequencers? It was formulated during discussion with players in #general on the Arelith public Discord.

I actually agree with many of the points here. It feels messy, counter intuitive, and potentially irritating. I should, perhaps, have gone with the original development idea, and simply said 'no more magic on summons', but for now, at least, sequencers will remain.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

Can the class lock be removed from crafting sequencers? This is the only thing so far I have strongly disagreed with.

[Irongron]

Can the class lock be removed from crafting sequencers? This is the only thing so far I have strongly disagreed with.

That I can do. I'll change it later this evening.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

Thank you very much. This will help a lot in letting lower tier sequencers be available to leveling casters.

[Levefre]

There's been a lot of posts since my initial one but I'd just like to ask for the limitations to animal companions and familiars to be reviewed. I'm not a builder or a numbers person, I don't know how strong these are or aren't with the new sequencers but I still feel it's detrimental to the class flavour to not be able to buff these (outside of magic fang). Not only that but the lore reasoning for not being able to feels weird and off - why can't I buff my bear but I can buff a random stag I AE'd?

I've had some time to think on this, read a lot of the replies here and read people talking about it in discord and whilst I can't comment on summoner classes etc, I'd be willing to work with the sequencers for the summon spells my characters have access to and see how it goes. I'm just really not on board with the above.

[Irongron]

There's been a lot of posts since my initial one but I'd just like to ask for the limitations to animal companions and familiars to be reviewed. I'm not a builder or a numbers person, I don't know how strong these are or aren't with the new sequencers but I still feel it's detrimental to the class flavour to not be able to buff these (outside of magic fang). Not only that but the lore reasoning for not being able to feels weird and off - why can't I buff my bear but I can buff a random stag I AE'd?

I've had some time to think on this, read a lot of the replies here and read people talking about it in discord and whilst I can't comment on summoner classes etc, I'd be willing to work with the sequencers for the summon spells my characters have access to and see how it goes. I'm just really not on board with the above.

With familiars? I don't think it matters in their current form, as they are super weak, certainly they don't need to be restricted from magic. Companions, on the other hand, I think can be stronger, and face the same balancing problem I mentioned above (in regard to when buffed/unbuffed).

This is really a question I'd have to discuss with the team in light of where companions are now, and any plans for them in the future.

[Arienette]

Loremaggedon sucked, but we're all still here. If you think it didn't suck, you're living in some weird fantasy land.

Loremageddon was a big oof, but! With a little work, it still allowed you to do most or even all of what you could do before, AND opened up some doors that weren’t there before and allowed you to do new things. Like, for example a 25/5 weapon master tuned up for high level scrolls.

That change, while massive, still allowed a path for mundane characters to use high level scrolls and even opened up some new things.

This change, on the other hand, is quite different. It doesn’t allow you to achieve the same effect as before no matter how hard you try. And outside of some specific cases, it doesn’t allow you to do anything new. Sure, a BG can hit their summon with some buffs that they would not have been able to before. But overall, this change isn’t closing a door and opening a window. It’s strictly restrictive, which seems to be the whole point.

[Hrothgar Bloodaxe]

I've got a question, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way because I'm not asking this in bad faith and I genuinely want to hear your response.

No problem. Classes, once released are a pain to change, requiring relevels or remakes. Consumables, on the other hand are easily adjusted. We'll make plenty of adjustments to these going forward, but the core restriction, at the heart of this (no longer being able to buff summons) will go unchanged.

This is a bitter pill to swallow, and I don't think a forewarning would have done anything to lessen the vitriol directed at me these last days.

It's also simply a step towards a broader rebalancing in regards to summons, which realistically can only be achieved in stages.

I'd like to respectfully push back on some of these points. I realize it changes nothing in this current situation, but hopefully this provides some food for thought for any major / future updates. Again, these comments, while critical, are made in the spirit of being constructive and forward-looking, so that everyone - devs, DMs, players, etc. - can all have an easier time when things like this (inevitably) happen in the future.

