Should the class be named something other than summoner?

I've thrown this idea out there in a couple of places and I didn't see a dedicated threat to discuss it. I think the class should be renamed in the final product.

A lot of people seem really dissatisfied with the lack of dedicated summoning abilities in the playtest summoner. I've heard it suggested in multiple discussion threads that they should get some kind of sommon monster focus spell, or even a "summon font" in-line with the divine font clerics have. Personally I'm against this idea because I think it eats up too much design space that I'd like to see reserved for the most interesting aspect of the class: the unique bond with the eidolon.

I do not blame people for coming away with this impression, because it makes sense. The class is called "the summoner," so why do I only get to summon one thing? Therefore, I propose a simple solution to this problem: don't call the class the summoner. I've heard suggestions for alternative names in the past, such as "binder" or "caller" or, my personal favorite, "invoker."

Mechanically, this would mean very little. I like that there are summoner class feats that play well with spells that summon creatures for those who like that kind of playstyle. I just think that being good at summoning creatures other than their eidolon should be something players should have to invest in instead of just getting for free as a consequence of the class' name.

Follow-up idea: what if "summoner" was a general archetype that any spellcasting class could take to get the kind of benefits players want from the "summoner" class?

No. The class has the iconic class feature that matches the 1E summoner in the Eidolon, and the class essentially has all the same core themes.

Nothing significant changed because of the action to call your eidolon being named "Manifest", and the shared hp and actions are essentially the exact same narrative concept as the original life link.

Plus, the class is almost certain to have additional summoning support on launch - as such abilities were intentionally excluded from the playtest due to them being known qualities.

The fact that the class isn't a carbon copy mechanically of the 1E summoner doesn't mean it doesn't have the exact same thematic bones - you just can't look at mechanics exclusively.

The fact that the class isn't a carbon copy mechanically of the 1E summoner doesn't mean it doesn't have the exact same thematic bones - you just can't look at mechanics exclusively.

LOL Until the class actually summons something better than a conjurer, I have a REALLY hard time calling it a summoner.

As far as "core themes" and "thematic bones", I'd argue it has much closer links to a Spiritualist than a Summoner. A Spiritualist manifests it's pet, Shared Consciousness, Etheric Tether [or take hp damage for pet], Bonded Senses... It also shared what is lacking too, like ANY ability to meaningfully summon anything outside it's limited spell slots. :P

its an eidolon master

and eidolon buddy

and eidey and sumo

but i agree, its more spiritualist.

I see it as more a Manifester or Invoker given the unique nature of the ediolon which is completely unlike most summoned creatures.

Unlike the pathfinder 1e their is no real focus on actual summoned creatures with the class and the eidolon no longer function anything at all like summoned creatures.

eidobro

No. The class has the iconic class feature that matches the 1E summoner in the Eidolon, and the class essentially has all the same core themes.

Nothing significant changed because of the action to call your eidolon being named "Manifest", and the shared hp and actions are essentially the exact same narrative concept as the original life link.

Plus, the class is almost certain to have additional summoning support on launch - as such abilities were intentionally excluded from the playtest due to them being known qualities.

The fact that the class isn't a carbon copy mechanically of the 1E summoner doesn't mean it doesn't have the exact same thematic bones - you just can't look at mechanics exclusively.

Summon 1e iconic features

I suppose 50/50 isn't terrible but the evolution points were by far the most memorable thing about playing a summoner.

eidolon master/trainer (eidolon uses dragon breath)

puppet master

but spiritualist works great.

KrispyXIV wrote:

No. The class has the iconic class feature that matches the 1E summoner in the Eidolon, and the class essentially has all the same core themes.

Nothing significant changed because of the action to call your eidolon being named "Manifest", and the shared hp and actions are essentially the exact same narrative concept as the original life link.

Plus, the class is almost certain to have additional summoning support on launch - as such abilities were intentionally excluded from the playtest due to them being known qualities.

The fact that the class isn't a carbon copy mechanically of the 1E summoner doesn't mean it doesn't have the exact same thematic bones - you just can't look at mechanics exclusively.

Summon 1e iconic features

Eidolon (check)
Summon Monster SLA (fail)
Casting (check)
Evolution Points (fail)

I suppose 50/50 isn't terrible but the evolution points were by far the most memorable thing about playing a summoner.

Evolution points were part of the Eidolon. The vast majority of their functionality still exists, as was broken down by Mark in the main thread.

Summon Monster support is almost certain to be in the final class - we know why it was excluded from the playtest.

Evolution points were part of the Eidolon.

And now it's part of the summoner which is a strike against it being alike.

The vast majority of their functionality still exists, as was broken down by Mark in the main thread.

We'll have to agree to disagree on "vast".

Summon Monster support is almost certain to be in the final class - we know why it was excluded from the playtest.

I'm not a cyber-mindreader or a precognitive so I'm not about to get into a debate on what might not be in the playtest IN a talk about the playtest. Even if there is some future support, we have NO idea in what way it will come in: looking at wizards and Augment Summoning doesn't fill me with confidence that even if it happens it will be in a form that I'll like and want to use.

