Wind Chime's page

839 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 839 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think because of the limit having inteligence as a primary stat imposes some sort of situation buff too accuracy is appropriate.

I think my favourite way to achieve that would be something like this

Compensating

There is no such thing as failure in invention only learning opportunities.

One Action
Pre-Requisite: Your last action was a missed Strike

Make another Strike using the same multiple attack penalty as for the missed Strike, if any.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see one or a couple of feats that support armor unarmed combat, something like a level 1 piston punch feat that gives you a d8 forceful, shoving unarmed attack.


So does Dwarven Reinforcement work with shields ?

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1400

The ability let's you spend an hour reinforcing an object which a sheild is but the flavour text mentions a thick object and that kind of puts us into how long is a piece of string area where we ask how thick is thick ?


The-Magic-Sword wrote:

To sum up this thread, like all the previous ones on this subject:

- Casters are weaker than they are in 1e, but balanced with the other classes.

- Some casters have feel concerns because we can't agree on how valuable 2-3 extra spell slots are. (I'd say they're strong, others have said its negligible.)

- Spell Attack Rolls suffer from having a 50% accuracy rate on at-level targets with moderate AC and could stand to have some kind of small buff.

- Some posters think "the real problem here is that other people disagree with me" is a good argument, which is like, Big Yikes.

I think the only thing contentious here is the idea that casters are balanced with martials, which doesn't really see, to be the case from most of play experience admittedly that's not a lot of experience .


They do with quick shield block.


So this a theoretical build that KrispyXIV has referred to a few times i am going to take people through it and see how it works,

So for this build you will ideally play an Ancient Elf this gives you two things you want early access to the champion archetype and longsword proficiency through elven weapons feat and a phantom eisolon.

I recommend starting stats of 16 str 12 Dex, 10con, 12 int, 16 cha, 12 wis

At 2nd level grab the class feat you want.
At 3rd level you are going to want the shield block general feat, at 4th level the healing touch champion power is good and at 6th level the champion reaction feat is why you went down this path. You now have everything you need from champion and your double punishment. If an enemy attacks you they will punished by your eidolon if they attack your eidolon they will be punished by you.

At 8th level grab the bastion class feat at 10th grab the quick shield block feat and now tencinally you can shield block whilst your ally punishes, technically because its one trigger but hey your two creatures using two reactions so I vote it works.

So is this set up strong, not amazingly its functional and could be bit of fun, your still going to be pretty vunerable to area effects and stuff like that.

So has anyone tried the double punisher how was it and has anyone else found a surprisingly cool build for the odd one out/ugly ducking summoner ?


KrispyXIV wrote:
Sagiam wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Sagiam wrote:
Verzen wrote:


No. I dont consider good damage 1 per attack to be good enough. In 99% of cases that ability is worthless.

All Fiends except for the yeth hound and Fire and Frost Yais have weaknesses to good. Most within the 10 to 15 point range. If this was first edition it would be like having Demon, Devil, and Daemon bane on your eidolons fists... at first level.

Edit: And yes I know I'm digressing.

Yeah but how often will you come into contact with demons? Not too often

It's useless in most cases, but when it works, it REALLY works. As awesome as it is when demons are around, how often are they?

In the campaigns I play in? Around every corner. :( /s

Now do I think such a campaign dependent ability is appropriate for a base selection out of a base book? Not really.
I think it could be moved up to a first level evolution feat and the angel could be given something else.
If they did make it a feat they could gate it off behind the divine spell lists and customize it for each of the types. So a fiend could do a point of evil damage etc.

I'm just pointing out that it's not a bad ability on its face.

Based on the three initial APs released so far for 2E - I've run one, am running a second, and am playing in a 3rd - the Good damage on an Eidolon is a fantastic ability in all published content.

Players should talk to their GMs. If the campaign in question is going to deviate significantly from what is established in published works because its homebrew, then the GM should be willing to work with the player either to ensure the Eidolons ability will be relevant (or at the very least, replace it).

The default campaign model tends to favor Good Damage in general though.