1. "Classes, once released are a pain to change, requiring relevels or remakes."- Given the dramatic changes, a very significant number of people will have to relevel and remake their characters anyways. These are not "vanity relevels," these relevels are being done to simply try and find a way to survive in mid-difficulty areas.

Furthermore, many people must now submit a support ticket to request a "craft skill relevel," since they're not able to craft the item that is functionally required for them to play the game; at least with a standard relevel, the players can perform this on their own.

Suggestion = any major update that suddenly requires a particular craft skill as part of playing a class should also automatically reset the crafting skills. It is not especially hard to "level up" the crafting skills on the player-side, and this would take a burden off the DM team by not forcing them to deal with a flood of support tickets.

2. "I don't think a forewarning would have done anything to lessen the vitriol directed at me these last days." - I agree that there would have been vitriol regardless, but I think this glosses over an important point: while players will always have been unhappy, announcing this ahead of time, and allowing for greater input and testing, would have made this update much better, just on purely mechanical terms. As it stands, it was riddled with bugs, last minute changes, and basic oversights/mistakes.

As well, it would have given players time to prepare themselves, regardless of their feelings. I.e. someone might be unhappy about an upcoming "nerf," but at least they can make an informed decision ahead of time on how to proceed, based on what they know is coming. While some vitriol was inevitable, I think the amount/extent is absolutely something that can be influenced, and I think this was handled in such a way that things became more vitriolic than they would have been if things had been handled more tactfully.

Suggestion = Be transparent, and give people plenty of notice for major updates. Surprising people with an update is never, in any possible case, a better idea than simply being transparent and providing some advanced warning. There are reasonable people here who can be influenced and are willing to listen if you take the time to engage them in advance

You can never please everyone, but by taking the time to explain yourself, listen to feedback, make changes, and have a semi-transparent process *well in advance* of an update, you could have solved many of the development-side issues prior to launch, and built greater trust with the community, instead of undermining it.

While you had good intentions, what comes across to players is that you simply did not care for their input, or, knew that the input would be negative, so you deployed this unannounced so as to avoid having to deal with it / compress the duration that people would complain. Again, not saying that's your intention - but that's how it's coming across to most people. And just like in many other aspects of life, good intentions, expressed poorly, can still be very harmful.

3. "It's also simply a step towards a broader rebalancing in regards to summons, which realistically can only be achieved in stages." - This ties into point #2. I think most people agree that summons need rebalancing. I think most people also agree that software updates are an ongoing, iterative process.

I think one of the main reasons people are upset is not simply because summons are being rebalanced, or that it will take time to get it right. People are upset because this update was launched without any sort of real plan or understanding of what was going to happen afterward. This was very much a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, and people are reacting accordingly.

Suggestion = For future significant updates, providing a breakdown of the changes, the broader rationale for the update, and a "roadmap" for subsequent changes down the line will go a long way in building trust with the community, and improve the development process. You already do this pretty well with new classes and paths - had that general process been followed in this instance, I think things would have gone much more smoothly.

Of course the "roadmap" will simply be an outline, subject to change, but this still gives people insight into what is happening, and the opportunity to provide constructive feedback. I think many players would feel a lot more comfortable if this situation had instead looked something like what happens when new classes or paths are made. Some people are still unhappy, but the overall reaction for those updates is clearly much more positive.

In this specific case, it would have been helpful to have heard something like:

"We are removing the ability to buff summons with spells, and will instead require items. Based on player feedback and testing on PGCC over the last 3 weeks, it appears X summons / Y classes are disproportionately affected. Our plan to address this is to experiment with "XYZ" to make these classes/summons more viable in certain situations. This plan may change based on conditions on the ground, please provide us with constructive feedback as you play these classes."

Hopefully this feedback is helpful. I know that I personally was quite upset by this. After some reflection, I concluded that while the "nerf" made me sad, the main source of my frustration came from the way this was executed, rather than the premise/rationale of the update.