So I don't see an issue with saying 'without a rework of abilities to actually summon something or injecting actual [and impactful] summoning abilities into it, the name summoner doesn't seem to apply. At the moment, even going by theme and feel, summoner isn't the closest class to the one we are currently playtesting IMO.

siegfriedliner wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

No. The class has the iconic class feature that matches the 1E summoner in the Eidolon, and the class essentially has all the same core themes.

Nothing significant changed because of the action to call your eidolon being named "Manifest", and the shared hp and actions are essentially the exact same narrative concept as the original life link.

Plus, the class is almost certain to have additional summoning support on launch - as such abilities were intentionally excluded from the playtest due to them being known qualities.

The fact that the class isn't a carbon copy mechanically of the 1E summoner doesn't mean it doesn't have the exact same thematic bones - you just can't look at mechanics exclusively.

Summon 1e iconic features

Eidolon (check)
Summon Monster SLA (fail)
Casting (check)
Evolution Points (fail)

I suppose 50/50 isn't terrible but the evolution points were by far the most memorable thing about playing a summoner.

Evolution points were part of the Eidolon. The vast majority of their functionality still exists, as was broken down by Mark in the main thread.

Summon Monster support is almost certain to be in the final class - we know why it was excluded from the playtest.

The pathfinder 1e eidolon was a highly modular build your own affair having several dozen distinct modular options and thousands of potential combinations of those. The pathfinder 2e eidolon is nothing like that. The massive bredth of customisation was the iconic feature of the summoner in 1e and the 2e variant is the palest of pale reflections in that regard.

The whole is class feels and plays nothing like the original.

The pathfinder 1e eidolon was a highly modular build your own affair having several dozen distinct modular options and thousands of potential combinations of those. The pathfinder 2e eidolon is nothing like that. The massive bredth of customisation was the iconic feature of the summoner in 1e and the 2e variant is the palest of pale reflections.

Mark laid out in the main thread how you could replicate almost every single evolution from 1E.

The intent is for you to use items, to use evolution feats, and for you to use description and narrative.

By forcing you to use things like items, the Summoner has to pay the same cost as everyone else for things like flaming attacks.

By limiting things like weapons to narrative and uniform choices, the Summoner doesn't have the option of powergaming and min maxing.

The class has been made the Summoner, but fair.

Making the class fair is the single most important thing they've attempted to do here.

Because that is what fixes the Summoner from 1E.

If your going to remove the eidolons tremendous customisation, if your going to turn it into a featless martial who can't even switch out their weapons why are you bothering. Your not building a summoner your just going through the motions.

If your going to remove the eidolons tremendous customisation, if your going to turn it into a featless martial who can't even switch out their weapons why are you bothering. Your not building a summoner your just going through the motions.

You keep pretending like you lost any customization in the translation.

Go find Marks post where he details how almost every single thing you used to be able to do is still doable.

You only lost Evolution Points.

The path to customization is just different, not gone.

siegfriedliner wrote:

If your going to remove the eidolons tremendous customisation, if your going to turn it into a featless martial who can't even switch out their weapons why are you bothering. Your not building a summoner your just going through the motions.

You keep pretending like you lost any customization in the translation.

Go find Marks post where he details how almost every single thing you used to be able to do is still doable.

You only lost Evolution Points.

The path to customization is just different, not gone.

i am actually fine with not having evolution points and all that.

but i ask, do you think buying consumables is customization? i consider it shoring up issues with the class or party composition. not customization.

KrispyXIV wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

If your going to remove the eidolons tremendous customisation, if your going to turn it into a featless martial who can't even switch out their weapons why are you bothering. Your not building a summoner your just going through the motions.

You keep pretending like you lost any customization in the translation.

Go find Marks post where he details how almost every single thing you used to be able to do is still doable.

You only lost Evolution Points.

The path to customization is just different, not gone.

i am actually fine with not having evolution points and all that.

but i ask, do you think buying consumables is customization? i consider it shoring up issues with the class or party composition. not customization.

I'm talking about getting elemental attacks and elemental resistances from items, such as your weapon and armor.

That sort of thing.

Martialmasters wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

If your going to remove the eidolons tremendous customisation, if your going to turn it into a featless martial who can't even switch out their weapons why are you bothering. Your not building a summoner your just going through the motions.

You keep pretending like you lost any customization in the translation.

Go find Marks post where he details how almost every single thing you used to be able to do is still doable.

You only lost Evolution Points.

The path to customization is just different, not gone.

i am actually fine with not having evolution points and all that.

but i ask, do you think buying consumables is customization? i consider it shoring up issues with the class or party composition. not customization.

I'm talking about getting elemental attacks and elemental resistances from items, such as your weapon and armor.

That sort of thing.

ahh ok.

The path to customization is just different, not gone.