Its pretty naff in plaguestone.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


So I took a different route. Instead of trying to build a completely independent creature mechanically, went the other way and changed the conceptual idea behind the eidolon to eliminate the idea of independence that isn't reflected in the mechanics.

But it is reflected in the rules.

And I quote, "Though a true angel, your angel eidolon’s link to you as a mortal prevents them from casting the angelic messenger ritual, even if they somehow learn it."

It lays out that your eidolon is a true angel, and details a rules way in which it differs from others of its kind.

Are there any true angels that aren't independent creatures?

Have your read Milton or Gaiman Angelic free will has always been one of the more interesting question can a tool of divine authority countermand it wonderful stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So there have been a lot of talk about flight on the summoner playtest and took this discussion of there to avoid cluttering it with more of the same.

So generally I don't think most people are opposed to late flight for game balance reason, most people can see the logic of why flight should be a late game ability me included.

But the eidolon aesthetic both in the art work in the playtest document and the recommended description of both the Angel and Dragon eidolon mentions wings being the norm so a lot of people are going to default to having winged ediolon at the level 1.

So I feel this is a problem because appearance in my opinion tend inform expectation and there are going to be feel that because they have wings they should be able to fly and will shocked to find out that they are not going to be able to do that easily until level 9 or at will until level 16.

I feel that it is appearance that has meant there has been ten times as much talk about eidolon flight than say a storm oracles ability to fly.

So how much do you think appearance effects people's expectations and do you think as a rule of thumb developers on rpgs should be careful about the asthetic choices they make and how they might influence their players. Or do you think aesthetics should have no effect on narratives and mechanics ?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer players weren't encouraged to add wings to their eidolons ascethetic because then it wouldn't be an issue that they couldn't fly. A simple bit of text saying that eidolon dragons & angels typically don't have wings as it something they grow in later development would suffice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Does it not bother you that someone who is flying through the power of creativity is also mechanically walking at the same time as he is flying for all purposes including difficult terrain, dangerous terrain, pressure pads even oily surfaces like the grease spell? I hate contradictions like that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

so this is personal opinion but I see it as much the same as if a fighter wanted to be a telekinetic and decided all his melee strikes were in fact short range telekinesis using the sword as a focus. There is mechanically isn't any harm in that its fine it won't break the game but it would take me out of things each time he did it and I'd want him to grab the telekinetic projectile spell because that is how telekinesis is supposed to work in this game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviosuly eveything i and everyone else says on this forum is subjective opinion, even the data for this sort of thing is pretty soft.

But as I said earlier in pathfinder 2e for the most part the mechanics are not separate from the world they are the gravity and invisible hands that define what is possible in that world. If you want to run, climb, swim, eat, sleep ect their are rules for that.

The idea that mechanical flight is flight mechanical climbing is climbing, that mechanical swimming is swimming that the fear spell scares people that fireballs are hot seems critical to the game. Its really the only thing that ensure people are playing in the same space, the same the world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But knowing and accepting something can't fly whilst also accepting that it is flying is textbook defention of Orwellian double think I am not using it an insult its just what you call embracing two contradicting narratives at the same time. Its not some grand insult it something any political scientist could tell you plays out in the real world very often. I use it because its the best words to describe a certain duality of thought and because Orwell is my literary hero and like to use the words he created.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Grumpus wrote:

So what happens if someone casts "earthbind" on your "flying eidolon"? They just wasted their spell because its not really flying and not a valid target.

Or someone has "grease" prepared but decides not cast it on the wall because you are "flying"?

The reflavoring you are suggesting does not work for me, but if your group is cool with it, have it at.

No one is suggesting that anyone would in any way be confused in this case. The goal is not to mislead anyone, or similar.

Everyone knows the truth.

But everyone plays along because its a cooperative experience, and the goal is to have fun.

There are only a few people that sort of double think work and it tends not be the players of rules heavy games like this. If this was fate or pbta game it wouldn't concern me. But there has for been an attempt to tie the mechanics to the narratives in this game and the summoner is weirdly divorced from that.