TL, DR; This was a bold approach to solving a tricky problem, but it was executed in a way that made it so that constructive conversation and feedback were much less likely to occur, ultimately sabotaging the objective of the update and causing more stress than necessary for everyone involved. But this is a solvable problem, things can be improved next time.

Lastly, I realize this is a project run by volunteers, and that is not lost on me. So I wanted to also say "thank you" to IG, the DMs, devs, forum mods, and everyone else who contributes. While a lot of us are unhappy, it's important to recognize that everyone here is dedicating their free time in the spirit of making something fun for all of us to share in. When you feel passionate about something, it's easy to become upset over it...but this is also a testament to the fact that Arelith has become something worth being passionate about.

[Edens_Fall]

Stuff

For what it's worth, I know you do a lot for Arelith as a designer and Dev. Putting in untold hours into a game we all love with no reward. Please don't let all the negativity discourage you from being you. Keeping fighting the good fight and making great improvements to Arelith. Nothing would be worse than development stopping completely due to burnout or frustration.

In short THANK YOU! We players will share our thoughts, grumble, adapt, complain, give feedback, and continue to enjoy Arelith.

[Levefre]

There's been a lot of posts since my initial one but I'd just like to ask for the limitations to animal companions and familiars to be reviewed. I'm not a builder or a numbers person, I don't know how strong these are or aren't with the new sequencers but I still feel it's detrimental to the class flavour to not be able to buff these (outside of magic fang). Not only that but the lore reasoning for not being able to feels weird and off - why can't I buff my bear but I can buff a random stag I AE'd?

I've had some time to think on this, read a lot of the replies here and read people talking about it in discord and whilst I can't comment on summoner classes etc, I'd be willing to work with the sequencers for the summon spells my characters have access to and see how it goes. I'm just really not on board with the above.

With familiars? I don't think it matters in their current form, as they are super weak, certainly they don't need to be restricted from magic. Companions, on the other hand, I think can be stronger, and face the same balancing problem I mentioned above (in regard to when buffed/unbuffed).

This is really a question I'd have to discuss with the team in light of where companions are now, and any plans for them in the future.

Yeah I know that companions other than bear can suffer a lot when it comes to higher difficulty areas, which is a pity because panther is pretty damn cool with its sneak ability. I appreciate the response and hopefully see some tweaks for our furry friends sometime in a future update!

[Arienette]

There's been a lot of posts since my initial one but I'd just like to ask for the limitations to animal companions and familiars to be reviewed. I'm not a builder or a numbers person, I don't know how strong these are or aren't with the new sequencers but I still feel it's detrimental to the class flavour to not be able to buff these (outside of magic fang). Not only that but the lore reasoning for not being able to feels weird and off - why can't I buff my bear but I can buff a random stag I AE'd?

I've had some time to think on this, read a lot of the replies here and read people talking about it in discord and whilst I can't comment on summoner classes etc, I'd be willing to work with the sequencers for the summon spells my characters have access to and see how it goes. I'm just really not on board with the above.

With familiars? I don't think it matters in their current form, as they are super weak, certainly they don't need to be restricted from magic. Companions, on the other hand, I think can be stronger, and face the same balancing problem I mentioned above (in regard to when buffed/unbuffed).

This is really a question I'd have to discuss with the team in light of where companions are now, and any plans for them in the future.

Just me 2 cents on this. My main is a 30 ranger with all the animal companion goodies. Prior to this change, I used the Bear (fully buffed) for 2 things:

1. Boosting my clear speed if I was running around a place like Forest of Despair for wood and also for Remove Fear scrolls (to feed my cloak making). The Bear is completely unnecessary for this, it’s just a QOL thing to go a bit faster.

2. In difficult dungeons, it was primarily used to draw aggro from enemies. Places like Baator, the Abyss, lowerdark, etc. Ranger has basically 0 AC; it sustains through regen. But if you bump into a spawn of 5-6 enemies that includes a pair of pit fiends, you WILL get hit too fast and too hard to stay alive. So I would send the Bear in first and then come around from the side to take the bad guys down.