The thing is, what you call customization isn't what others are and it's not just a matter of perception. Telling people they are "pretending like you lost any customization" isn't going to get you ANYWHERE as you aren't talking about the same thing: imagination and things any class can pick up aren't really eidolon specific customization points like they want. I personally wouldn't say they feel even close to each other.

Customizing what an eidolon can do isn't the same as actually customizing eidolon: it's like saying you are customizing your character only with equipment. While it's true, it's missing the point if someone wants want to pick stats, background, ancestry, ect and you say 'but you get to pick what weapon you use so you should be happy you can customize!!!...'.

"People can have the model T painted any color that he wants, so long as it is black." - Henry Ford

I just want the eidolon to be customizable enough to survive and contribute in my epics.

I hope that the eidolon gets some equivalent to a long/short bow because with the synergist you cant rely on the summoner's abilities.

with battles starting in the hundreds of feet with rivers of lava you can't rely on melee.

It's their class. So they can name it what they want. It was always a kind of weird mix of this eidolon creature and actual summons.

I was mostly happy to play a pet class with a powerful creature under my control to attack things. It's a fun concept.

I think it is very hard to transition this particular class to PF2 with its heavy focus on balance. The summoner was not a very well-balanced class. Neither was the Magus. Both were power GISH classes in PF1 with some powerful builds.

The Magus was all about using a large crit range weapon like a scimitar and hitting with some lower level attack spell like shocking grasp for huge magical crits. Not real doable in PF2.

The summoner was about building a powerful creature with an ok summoner and have some insanely tough elements like high AC, large number of multiple attacks, and building up its hit points. Or making some crazy synthesist dumping physical stats and building up your AC and attacks. It was like having powered armor.

PF2 is focused on balanced play. The Summoner and Magus were focused on extreme, focused very powerful abilities. The Summoner was no god wizard, but his eidolon could get nutty with buffs and the like. The Magus was no god wizard, but he could do some crazy damage spell crits that could end monsters quickly.

Hard to capture that in PF2, especially if you're not willing to let the power levels rise above some of the core classes. They don't seem willing to do that. Casting has some severe throttles on it and the summoner and magus have even more throttles that will make it extremely difficult for them to be successful against the types of monsters they are making in APs as boss monsters.

They'll do fine against mooks. But when you have end monsters with 50 plus ACs meant to challenge fighters, barbarians, and saves to stand up to Legendary casting, being only a Master in casting with the MAD (multiple ability dependence) problem, you're going to see severe weaknesses in the most important fights.

It's why summoned creatures aren't viable in boss fights right now. They are so far behind the players that their attack rolls and saves DCs have very little chance of harming Challenge+2 creatures much less higher than that. The eidolon is more viable, but not using summoned creatures to support it. Magus casting is so weak that Challenge+0 to +2 creatures are higher level will mostly laugh off their spells or the spells will miss.

They'll do fine against mooks. But when you have end monsters with 50 plus ACs meant to challenge fighters, barbarians, and saves to stand up to Legendary casting, being only a Master in casting with the MAD (multiple ability dependence) problem, you're going to see severe weaknesses in the most important fights.

It's why summoned creatures aren't viable in boss fights right now. They are so far behind the players that their attack rolls and saves DCs have very little chance of harming Challenge+2 creatures much less higher than that. The eidolon is more viable, but not using summoned creatures to support it. Magus casting is so weak that Challenge+0 to +2 creatures are higher level will mostly laugh off their spells or the spells will miss.

This is the sort of posting I was hoping to see more of. I'm currently testing the classes in a Play-By-Post format (because of, y'know, the everything) and have been getting my data slowly. While I haven't seen these issues, I am very much happy to see people reporting things that aren't knee-jerk reactions.

No. The class has the iconic class feature that matches the 1E summoner in the Eidolon, and the class essentially has all the same core themes.

Nothing significant changed because of the action to call your eidolon being named "Manifest", and the shared hp and actions are essentially the exact same narrative concept as the original life link.

This doesn't actually address my points. The only change I think is significant enough to warrant a new name is the lack of innate summon monster spells, which I am totally fine with. I think the class is better without them, but if they go that direction, they should drop the name to better set player expectations.

If you're arguing that the class should keep the same name only because that's what it was called in 1e, to that I say that there is president, your honor. The paladin was expanded in scope and renamed as the champion. By that same token, the summoner can be contracted in scope and renamed as the invoker.

Plus, the class is almost certain to have additional summoning support on launch - as such abilities were intentionally excluded from the playtest due to them being known qualities.

I'm going to need a source for this. It seems unlikely that they would cut a significant 1e class feature from 1e from the playtest.

The fact that the class isn't a carbon copy mechanically of the 1E summoner doesn't mean it doesn't have the exact same thematic bones - you just can't look at mechanics exclusively.

I don't understand this line. Can you rephrase this for me?

KrispyXIV wrote:

No. The class has the iconic class feature that matches the 1E summoner in the Eidolon, and the class essentially has all the same core themes.