Going from a hyperbolic stance the fact my d8 natural weapon can be my ediolon stabbing someone with a dirk, a bite, a magical greatsword, angelic stileto high heels, a person sized biomass tentacle or possibly an 10ft tall hammer manifested out of hard light is a bit weird. The mechanics are divorced from the fiction and it feels strange. I know that theoretically I should limit my stuff to things that are roughly equivalent to a d8 but then again that feels even more restrictive than rules on what I can and can't use as a natural weapon would be.

So i am left in the position that 10ft my hard light hammer is mechancially the same as my wing buffet or punch. Apart from the fact one of them I can use to make jokes about compensating for something which I suppose isn't nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
I've given up on trying to parse what you want your words to say, honestly.
I feel my point has been successfully made that the summoner was among the many broken things in pathfinder 1e and didn't deserve all this special animosity.

No, I literally had to read your post several times to find the meaning (pre-edits, it looks like) not that I didn't get your point.

Also, special animosity? Asking the PF2 summoner to not become what it was in terms of broken capabilities isn't a vendetta.

Its always wonderful speaking with such a fine patient and congenial fellow. In this day age a gentle person who keep their discourse free of ire is a truly a diamond in the rough.
You might still be missing the grammatical portions of your post that lead to not comprehending them to begin with. I wasn't looking for a more floral vocabulary, just clarity.

Sorry about that is probably the dyslexia you can practice the words all you want but they often come out jumbled.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:


I am already gearing up for summoner 2.0 to be thing that didn't happen like all those sequels to the matrix that never got made.

The only way for the 2E summoner to 'fail' is for it to be perceived as overpowered, and banned at most tables like the 1E version was by association.

The entire 'pet class' concept is too popular with people otherwise for it not to be played.

The vast majority of players don't care about CharOP, don't frequent online message boards, and don't log and track things like damage over time.

Your right if people continue to play the mess that is am alchemist their going to play the summoner.

But its a shame (this is only going from low level experience) that its a bit naff. Its not awful or broken or unplayable or a mess like the alchemist its just uninspired, a bit dull and to quote Mad Max Mediocre. I don't expect it to fail so much as I expect it will a thing that existences I will ignore like those matrix sequels that never happened.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:


The pack has always been the premier over powered build, I have a good memory of looking quizzically at one gm who was focusing dementedly on killing all my summons only for me to summon 5 more the next turn.

I'm confused what you think the problem is here.

The GM was able to meaninfully interact with and oppose your character by fighting your summons, and got you to spend additional resources.

Summoners in most cases denied opposition or meaninful interaction.

Top Tier AC + Flight + Reach before upper mid levels? Most things just died as you sat out of reach and murdered them.

It was more I thought it was strange tactics I could make more targeting my summons seemed fruitless, targeting me would have been more effective. I was used to hard ball gms who don't belive in level appropriate challenges so it seemed odd.But then again beating a close +7 level encounter was about as good an experience as I have had the combat side of roleplaying.


Ruzza wrote:
I've given up on trying to parse what you want your words to say, honestly.

I feel my point has been successfully made that the summoner was among the many broken things in pathfinder 1e and didn't deserve all this special animosity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
League is a strange misspelling of "galaxy"

You my friend are underestimating the power of stacking buffs and boots on the ground.

The pack has always been the premier over powered build, I have a good memory of looking quizzically at one gm who was focusing dementedly on killing all my summons only for me to summon 5 more the next turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:

It doesn't help your case to point out another broken build. "It can't be broken, it didn't even do what this completely other off the wall build could do!"

Summoners invalidated the need for other players at the table. Yes, other classes could do that, too (Hi, wizard). A druid didn't have the min-maxing insanity that was the Evolution System.

A druid could have an impressively solidly buffed animal companion (not in the ediolons league but competitive with a poorly optimised fighter and 8 sabretooth tigers. Each with there own smite evil there was absolutely no reason not use. Whilst being a full caster or another solid but not eidolon solid melee character through wildshape.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I did visit the charop boards, summoner was not the top tier damage dealer by any measures those were pretty much all pounce/spirited charge or the riding feat that did the same thing combined with a set up adding level bonus to damage and could go into the thousands. Who didn't love rage lance pounce whilst it was an option. You could do hundreds of damage with a summoner and it was an easy set up but you weren't top tier by any measure. The humble fighter archer with all the feats and tricks could keep up with an eidolon.