In the wake of this change, scenario 1 is still perfectly viable. But the Bear was never really needed for scenario 1. It was just sort of a nice thing to have for speed. And depending on how long I planned to chop wood, I may or may not have even spent the time and cost to summon and buff the Bear.

Scenario 2, however, is no longer possible. The AC lost from no longer being able to buff the Bear means it WILL die quickly, if not in the first encounter, then in the first unlucky spawn or when it takes a couple crits in a row.

So with this change, the whole usefulness of the Bear is just simply gone. It becomes an RP tool, a literal “pet”.

The problem with this from a mechanical standpoint is that the whole ranger class is sort of balanced around the Bear. Without the Bear, the ranger is just a very sub par melee build. One of the mechanical reasons you might play a ranger over, say, a fighter/WM is because the Bear gives it the ability to solo things a WM would have trouble with. When the Bear is effectively removed from the conversation, your Ranger goes from Strong and Fun to Weak and Sad.

And of course, the Bear also loses its effectiveness sub-30 while leveling as well for the same reasons I mentioned above.

I will be trying a relevel to switch to something like a wolf that has more AC and see if that improves the experience at all.

[IanPatron]

So here's my point of view(it'll be long winded). At first I didn't want to go into details, but hell why not?

My character is a slave. I wanted more of a utility mage so I got GSF Divination, Transmutation, and Conjuration. I also got all the crafting skills and feats.

Because offensively my character doesn't have many spells, she had to rely on her summons and buffs as her only offense. Because my character is not combat oriented I had to go to low level dungeons and slowly grind my way up levels.

So leveling was already problematic for me as it was, even with a fully buffed summons.

Now with this change it's virtually impossible. What's more is that RPwise I was already forced to take craft points in tailoring, which now doesn't leave me enough points to create these sequencers.

On top of that now I have to fret over the logistics of buffing my summons and the crafting and items that go with it.

So...

I have to devote space for storage to hold these items, find the items(now hampered with the nerf), spend however much time crafting it, not to mention my character doesn't have the strength to lug all of it around...

I have a second character who is not a slave, and doesn't need any of these things, and can buy a house with storage. I decided to base this character off a powerbuild since that's the thing to do now.

I have to prioritize which character would get what, and to be honest, having to do all that to buff a summons is NOT fun.

It's a chore. And it's one I really don't want to invest my time in... a chore that didn't exist days ago.

Thankfully my slave character is lvl 18 so if nothing else I can get a minor award for it.

[AstralUniverse]

The comment I keep reading in regard to this update is 'Well why not just rebalance all summons?' But this simply isn't possible, if some are fully buffed and some are not. The difference between them is much too vast.

I'm not too sure where you're reading these comments.

I think the majority of the mechanics savvy player base has been quite united in "Nerf planar conduit. Remove it's epic caster scaling. Nerf warlock summons so it has ab like planar conduit. leave everything else as is" as far as I've read here and on discord. Most summons are fine, and have been fine for years. The new ones are problematic. Ranger companion is the onlly offender outsider of that, but those get dunked by Turn Animal, or many spells. Even Banishment when it really doesnt make much sense thematically, considering it's an animal.

As for what summons are buffed and what summons arent buffed, it's actually quite binary. Summons with duration of Turns or longer should be balanced around being buffed. Summons which are Rounds and cannot be extended (just gate and warlock's planar gate really) should be balanced around not being buffed.

[Naghast]

I just realised something

with this change restricting the buff-ability of summons, and addition of mass zoo buffs, and all this stuff, maybe, just maybe

it could be possible to increase the amount of spells known for spontaneous casters that can possibly get access to these spells?

like, sorcerer, warlock, etc, to allow them to pick these spells without crippling themselves so severely.
granted, sorcerer would need them more than warlock does
sorc's lvl 6 selections are almost always mass haste, true seeing and isaac's greater missile storm. i can only realistically see them give up on IGMS for ONE mass zoo buff, but even that would be done with an incredibly heavy heart. mass haste and true seeing are not even a discussion, they're kinda absolute must-have.

warlocks, their lvl 6's have things like inferno and g. dispel, which i believe are really important, and usually one other pact spell is picked there. from what i've seen they *CAN* pick mass zoo buffs? but at a big cost. they don't cripple themselves nearly as much as sorcerers do by doing such, but they still cripple themselves.

and yea, i know you can easily deflect it by saying they can easily invest into scrolls of mass zoo's from their local wizard, or just get a druidic sequencer and only spend one spell known on mass bear's endurance and cover cats + bulls with that, but still. just chiming in my thoughts.

