Secrets of Magic Playtest Aftermath

Monday, November 2, 2020

Hi, folks! Logan here. We’ve had some time to look over the survey results and messageboard posts after the Secrets of Magic playtest concluded, and had team discussions about potential changes ahead. Thanks to everyone who participated in the playtest, playing characters, finding problems, taking surveys, and giving feedback! We wanted to give you a bit of an idea of the direction we’re looking at taking the magus and summoner for the final book. Not everything here is set in stone, though. We still have rewrites to do, more internal conversations to have, and additional data to look at. There are also hundreds of little things we’ll be changing, from individual feats to story elements—this blog is just hitting the main points. And, hey, if you stick around to the end of the blog, we have an extra treat for you!

Sketch of a pale male half-elf with white hair. He wears ornate robes and carries a sword in one hand. Magical fire dances in his other hand.

Seltyiel, the iconic magus, sketch by Wayne Reynolds

Magus

Much of the feedback on the magus indicated that it felt too restrictive and too random. The class could be quite powerful, but required really specific play patterns and choices to get there. We don’t want a class that can do a huge nova attack if you stack your true strikes correctly but isn’t satisfying for doing much else. Our focus for further magus development will be adding more varied strategies, making the action economy less difficult to deal with, and giving more clear paths to build toward what you want your magus to do.

Striking Spell: This ability, unsurprisingly, was the focus of much of the conversation from the playtest. In surveys, it was rated as being interesting, but not powerful enough. It was also rated as being difficult to understand. Players noted that it could be frustrating to spend your whole turn casting a Striking Spell spell, then miss with the Strike. Even having more chances at it didn’t take out the sting of needing to wait for another turn to try again. Often, even if the spell came off later, the magus had missed enough opportunities that it didn’t seem worth it.


Making changes to Striking Spell won’t be straightforward, and we still need to do a lot of experiments to find something that’s fully satisfying. One of the major drivers for the playtest version was making it highly flexible to allow for using a wide variety of spells (compared to, say, Eldritch Shot) and let you use your stored spell with other abilities (like Flurry of Blows or Power Attack). Ultimately, these came at the expense of having a straightforward, solid special ability that was dependable. And it also meant that many paths to doing cool things required multiclassing, which leaves the class itself feeling lackluster.

We know for sure that we want to restructure the action to make its presentation clearer. We’re also going away from using a special benefit that relies on a critical hit, as that led to the ability feeling too random and giving too strong an incentive to load up on true strike and put all your eggs in one basket. For actual effects of the ability, there are a lot of options on the table, such as having a stored spell with a spell attack roll not increase your multiple attack penalty, or going a bit farther and using the same roll for your Strike and spell (similar to Eldritch Shot), or having some type of buff you gain while you have a stored spell so you don’t necessarily want to use it right away. Some changes might require Striking Spell to no longer be at-will, so using it is a more impactful moment rather than repetitive. Lowering its frequency, of course, requires some other tools to give your other turns that magus flavor. We’re still workshopping ideas on that front.

Spells: The spell progression for magus has a total of four slots maximum. We knew the spell progression would also be a major topic of discussion. Players were pretty divided among which path to take, with about 40% of survey respondents happy with the playtest path, and a wide variety of opinions about alternatives with no clear victor. One of the common notes we saw was that the four slots didn’t allow for many interesting or fun utility spells, but that the Martial Caster feat brought some back in. To that end, we’re looking at adding a class feature similar to Martial Casting around 7th level. That will link to our next topic...

Magus Synthesis: Much of the discussion about the magus suggested slide casting felt like a mandatory pick. In the surveys, while slide casting was chosen the most, the selections were much more varied than we expected. And beyond that, shooting star had the best numbers on the “fun scale.” With the intention to make the action economy of Striking Spell more player-friendly, we also want to make the synthesis options more distinctly focused on certain playstyles rather than one appearing like a mandatory choice for action economy purposes. There will likely be more syntheses coming, too, as we add options for the final book.

We intend to give more of a story hook to syntheses, since they’re currently a bit dry compared to similar options in other classes. These will likely also come with some extra benefits that give a bit of a leg up to certain playstyles, such as adding more spells to your spellbook or influencing what you get from the Martial Caster benefit, as noted above. We’re also planning to change the name to avoid confusion with the summoner, who has had a synthesis option since 1st Edition. Finally, we heard you when you said Raise a Tome doesn’t work with the syntheses, and will be fixing that.