I have yet to see anything in the game that matches a kitsune mind control sorcerer with impossible to save dc and the undead feats and metamgics. It got to the point of all constructs all the time thank goodness for create pit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:

Synthesist is as close to playing what you want as you are going to get. The PF1 summoner was a complete disaster for PF1. The designers of PF2 do not want to break the game balance and they shouldn't break it. They have a great rules system here that relies on class balance. What you want breaks that balance.

Nobody says you can't home rule whatever you want in your own campaigns. But as far as the base rules go, there is no possible way they are going to allow players to ditch the human form completely and just play the eidolon with no penalties.

Oh come off it the summoner did nothing in Pathfinder 1e that I couldn't do better with a druid. All the people moaning about it were blowing steam it was a beast but so was every caster. I had far better go at breaking the game with a kitsune enchanter than I ever did with a summoner.


Xathos of Varisia wrote:

Toss this summoner out then and don't bother to build another one that even resembles the PF1 Summoner. Build an entirely new class that has an eidolon which fits in the PF2 framework of game balance. There is no need for a summoner class in PF2. I'd rather see them build entirely new classes around different concepts.

Then again, they could just rename this class and keep on with it since there is never going to be a summoner class just like PF1. That type of class will break PF2. Let's see what choice they might want. Break the game and ruin it or build a class that fits in PF2? I have a feeling they are going to go with option 2.

As it stands, this class is viable within PF2. It is not and never will be the PF1 class. That's good. Will they lose customers over this? Very doubtful. Will they continue to gain customers over this? Certainly. It is all in the marketing to consumer groups.

Your not wrong much like the idea of a modern reboot of the princess bride which because of the context and values of today could never be as cheeky and fun as the original I feel there is a solid argument that the summoner should remain a fond memory.

I am already gearing up for summoner 2.0 to be thing that didn't happen like all those sequels to the matrix that never got made.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sagiam wrote:
Verzen wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:

So I was speaking with another person on this board and I was arguing that the eidolon didn't have customization on par with a player character and she put the point that doubling the customization (by giving similar amounts for both the summoner and the eidolon) would be too unfair and unbalanced. Given I liked the oodles of oodles of customization in pathfinder 1e this is a problem.

But their may be a solution as I care very little for summoner what would you recon would be the best way to rip their customization away from their unworthy hands and in a perfect 0 sum fashion give it whole sale to my eidolon.

How would you approach an option for the summoner to forsake his racial feat, skill feats and class feats to give the eidolon exclusive access to them or equivalents ?

I'd gladly sacrifice all summoner customization for my Eidolon to have all the customization. I do not like the "partnership" equal power dynamic. If that's what it takes.
Look we all know you want to play a 3.0E Monster Class, but this forums for discussing the Summoner.

Synthesist summoner shows the devlopers already Know there is and has always been a substantial amount of summoner players that desire a ediolon first, eidolon only approach.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The developers must know that no one plays a summoner to be a sorcerer with a 5th of the spell slots. The eidolon and its customsiation has always been the meat of the class. So if they need to take resources from the summoner to flesh out the eidolon they should.

Before you say no one plays the class to just play the eidolon well the popularity of the synthesist proves that line false.


So i pretty much have no knowledge of the lore in pathfinder 2e, I tried to use to run my segment of my face to face groups ongoing forgotten realms game (ď&d main setting) but it went poorly, more poorly than me running 5e went im not a great dm but one was silly fun with easy combats that were over proably too quickly and the other was uneven mess that stalled far to often.

So i came to the conclusion that I obviously don't have the magic touch when it comes to pathfinder 2e encounter design. But given our group is kind of falling apart due to covid meaning were not meeting up i volunteered to run something online and thought I would try an AP because then I wouldn't have to encounter design.