Nothing significant changed because of the action to call your eidolon being named "Manifest", and the shared hp and actions are essentially the exact same narrative concept as the original life link.

This doesn't actually address my points. The only change I think is significant enough to warrant a new name is the lack of innate summon monster spells, which I am totally fine with. I think the class is better without them, but if they go that direction, they should drop the name to better set player expectations.

KrispyXIV wrote:

Plus, the class is almost certain to have additional summoning support on launch - as such abilities were intentionally excluded from the playtest due to them being known qualities.

I'm going to need a source for this. It seems unlikely that they would cut a significant 1e class feature from 1e from the playtest.

Forgot the exact post but gist is they cut out summoning from the playtest on purpose because they wanted to focus on the eidolon.

I.e. "We know how summoning functions in the encounter space, but want to see about this new mechanic."

I'm imagining a bunch of playtest summoners not engaging with the main thing they wanted to test and giving feedback on things they already know would work.

Forgot the exact post but gist is they cut out summoning from the playtest on purpose because they wanted to focus on the eidolon.

It seems odd to remove a summoning ability and them keep feats like Disrupting Summoning Spell and Boost Summons that require summoning to test: it's hard to answer the survey question on of the power of feats if the ability that synergizes with some of those feats is missing... If the class has a summoning font and/or focus summoning then feats like Disrupting Summoning Spell and Boost Summons look FAR better than if you have to use one of your 4 slots to use those feats.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

They'll do fine against mooks. But when you have end monsters with 50 plus ACs meant to challenge fighters, barbarians, and saves to stand up to Legendary casting, being only a Master in casting with the MAD (multiple ability dependence) problem, you're going to see severe weaknesses in the most important fights.

It's why summoned creatures aren't viable in boss fights right now. They are so far behind the players that their attack rolls and saves DCs have very little chance of harming Challenge+2 creatures much less higher than that. The eidolon is more viable, but not using summoned creatures to support it. Magus casting is so weak that Challenge+0 to +2 creatures are higher level will mostly laugh off their spells or the spells will miss.

This is the sort of posting I was hoping to see more of. I'm currently testing the classes in a Play-By-Post format (because of, y'know, the everything) and have been getting my data slowly. While I haven't seen these issues, I am very much happy to see people reporting things that aren't knee-jerk reactions.

Contrary to how I am sometimes characterized on these forums, I have been DMing, writing house rules, and playing these games going on 35 years now. Though I do appreciate role-playing and work in non-combat mechanics as is expected, me and my group are heavily focused on combat mechanics. As a DM I focus heavily on combat mechanics because as you likely know, the DM has to know combat mechanics better than the players.

It's easy to see that monster design is based around a certain expected level of math. I don't mind this as that is how balance goes. But if you're going to design around a certain setpoint of math, then for some reason use summon monster spells five levels or more behind the creatures they are fighting the design is setting up a recipe for failure.

I'm thinking of a few ways to work around as five or more levels behind on damage should be the balancing factor, so I'm thinking of a few ways to make this work:

A status bonus to hit of +2 or +3 would work. The average to hit of a lvl 15 creature summoned by a 10th level spell is +30. So +32 to 33 to hit with likely flanking on a AC of 45 to 50 at 19th level seems about right. That would make the first attack of each round hit on a 10 to 11 against a 45 and 15 to 16 against AC 50 to do around 3d plus 10 or 15 damage.

Monsters focusing on a summoned creature will rip it apart quick and easily with likely crits.

I feel it would be balanced as a sustained spell.

We haven't seen what they plan for the Master Summoner. So maybe this is in the works.

Sagiam wrote:

Forgot the exact post but gist is they cut out summoning from the playtest on purpose because they wanted to focus on the eidolon.

It seems odd to remove a summoning ability and them keep feats like Disrupting Summoning Spell and Boost Summons that require summoning to test: it's hard to answer the survey question on of the power of feats if the ability that synergizes with some of those feats is missing... If the class has a summoning font and/or focus summoning then feats like Disrupting Summoning Spell and Boost Summons look FAR better than if you have to use one of your 4 slots to use those feats.

Maybe they are for the Master Summoner.

It seems for me that the Mark, the designer, intended to have a summoner support his eidolon with summons. I highly support this idea as I think it is very cool. I would definitely play that type of character.

As it is right now I do not think the class allows for this playstyle as anything less than level 10 summons won't work at lvl 19 and 20. They specifically made summons to be useful only in the top slots. And even then moderately useful as long as the monster doesn't decide to rip your summons apart.

It's a great idea. I hope Mark builds this in. It's the one play style that if implemented well in the final release that I'll play even if the eidolon is a little boring.

No. The class has the iconic class feature that matches the 1E summoner in the Eidolon, and the class essentially has all the same core themes.

Nothing significant changed because of the action to call your eidolon being named "Manifest", and the shared hp and actions are essentially the exact same narrative concept as the original life link.

There is a fair bit in common. But shared hit points is a massive change, and a brand new set of rules headaches.