[AstralUniverse]

it could be possible to increase the amount of spells known for spontaneous casters that can possibly get access to these spells?

Maybe I'm missing something but what's stopping you from getting a wizard to put them on scrolls? we'll likely see them in shops now that they actually aren't useless.

[-XXX-]

Nerf planar conduit. Remove it's epic caster scaling. Nerf warlock summons so it has ab like planar conduit. leave everything else as is

Thing to realize here is that before this change some builds were able to push the PC to AB 46 while other builds could get it to AB 54. Balance it around the former and the latter would have still remained too good, balance it around the latter and you'd have ruined summons for everyone with the exception of one specific build.

For the record, epic caster scaling translates into 5 AB and 3 AC for PC at CL 30.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Are these changes going to turn out to be as good? Can't say for certain until it plays out some.

I honestly don't know either, even with the lore change I wasn't certain. They both depend a good deal on what comes after - a change is made, and then the server gets built around that.

Players were super upset with lore, and quite a few full on abusive. Overnight it look away a massive amount of power, to go from being able to use level 9 spells, infinitely? Players were walking around with stacks of consumables that when deployed made most content trivial. Even if I didn't approve of the abuse, I well understood the pain.

Here, while the two updates are very different, the above situation is the same. Unlike everyone else my Arelith time is chiefly spent watching players do dungeons, and we had arrived at a situation where for a large part, it was a game played with the associate tool. I would routinely watch dungeons get cleared with a single summon, that took minimal damage, and bosses steamrolled just by applying haste to them.

The comment I keep reading in regard to this update is 'Well why not just rebalance all summons?' But this simply isn't possible, if some are fully buffed and some are not. The difference between them is much too vast.

Either I balance them assuming they are fully buffed, in which case buffing is a must, or i balance them assuming they are not, in which case they are massively OP when cast upon. This is why the decision was first taken to remove the ability to cast on summons entirely, and balance from there - indeed, it remains the most sensible solution.

Then on reflection I decided it would be far more enjoyable for players if they could buff them a little, choosing between a limited number of 'kits', and then balance with those in mind. Before I decided that? This update would simply have been 'you can no longer cast on summons at all'. Imagine how that would have gone down?

Another point, regarding my unilateral, zero feedback/discussion decision here. This idea for sequencers? It was formulated during discussion with players in #general on the Arelith public Discord.

I actually agree with many of the points here. It feels messy, counter intuitive, and potentially irritating. I should, perhaps, have gone with the original development idea, and simply said 'no more magic on summons', but for now, at least, sequencers will remain.

Reading this, the answer is actually quite simple though folks are going to hate you even more for it. Reduce the summon duration to 3 rounds per level and boost their power level slightly. That would give level 9 summons/planar conduit a duration of around 8 minutes assuming a 3 level dip, and extended level 8 summons around 16 minutes. Maybe add a round per level with each focus, or just two with epic focus. You could even do something for a conjuration specialist, but honestly the key spells they would lose from transmutation could all be made up for in different ways so it can't be too good.

There would be kinks to work out of course, this is a drive by suggestion on the forums after all and not a well thought out thing, but thematically at least for everything save undead and animal companions it makes sense. I'm not sure how legit of a complaint that actually is but taking it away can't do anything but help. I would nerf undead and animal companions though and let them stand as is.

This would at the very least add some strategy and thought to the process of summons, and assuming gate summons get the round bonus actually makes summoners better at that too.