Two questions my gonalorian lore is poor, how necessary is to running any of the APs. which AP is easiest to run?

Also just because I m curious did pathfinder 2e have a transformative event like the spellplague between editions to justify the mechanical shift ?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a bit of fun playtesting the the summoner and I have found its not for me, it seems to feel like the alchemist to me it has a lot of moving parts but none of them load bearing. I will return to playing the player handbook classes which I find simpler and more elegant.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Have you ever played starfinder for their summoning apart from a few exceptions the summons were all lesser to elder elemental stat blocks with graft (a few thematic abities, resitances and vunerbailities) to individualise them.

I feel the pathfinder 2e summmoner is very much in that vain they all share a basic stat block. But unlike starfinder they don't apply graft of thematic abities to there summons. Everyone gets the same basic elemetal template and are told to name it what they want.

I know the spell lists changes but that pretty much feel completely tangential to the eidolon itself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To quote the incopreal trait from 1e

An incorporeal creature has no physical body


5 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:

Unfortunately due to game balance your just going to have to accept your dragon is more komdo than dragon, your shade is more a guy in a sheet than a shade.

Questions like why you your an angel/dragon has wings but can't use them and how come my shade is tangible, can be posioned and catch a cold (ie made out of meat), will avail you naught.

But questions like these are only likely to bug you for a short time before you simply come to accept your eidolons short comomings, learm to turn a blind eye to their inherent illogic or start intentionally lampooning it.

To be fair the potential for scoobydoo eidolons is actually quite a lot of fun.

Th dragon eidolon who is kobold with a alchemist fire thrower, the guy in a sheet shade, the beast eidolon who is a furry, the angel who bought whose wings made out of finest goose feathers.

Or, you know, you can play it as intended in Good Faith and have fun playing it seriously.

Your dragon ignores cliff walls by flying from 5th level (when evolution surge adds a climb speed), flies on demand at 9th, and can do practically any iconic trick your spell lists allows via Greater Magical Evolution.

Playing in a game thats balanced means making some concessions that you're playing within limits. Its not ridiculous unless you make it ridiculous.

Your phantom has no adaptions to make it phantom like, it functions entirely like a creature made flesh and blood its vunerable to diseases and poison it needs to breath which probably means it has lungs hidden in its ectoplasm. Given this is what the mechanics are telling us a phantom eidolon is taking them at face value seems in perfectly good faith. If they wanted people to treat their phantom eidolons like a phantom they should have made them like a phantom.

If they are going to stick to this design paradigm then the should avoid creatures that aren't corporeal and subject to all the vulnerabilities a human is otherwise you will end something that is at least a little farcical.


Unfortunately due to game balance your just going to have to accept your dragon is more komdo than dragon, your shade is more a guy in a sheet than a shade.

Questions like why you your an angel/dragon has wings but can't use them and how come my shade is tangible, can be posioned and catch a cold (ie made out of meat), will avail you naught.

But questions like these are only likely to bug you for a short time before you simply come to accept your eidolons short comomings, learm to turn a blind eye to their inherent illogic or start intentionally lampooning it.

To be fair the potential for scoobydoo eidolons is actually quite a lot of fun.

Th dragon eidolon who is kobold with a alchemist fire thrower, the guy in a sheet shade, the beast eidolon who is a furry, the angel who bought whose wings made out of finest goose feathers.


So how i see sustaining steel playing is if the need to move they attack twice with their greatsword and do nearly as much damage as striking spell and move.


Disruption Impulse (Reaction) Level 1
Summoner
Trigger - Your Eidolon would take damage that would reduce your shared Hit Points to 0.
You violently disrupt the connection between yourself and the Eidolon forceably de-manifesting the eidolon before the damage the eidolon just took can effect your hp total. This does not prevent damage that would affect both you.

You cannot manifest the eidolon again until the end of your next long rest and you spend at least 10 minutes meditating upon your link.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Verzen wrote:


No. It actually isn't a feature dude. The game literally tells you, " YOU HAVE A DRAGON" You can't just claim it's an elemental. If you do, you're violating the rules of the game.