Hit point sharing used to be optional.

The theme is busted.

I mean maybe this is due to my love of final fantasy 10 to an unhealthy degree, but a summoner calling on just one big extradimentional monster sounds exactly like what a summoner should be doing to me. Conjurer already exists to focus on summoning minions and I certanly dont want a return of master summoner vomiting up a swarm of tokens onto the play mat and slowing combat to a crawl. Instead focusing on the kind of summoning that only the summoner can do seems the right way forward.

Now consession the fact that they can never get level 10 summons is a bit ick, a potential solution would be a focus metamagic or something similer that allows you to heighten a summon spell 1 level above the slot you used to cast it, no idea how it would be worded though as "summon spell" is not a game term.

graystone wrote:

Sagiam wrote:

Forgot the exact post but gist is they cut out summoning from the playtest on purpose because they wanted to focus on the eidolon.

It seems odd to remove a summoning ability and them keep feats like Disrupting Summoning Spell and Boost Summons that require summoning to test: it's hard to answer the survey question on of the power of feats if the ability that synergizes with some of those feats is missing... If the class has a summoning font and/or focus summoning then feats like Disrupting Summoning Spell and Boost Summons look FAR better than if you have to use one of your 4 slots to use those feats.

Maybe they are for the Master Summoner.

It seems for me that the Mark, the designer, intended to have a summoner support his eidolon with summons. I highly support this idea as I think it is very cool. I would definitely play that type of character.

It would make the class play 100% differently and I'd likely have a much better outlook on it in that case. And I have to wonder HOW such an ability fits into the already limited action budget the summoner has with boost/reinforce/tandem actions: it's something that seems like it'd need playtesting... :P

It should not be called something else.... they just need to bolt on the rest of the Class Features that they seem to have intentionally left OFF the Playtest that they felt are in a good-way in order to make them actually fulfill the role they're supposed to play, namely, actually Summoning things.

The Summoning Font is missing, I am confident by-design as I suspect what Paizo needed was for us to test Chassis of the Eidolon only without any meaningful customization. The Font and Evolution Customization are almost certainly done and being tested internally since what they really needed help with was to find out how the Action Economy works and how well people liked the new Subtype-Choice system that's akin to the Unchained Eidolon but without any bells or whistles.

It should not be called something else.... they just need to bolt on the rest of the Class Features that they seem to have intentionally left OFF the Playtest that they felt are in a good-way in order to make them actually fulfill the role they're supposed to play, namely, actually Summoning things.

The Summoning Font is missing, I am confident by-design as I suspect what Paizo needed was for us to test Chassis of the Eidolon only without any meaningful customization. The Font and Evolution Customization are almost certainly done and being tested internally since what they really needed help with was to find out how the Action Economy works and how well people liked the new Subtype-Choice system that's akin to the Unchained Eidolon but without any bells or whistles.

I am not sure on what they are working us. I only know what they have asked ua to playtest. Not having the rest of the core abilities of the class to playtest skrews the results. Since it introduces things that were not tested.

How does the action system interact with the font given that you share actions with the Eidolon? What problems does it cause? Are the evolutions they are working on have more customization, or is it more of the same bottlenecked and lame feats? We dont know, and that is the problem. Playtesting with the idea that they will add more does not help the fact this feels and plays horrible.

No. The class Summons an Eidolon. Summoner is both correct and good.

The class Summons an Eidolon.

That is factually incorrect: it in fact goes out of it's way to make it clear it in no way summons it Eidolon: "Your eidolon doesn’t have the summoned or minion trait, but the conduit that allows them to manifest is also a tether between you."

Squeakmaan wrote:

The class Summons an Eidolon.

That is factually incorrect: it in fact goes out of it's way to make it clear it in no way summons it Eidolon: "Your eidolon doesn’t have the summoned or minion trait, but the conduit that allows them to manifest is also a tether between you."

Summoning is as narrative a concept as it is mechanical, and there are mechanical reasons for these mechanical issues.

The Summoned and Minion traits have mechanical baggage, inappropriate for the Eidolon.

The name of the "Manifest" action isn't really relevant.

The Summoner clearly fits the narrative description of Summoning a powerful creature.

It's an extra-planar being I'm bringing to the material plane. That's summoning, that it isn't hampered in the same way that other summoned creatures are because the summoner is better at summoning is the opposite of a problem.

Summoning is as narrative a concept as it is mechanical, and there are mechanical reasons for these mechanical issues.

It stopped being narrative when it became a trait: it's a specific term within the game with a specific meaning within it.

The Summoned and Minion traits have mechanical baggage, inappropriate for the Eidolon.

True, which is why they manifest it, which is what the PF1 Spiritualist did.

The name of the "Manifest" action isn't really relevant.

It's only relevant it determining if the statement was correct or not: If you don't care if you're being factual, sure you can pretend it doesn't matter. Words have meaning, especially when specifically defined in a specific context: in PF2, Summoning has a meaning different than "Manifest".