[AstralUniverse]

Nerf planar conduit. Remove it's epic caster scaling. Nerf warlock summons so it has ab like planar conduit. leave everything else as is

Thing to realize here is that before this change some builds were able to push the PC to AB 46 while other builds could get it to AB 54. Balance it around the former and the latter would have still remained too good, balance it around the latter and you'd have ruined summons for everyone with the exception of one specific build.

For the record, epic caster scaling translates into 5 AB and 3 AC for PC at CL 30.

Yeah. Shaving 5 ab off that thing would be a good start. Not gonna lie. That's all hypothetical now of course. As for the difference between different buffs of different classes. It's really that simple. You balance it around the class who buffs it the most (just one class tho, naturally. Not several). So in this case you balance it around evangelist or whatever it is (in warlock's case - Warlock). Because the idea is that classes who buff their summons so hard are giving up power elsewhere so it should make sense. That's all out the window now and sort of a lot more binary. It is only slightly easier to balance it through limitations and it creates the whole new can of worms that is sequencers so I dont understand what it's for.

[Sincra]

In general, I find the decision to let some aoe buffs that are the same as single target work, but block single target ones, is inconsistent. I am referring specifically to the mass zoo buffs, if they are allowed then it makes little sense that the single target zoo spells are blocked. The result is essentially the same with much more issues for the player.

This is a great point. How does this improve balance? It doesn't, it just reduces QOL for players.

Consider these points:
Cost - A scroll of Mass Zoo Buff will market on average for 2.3k~ in my equations, this is far higher than normal Zoo buffs and would go on the greater Sequencer if it is reviewed for such.
Time - While the argument of QoL vs Time is often raised it is done so ignoring the preparedness of PvP this entails.
If only 1 person has to use an item to empower multiple entities you save considerable action economy.
Availability - Casters, specifically viable classes not having the Aura of vitality spell, and Lore havers can access it, even if to part of this list at cost. The lore is also 35, which is easily within reach of most builds.
It is also selectively withheld from AoV casters as the two spells on a single caster would enable a 2 round average group wide, single user, buff rotation for Zoo spells, most importantly, without cost. This has ramifications for PvP if permitted and is something I am avid about remaining as is. The only exception I can see would be the potential thematics like Cleric Domains, but even then it would likely be 1 of the Zoo spells and not all in a single domain.

[AstralUniverse]

In general, I find the decision to let some aoe buffs that are the same as single target work, but block single target ones, is inconsistent. I am referring specifically to the mass zoo buffs, if they are allowed then it makes little sense that the single target zoo spells are blocked. The result is essentially the same with much more issues for the player.

This is a great point. How does this improve balance? It doesn't, it just reduces QOL for players.

Consider these points:
Cost - A scroll of Mass Zoo Buff will market on average for 2.3k~ in my equations, this is far higher than normal Zoo buffs and would go on the greater Sequencer if it is reviewed for such.
Time - While the argument of QoL vs Time is often raised it is done so ignoring the preparedness of PvP this entails.
If only 1 person has to use an item to empower multiple entities you save considerable action economy.
Availability - Casters, specifically viable classes not having the Aura of vitality spell, and Lore havers can access it, even if to part of this list at cost. The lore is also 35, which is easily within reach of most builds.
It is also selectively withheld from AoV casters as the two spells on a single caster would enable a 2 round average group wide, single user, buff rotation for Zoo spells, most importantly, without cost. This has ramifications for PvP if permitted and is something I am avid about remaining as is. The only exception I can see would be the potential thematics like Cleric Domains, but even then it would likely be 1 of the Zoo spells and not all in a single domain.

Agreed
and mundane's life is still tougher.

[-XXX-]

As I see it, this ultimately it boils down to the mass bull's strength spell and it translating into +2 AB/dmg. Personally, I'm rather indifferent here as I don't see it as such a massive game changer, especially in PvE.

The inconsistency between regular zoo spells not working and mass zoo spells working does somewhat mess with my OCD though.
There'd certainly be merit in disabling mass zoo spells now for the sake of future balance decisions.