Yes, you're correct, its a Dragon *wink*.

It just looks and acts like an elemental, fights like an elemental and identifies as an elemental, so maybe since we're all friends playing a game at the table we can just pretend like its an elemental, just like we're pretending to be heroes in another setting.

Its no more of a stretch than saying my character who took levels in Fighter is a Ninja. He's not a very rogueish Ninja, but he went to Ninja college and uses Ninja weapons and all the Ninja's agree he's a Ninja.

I agree with Krispy curently the dragon has next to zero draconic traits apart from a breath weapon so if you want to call your "dragon" a manticore and give him a piercing breath weapon (quill attack) then go ahead. I find calling the "dragon" a manticore to less galling than calling it a Dragon.


KrispyXIV wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


If it's not on par with specialist. It's not worth using. So 50 percent of the time it's not.

This is an impossible standard.

You can't 'not do something' just because you're not the best.

You don't need to be the best to have there be value in doing something.

Summoner's aren't getting an Eidolon and having everything else on par with everyone else. That's fundamentally unfair and unbalanced to everyone else.

When the specialist has something like a 35% - 45% for even level enemies to fail their saves that 10% is quite significant. Moving from a toin coss to rolling a d4 and hoping for a 4.

The maths in the game are extremely punishing for marginal losses and rewarding for marginal gains.

What that ignores is the fact that for things that aren't attack rolls, AC, and saving throws the results are significantly less punishing for non-specialists.

And for saving throws, you tend to get partial effectiveness on a larger range of save results.

I'm not saying you should be hucking spell attacks at people when your spell proficiency is low. But half damage on a successful save isn't awful.

So spells with saves and attack rolls which has got to be 90% of them are very likely to fail or have very partial effect.

Whereas heal, herorism, soothe, haste and summoning spells have their full effect regardless of your charisma. So having awful charisma doesn't stop you getting the full effect out of your non offensive spells and having good charisma doesn't ensure you get the full effect of your offensive spells.

So dropping Charisma becomes a painless choice especially if you are divine or occult caster.


Would you trade your 4 spells per day for wizard level caster proficiency on your cantrips and offensive focus spells ?

Would you be happy with a magus who mainly spellstriked with cantrips apart from 1 to 3 times per encounter where he spell strikes with focus spells ?

Would you like focus spells that mimicked the old magus calling card spells for example shocking grasp, frostbite etc ?


The barbarian gets grab at 12th level, the fighters improved knockdown has a similar action economy to knockdown gets you a little extra damage on the side but requires you to comit to two actions up front but it also almost guarantees you an attack of opportunity.


As for the dragon eidolon would anyone else prefer that you could use the breath option less and it did a little more damage a 1d6 without a modofer breath weapon is really lame, especially if you have electric arc.If they started with 2d6 and added 1d6 every other level it would feel a lot better.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Verzen wrote:

If we left things your way, I couldn't, say, create my Shiva or Ifrit Eidolons or my Diablo (from FF series) Eidolon or maybe even a Lovecraftian Eidolon. Having it open ended leaves it up to whatever I can come up with. My imagination.

Keeping the packages of angel, dragon, beast, phantom etc means I HAVE to have an angel, a dragon, a beast, a phantom etc. I cannot choose ANYTHING that paizo has not predestined for me and that does not feel good.

Every single example you've mentioned here is going explicitly supported to be in the core book, presumably.

There are currently four base forms in the playtest. Acting like that restriction is going to persist and you won't be able to make an elemental (shiva or ifrit), a fiend (gravity manipulation is probably going to need to be descriptive, im afraid), or an aberration is not helpful.

Those will be easy to make work, even in the current system, if we had the rest of the base forms.

Ifrits a Djinn, Shiva is the God of Endings, but the inspiration for the ff version is probably the Juki-Onma which is a yokai which is probably closest to a fae.

I was mostly referring to mechanics, where they're almost certainly best supported as Elementals. Arent Djinn and related actually elementals these days, or am I misremembering?

They all certainly sound Primal though as well.