The Summoner clearly fits the narrative description of Summoning a powerful creature.

It has a similar narrative description, sure. A dolphin looks similar to a shark but that doesn't mean it's a fish... Manifesting being similar to a summoning doesn't make them the same.

It's an extra-planar being I'm bringing to the material plane.

Are you? *looks at PDF* maybe you should check out the PDF: extra-planar is NOT a requirement just by looking at Beast; "Home Plane Material Plane".

That's summoning, that it isn't hampered in the same way that other summoned creatures are because the summoner is better at summoning is the opposite of a problem.

SO it's summoning but it just does absolutely nothing like summoning except making a creature appear? Sure, makes total sense... :P Agree to disagree as I can say the same thing about teleportation: 'it totally does the same thing without the limitations of summoning'.

Finishers being a special martial trait/concept/theme that the swashbuckler is unique in accessing didn't exist until it did.

Manifesting as a special trait/concept/theme linked to a special kind of advanced summoning only a summoner gets access to didn't exist until it did.

It's clearly still summoning, they just get a special phrase because it is unique to them, like finishers are to swashbucklers.

(Or pick any other special traits/concepts/themes certain classes get access to that others don't - the same idea still applies.)

I mean maybe this is due to my love of final fantasy 10 to an unhealthy degree, but a summoner calling on just one big extradimentional monster sounds exactly like what a summoner should be doing to me. Conjurer already exists to focus on summoning minions and I certanly dont want a return of master summoner vomiting up a swarm of tokens onto the play mat and slowing combat to a crawl. Instead focusing on the kind of summoning that only the summoner can do seems the right way forward.

Now consession the fact that they can never get level 10 summons is a bit ick, a potential solution would be a focus metamagic or something similer that allows you to heighten a summon spell 1 level above the slot you used to cast it, no idea how it would be worded though as "summon spell" is not a game term.

Except summoning minions isn't a good option even with the overly weak augment summons. I think some of us are hoping the summoner class makes summoning a good option. They have some abilities like boost summons a good step in that direction. Really, summons need an accuracy boost given they are so far behind the enemies you fight. Their damage for a sustained spell is mostly adequate, but their accuracy is very suspect.

Kekkres wrote:

I mean maybe this is due to my love of final fantasy 10 to an unhealthy degree, but a summoner calling on just one big extradimentional monster sounds exactly like what a summoner should be doing to me. Conjurer already exists to focus on summoning minions and I certanly dont want a return of master summoner vomiting up a swarm of tokens onto the play mat and slowing combat to a crawl. Instead focusing on the kind of summoning that only the summoner can do seems the right way forward.

Now consession the fact that they can never get level 10 summons is a bit ick, a potential solution would be a focus metamagic or something similer that allows you to heighten a summon spell 1 level above the slot you used to cast it, no idea how it would be worded though as "summon spell" is not a game term.

Except summoning minions isn't a good option even with the overly weak augment summons. I think some of us are hoping the summoner class makes summoning a good option. They have some abilities like boost summons a good step in that direction. Really, summons need an accuracy boost given they are so far behind the enemies you fight. Their damage for a sustained spell is mostly adequate, but their accuracy is very suspect.

This is absolutely a valid concern.

I still think allowing your Summoned Creatures to use your spell attack roll is a simple, easy implementation that solves this issue.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

graystone wrote:

Sagiam wrote:

Forgot the exact post but gist is they cut out summoning from the playtest on purpose because they wanted to focus on the eidolon.

It seems odd to remove a summoning ability and them keep feats like Disrupting Summoning Spell and Boost Summons that require summoning to test: it's hard to answer the survey question on of the power of feats if the ability that synergizes with some of those feats is missing... If the class has a summoning font and/or focus summoning then feats like Disrupting Summoning Spell and Boost Summons look FAR better than if you have to use one of your 4 slots to use those feats.

Maybe they are for the Master Summoner.

It seems for me that the Mark, the designer, intended to have a summoner support his eidolon with summons. I highly support this idea as I think it is very cool. I would definitely play that type of character.

It would make the class play 100% differently and I'd likely have a much better outlook on it in that case. And I have to wonder HOW such an ability fits into the already limited action budget the summoner has with boost/reinforce/tandem actions: it's something that seems like it'd need playtesting... :P

I've play-tested this a few times. It works well if you use the 1/3 action change Mark was talking about implementing. It really makes you feel like a summoner commanding powerful creatures. It also makes the shared MAP penalty obsolete or a part of the summoned creature, since it's level is lowered.

Your round looks like the following after engaging in combat:

1. Act Together: Boost eidolon and summons, then attack

2. Sustain summon gaining 2 actions for the summoned creature.

3. Last action attack again or do something else like intimidate.

I found it fun. It gave flexibility in using your eidolon and a summoned creature in conjunction. It gave you a total of five actions to do interesting things with. It allowed you to choose monsters for different jobs.

Right now there is no class that can use summoned monsters well. If this is the class that makes summoned creatures a very effective, preferable strategy, that alone would make me want to play the class even with the issues I currently have with it.