Spell Proficiency: This part is pretty straightforward. It was noted that the magus has a slower spell attack roll and spell DC progression than the champion or monk can get with their focus spells. The magus will be getting a faster progression.

Battle Spells: The magus potency spell wasn’t that popular. People have been asking for a special attack spell as a focus spell instead, particularly a 1-action spell. We had avoided that for two reasons: first, if the spell is strong, fights can end up really repetitive, and second, we had intended for cantrip choice and their use to be an important part of playing a magus. Cantrips ended up not feeling like a good enough value to be worth using with Striking Spell, though. The battle spell will be changing from magus potency, but the specifics aren’t settled yet. It might be an attack spell with a Striking Spell benefit; it might be based on your synthesis if those would benefit from being differentiated in this way—this depends a lot on how the rest of the class shakes out and we won’t have a clear answer for a while yet.

And now I’ll turn this over to Mark to talk about the summoner!

Sketch of a dark-skinned human girl, wearing mage’s robes. She gestures to her eidolon, a dragon several feet taller than her.

New iconic summoner and her dragon, sketch by Wayne Reynolds

Summoner

Hi everyone, Mark Seifter here for a post-playtest report for the summoner class. First of all, thanks to everyone who participated in the summoner playtest, running games, posting playtest results and analysis, answering surveys, and more! The summoner class had quite a bit of online interaction this time around, and there were a lot of interesting and cogent discussions with many good points made by folks with differing opinions.

Overall people really liked the summoner, with the second highest overall approval after the swashbuckler, but there were also some pitfalls, from small to moderate, that people were looking to see fixed, and they all interact in different ways, which makes it a little harder than for the magus to go into great detail on what changes will happen. Finding a fix for a new issue might require revisiting our decision for one we had an idea of how to solve.


Main Takeaways: Some outcomes are clear. We’re strongly leaning toward changing Act Together to a variable-action activity, allowing either the summoner or eidolon to use a 1-, 2-, or 3-action activity and the other to use a single action. The summoner will be getting proficiency increases to spell attack roll and spell DC sooner, just like the magus. We also want to allow more customization of your eidolon at 1st level without loading up too many choices to make, so we’re leaning towards more evolutions being available at 1st level and giving you a free evolution to choose from at 1st level. We’re also looking into a few other avenues to potentially increase versatility—but there’s an upper limit on how complex the class can be, so there’s likely to be a process where we add and subtract things until we’re satisfied. As such, I don’t want to get too specific in case it changes.

Eidolon Types: We plan to increase from the four eidolon types presented here to between eight and 10 eidolon types in the final version. Expect them to be chosen from among the ranks of the eidolon types mentioned, but not presented, in the playtest, such as fey and demon eidolons.

Spellcasting: One issue that had a lot of discussion was how to handle spellcasting, whether to keep it the same, remove spell slots for other options like eidolon abilities or focus spells, increase spell slots and weaken the eidolon’s offense, or take a different approach. Based on the plurality of responses in favor of keeping the spellcasting the way it currently works, we are leaning towards that option. We’ve seen some positive playtest results with regards to diverse spell selection and usage.

Synthesis: There was a lot of feedback on the Synthesis feat that allowed you to merge with your eidolon; it was popular but many folks said that being an option you choose each time you Manifest rather than mandatory didn’t fulfill the fantasy and that the ability to use both options caused it to have quite a few restrictions it might not need otherwise. Right now we are leaning towards changing the feat’s name and flavor to be clear that it is meant for an optional ability, and then make the synthesist a class archetype in a later book, with trade-offs based around having only the option to merge with the eidolon, not to Manifest it normally.

Incarnate Spell Preview

That’s a lot to read, so let’s finish things off with a preview of a new type of “mega summoning” wherein you summon a powerful thematic creature that sticks around briefly and has a big impact! This is still early in the process, so any elements of this, including names, might still change. And because this is just a preview, don’t go trying to use this in Pathfinder Society! Though if I were your home GM and you gave me some cookies, I’d allow it, personally.