That i can't argue with.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Verzen wrote:

If we left things your way, I couldn't, say, create my Shiva or Ifrit Eidolons or my Diablo (from FF series) Eidolon or maybe even a Lovecraftian Eidolon. Having it open ended leaves it up to whatever I can come up with. My imagination.

Keeping the packages of angel, dragon, beast, phantom etc means I HAVE to have an angel, a dragon, a beast, a phantom etc. I cannot choose ANYTHING that paizo has not predestined for me and that does not feel good.

Every single example you've mentioned here is going explicitly supported to be in the core book, presumably.

There are currently four base forms in the playtest. Acting like that restriction is going to persist and you won't be able to make an elemental (shiva or ifrit), a fiend (gravity manipulation is probably going to need to be descriptive, im afraid), or an aberration is not helpful.

Those will be easy to make work, even in the current system, if we had the rest of the base forms.

Ifrits a Djinn, Shiva is the God of Endings, but the inspiration for the ff version is probably the Juki-Onma which is a yokai which is probably closest to a fae.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Cha over Con as the class ability is fine for legacy reasons, but you should get something other than a benefit to your meager spellcasting for having high charisma.

Given the summoner is now sharing his life force with the eidolon con as key skill or having the option of con or cha makes sense.

I am not necessarily as convinced their spellcasting modfier should be con based.


So i am trying to build a summoner for plaguestone. But I am finding that none of the options are leaping out at me as very exciting. Any had some good build that make the summoner fun from level 1 ?

I am playing a human so I can grab a first level eidolon feat.


The pathfinder summoner always made me think of the ps2 rpg of the same name.

"I am Joseph of Ciran. Joseph of Masad. Farmer, cotter, plower... Sahugani. Summoner"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I have in 5e and 1e pathfinder struggled to balance combat encouters (flip flopping from dull to murderous).

So say I wanted to use my own setting (our campaign groups Faerun) but wanted to use reskinned dungeons and combats from an ap which of the current aps do you think its best to buy?


SuperBidi wrote:
voideternal wrote:

I'm understanding your argument as, the Rogue requires party members to spend actions applying flat-footed, whereas the Swashbuckler doesn't -> A party with a swashbuckler sometimes has higher damage because the action causing flat-footed could have been used for more damage. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

My counterargument is that a party should generally be applying flat-footed to creatures anyway, because the -2 circumstance to AC makes a big enough difference for martials to generally warrant the action cost, irregardless of sneak attack. Specific scenarios may differ.
That said, I do acknowledge that the cost to apply flat-footed is generally cheaper and better paid by melee martials. If the party composition / character builds are lacking in applying flat-footed, I agree that a swashbuckler better serves the party over the rogue.
I'll also mention that once the rogue gains debilitating strike, the rogue gives benefits (including flat footed for thief) for free - the flat-footed payment cost can get pretty low.

You understood correctly and I agree with you: In some parties, the Rogue will have no issue hitting a Flat-Footed opponent. In others, it will be problematic. Rogue efficiency is party-dependent. Hence certainly the disagreements in this topic on how easy it is to apply Flat-Footed. Mileage varies on that.

If your party has a substantial martial base able to tank/provide flanking/protect casters then a Rogue is an obvious choice. If your party doesn't have such a martial coverage then a Swashbuckler should be a better choice.

Luckily now rogues can pick up animal companions arctypes which makes them a whole lot less dependent on their party.


If they do change it to an item bonus you would be able to stack it with scales of the dragon which would still be decent.


Wow does that work, at level 1

Monk (mountain)

10+4 status +4 item + 4 expert +1 level = 23 AC

Or non mountain

10+2 (dex) + 4 item + 4 expert + 1 level for 21 AC

That's a massive game changing AC shift.


Gorbacz wrote:
They dream of electric sheep, of course.

How frustrating I just clicked on this link to make the joke about rotting sheep and found you got there 12 hours earlier.


You have to remember sometimes the fairies in the wood by where you live outlevel that dragon you fought two encounters ago.

1 to 50 of 839 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>