I'm hoping Mark really develops the summoned creature strategy as a very important part of a summoner that they can use more effectively than other classes. Right now it isn't an optimal strategy without access to level 10 summons eventually and an accuracy boost of some kind.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Kekkres wrote:

I mean maybe this is due to my love of final fantasy 10 to an unhealthy degree, but a summoner calling on just one big extradimentional monster sounds exactly like what a summoner should be doing to me. Conjurer already exists to focus on summoning minions and I certanly dont want a return of master summoner vomiting up a swarm of tokens onto the play mat and slowing combat to a crawl. Instead focusing on the kind of summoning that only the summoner can do seems the right way forward.

Now consession the fact that they can never get level 10 summons is a bit ick, a potential solution would be a focus metamagic or something similer that allows you to heighten a summon spell 1 level above the slot you used to cast it, no idea how it would be worded though as "summon spell" is not a game term.

Except summoning minions isn't a good option even with the overly weak augment summons. I think some of us are hoping the summoner class makes summoning a good option. They have some abilities like boost summons a good step in that direction. Really, summons need an accuracy boost given they are so far behind the enemies you fight. Their damage for a sustained spell is mostly adequate, but their accuracy is very suspect.

This is absolutely a valid concern.

I still think allowing your Summoned Creatures to use your spell attack roll is a simple, easy implementation that solves this issue.

Let me see. Your spell attack roll at lvl 20 would be +33 versus the average creature Challenge 15 summoned by a lvl 10 summon would be +30. That might work if it maintains at Master. That would be about the same as adding a status bonus of +2 to +3 to boost summons.

So if they created a summon font with the added rule that the summons use your spell attack roll or their hit roll, whichever is higher, then that would make summons a more effective strategy. That might be a good fix.

I might actually use that as a house rule for summons or at least test it. Might even make the wizard conjuration specialist more effective using summoned monsters. At the highest level a wizard conjurer would provide summoned creatures +35 attack roll. Or maybe I could make Augment Summoning work that way. When you Augment Summon, you use your spell attack roll in place of attack rolls. Makes sure the Conjuration focused wizard is the master of using summoned creature amongst wizards.

Wouldn't it be easier to just fix summons and then make summoner extra good at them? There's several notable things in the game that are still poorly balanced, we can only hope they get fixed, introducing a class whose mechanic is the fix, is a terrible idea to me.

Manifesting as a special trait/concept/theme linked to a special kind of advanced summoning only a summoner gets access to didn't exist until it did.

But it really, really isn't summoning.

It's clearly still summoning

Excepts the the many, many many it clearly isn't... 'it's JUST like summoning except, this... and that... oh, and that is different... and...' :P

(Or pick any other special traits/concepts/themes certain classes get access to that others don't - the same idea still applies.)

Sure, but to use your example, Finishers aren't Strikes because words have meaning even though they might share a similar theme. Words actually have meaning.

1. Act Together: Boost eidolon and summons, then attack

I'm missing something. How did you spend that many actions?

2. Sustain summon gaining 2 actions for the summoned creature.

3. Last action attack again or do something else like intimidate.

I'm confused here too. Are these next round? Are you boosting, sustaining, and attacking with the Eidolon? Are you ignoring Reinforce?

I don't care if the summoner summons their eidolon or manifests them or whatever. The issue is that by calling the class "summoner" players expect them to be the best class at all summoning magic, just like how the investigator is the best at investigating.

It should not be called something else.... they just need to bolt on the rest of the Class Features that they seem to have intentionally left OFF the Playtest that they felt are in a good-way in order to make them actually fulfill the role they're supposed to play, namely, actually Summoning things.

The Summoning Font is missing, I am confident by-design as I suspect what Paizo needed was for us to test Chassis of the Eidolon only without any meaningful customization. The Font and Evolution Customization are almost certainly done and being tested internally since what they really needed help with was to find out how the Action Economy works and how well people liked the new Subtype-Choice system that's akin to the Unchained Eidolon but without any bells or whistles.

It's possible your suspicions are correct, but I'd still really like to see a source for this myself.

Maybe they could do something like they did with Champion/Paladin. Then, Spiritualist would be the name of the class as a whole. The subclass that focuses on summoning lots of monsters would be the Summoner. The subclass that focuses on teamwork with the eidolon (in other words, what we are playtesting now) would have some other name.

GameDesignerDM wrote:

Manifesting as a special trait/concept/theme linked to a special kind of advanced summoning only a summoner gets access to didn't exist until it did.

But it really, really isn't summoning.

GameDesignerDM wrote:

It's clearly still summoning

Excepts the the many, many many it clearly isn't... 'it's JUST like summoning except, this... and that... oh, and that is different... and...' :P

GameDesignerDM wrote:

(Or pick any other special traits/concepts/themes certain classes get access to that others don't - the same idea still applies.)

Sure, but to use your example, Finishers aren't Strikes because words have meaning even though they might share a similar theme. Words actually have meaning.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

1. Act Together: Boost eidolon and summons, then attack

I'm missing something. How did you spend that many actions?

Boost eidolon [1 action], Summon [3 actions] is more actions than you have. I don't recall what Mark talked about giving you MORE actions than 3/creature.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

2. Sustain summon gaining 2 actions for the summoned creature.

3. Last action attack again or do something else like intimidate.

I'm confused here too. Are these next round? Are you boosting, sustaining, and attacking with the Eidolon? Are you ignoring Reinforce?

Yes. The next round.

Your initial round would be:

Act Together: Use 3 actions for summoner and 1 action for eidolon likely to move into battle.

Your 3 actions to summon creature giving summoned creature 2 actions to move and attack.

That is round 1 with no boost. Then after that you spend most of your time manipulating and boosting your eidolon and summoned creature as needed.

I found it fun. You can pick different summons and see how they work.

This strategy using my highest level slot worked well enough against Challenge+0 creatures.

Against Challenge+2 creatures it was very ineffective as the summoned monsters accuracy and spell/ability DCs were too low to be a credible threat to a Challenge+2 creature. My creature missed every round even with flanking. It needed a 16 to 18 to hit the AC even with flanking. Summoned creature accuracy even using your highest level spell slots against a Challenge+2 creature boss monster is a very real issue.

Yes. The next round.

Your initial round would be:

Act Together: Use 3 actions for summoner and 1 action for eidolon likely to move into battle.

Your 3 actions to summon creature giving summoned creature 2 actions to move and attack.

That is round 1 with no boost. Then after that you spend most of your time manipulating and boosting your eidolon and summoned creature as needed.

I found it fun. You can pick different summons and see how they work.

This strategy using my highest level slot worked well enough against Challenge+0 creatures.

Against Challenge+2 creatures it was very ineffective as the summoned monsters...

Ok, I understand now. I tried this without Act together the 1st round and didn't find it very satisfying. I found that I wanted to Boost every round along with Reinforce to keep up damage and survivability then adding in Sustain only left the eidolon with a single attack. The summons are hit and miss IMO, especially on some spell lists which makes it an inconsistent tactic.

This is why I'd hoped to see the class [or a subclass of it] lean into summoning and shore up the summoning abilities to make the spells a bit more interesting/useful to use.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Yes. The next round.

Your initial round would be:

Act Together: Use 3 actions for summoner and 1 action for eidolon likely to move into battle.

Your 3 actions to summon creature giving summoned creature 2 actions to move and attack.

That is round 1 with no boost. Then after that you spend most of your time manipulating and boosting your eidolon and summoned creature as needed.

I found it fun. You can pick different summons and see how they work.

This strategy using my highest level slot worked well enough against Challenge+0 creatures.

Against Challenge+2 creatures it was very ineffective as the summoned monsters...

Ok, I understand now. I tried this without Act together the 1st round and didn't find it very satisfying. I found that I wanted to Boost every round along with Reinforce to keep up damage and survivability then adding in Sustain only left the eidolon with a single attack. The summons are hit and miss IMO, especially on some spell lists which makes it an inconsistent tactic.

This is why I'd hoped to see the class [or a subclass of it] lean into summoning and shore up the summoning abilities to make the spells a bit more interesting/useful to use.

That is likely what they will do. This class has to be driving the design team a little wonky. It's real hard to balance all these elements nicely given the summoner was always this summoner with a little casting ability and this highly customizable martial creature that hammered things.

The sustain requirement for spells pretty much limits any kind of Master Summoner, which was nice. But at the same time they have to figure out how to make summoned creatures effective to use in the toughest battles.

I think the Magus is much easier to balance than the summoner. I'm waiting to see what ideas they work into a new iteration.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Yes. The next round.

Your initial round would be:

Act Together: Use 3 actions for summoner and 1 action for eidolon likely to move into battle.

Your 3 actions to summon creature giving summoned creature 2 actions to move and attack.

That is round 1 with no boost. Then after that you spend most of your time manipulating and boosting your eidolon and summoned creature as needed.

I found it fun. You can pick different summons and see how they work.

This strategy using my highest level slot worked well enough against Challenge+0 creatures.

Against Challenge+2 creatures it was very ineffective as the summoned monsters...

Ok, I understand now. I tried this without Act together the 1st round and didn't find it very satisfying. I found that I wanted to Boost every round along with Reinforce to keep up damage and survivability then adding in Sustain only left the eidolon with a single attack. The summons are hit and miss IMO, especially on some spell lists which makes it an inconsistent tactic.

This is why I'd hoped to see the class [or a subclass of it] lean into summoning and shore up the summoning abilities to make the spells a bit more interesting/useful to use.

Especially the Occult list. Half the time? with both undead and fey it's by far the best list for summons. the other half of the time it's maybe the worst. All three of their summon spells are very hit and miss, when they hit they really hit, but they only hit for a level or two, and every other level or so you only have absolute trash.