Incarnate Trait

A spell with the incarnate trait operates as follows, rather than conjuring a minion with the summoned trait and allowing you to direct its actions. When summoned, the incarnate creature takes its Arrive action. At the end of your next turn, the summoned creature can either Step, Stride, or take the action for another movement type it has (such as Climb or Burrow), and then takes its Depart action. Then the spell ends.

An incarnate spell directs its effects away from you and your allies as much as possible. The incarnate spell’s effect is not quite a creature. It can’t take any other actions, nor can it be targeted or harmed by Strikes, spells, or other effects unless they would be able to target or end a spell effect (such as dispel magic). It has a size for the purposes of determining its placement for effects, but does not block movement. If applicable, its effects use your spell DCs and spell attack roll modifier.

Summon Vengeful Dead — Spell 7

Incarnate, Necromancy

Traditions divine, occult
Cast [three-actions] material, somatic, verbal
Range 100 feet
Duration until the end of your next turn
You channel the forces of undeath to briefly call forth an amalgam of the vengeful dead slain by your enemies and allies alike. This amalgam manifests as a large tornado of insubstantial, howling faces. It occupies the space of a Huge creature and has a Speed of 60 feet.

Arrive (negative) All enemy creatures within a 60-foot emanation must attempt Fortitude saves.

  • Critical Success The creature is unaffected
  • Success The creature is drained 1.
  • Failure The creature is drained 2.
  • Critical Failure The creature is drained 3.

Depart (emotion, fear, mental) The vengeful dead lets out an anguished scream. All your enemies within a 100-foot emanation must attempt Will saves.

  • Critical Success The creature is unaffected.
  • Success The creature is frightened 2.
  • Failure The creature is frightened 3.
  • Critical Failure The creature is frightened 3. It’s also fleeing for 1 round or until it is no longer frightened, whichever comes first.
  • regards,

    Logan Bonner
    Pathfinder Lead Designer

    Mark Seifter
    Design Manager

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Pathfinder Playtest Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
451 to 500 of 525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Paizo says its not summoned
Paizo has not said that. Stop lying to make your stance look better.
Then when has Paizo said that it is summoning, if we're so certain?

It may interest y'all to, you know, actually read the playtest document at some point, considering the literal first sentence of the summoner section is:

Quote:
You’re the mortal conduit for a powerful being called an eidolon, which you can summon into your world.

They also explicitly equate manifesting the eidolon with summoning it:

Ostentatious Arrival wrote:
If the next action you take is to Manifest your Eidolon or to Cast a Spell to cast a 3-action summoning spell, the summoned eidolon or creature appears in an explosion of energy or other visually impressive display.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Temperans wrote:

If it doesnt have the summoned trait how is it summoning? Also the text does not say it is treat as having said trait for effects.

So it does not have the trait, and its not treated as having the trait. Are you actually reading the document?

The Manifest action actually has all the tags and traits to make it work as much like summoning as possible, without actually being summoning.

Also, Manifesting an Eidolon literally fits the literal definition of summoning in the dictionary.

Its summoning.

Would you mind expanding your logic regarding the tags?

From what we've been told, summoning is specifically not teleportation; you don't bring a creature from elsewhere to you, you create the creature out of essence that lasts as long as the spell does. I actually find it a little weird that the tag is on the Manifest action, as you also create the Eidolon out of essence, though the intelligence does come from elsewhere. I assume either the interplanar-intelligence counts enough to deserve the tag, or the secondary function of the Manifest activity, moving your eidolon about the battlefield, is why it is there.

The other tags don't seem to have much to do with summoning, other than both being a conjuration effects.

I'll spare you the rest of my arguments and not weigh in further, but I did want to get your thoughts on this one aspect.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@fowlj

The first sentence is fluff that would had worked if the eidolon was not manifested. Not the first time they say one thing in fluff that doesnt pan out (looks at the original pf2 mutagenist Alchemist).

The second sentence does shake my argument a bit, but that feat is about summon creature spells. Which I see as them messing up the the order (not the first time it happens) than proof that they are the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:


Would you mind expanding your logic regarding the tags?

From what we've been told, summoning is specifically not teleportation; you don't bring a creature from elsewhere to you, you create the creature out of essence that lasts as long as the spell does. I actually find it a little weird that the tag is on the Manifest action, as you also create the Eidolon out of essence, though the intelligence does come from elsewhere. I assume either the interplanar-intelligence counts enough to deserve the tag, or the secondary function of the Manifest activity, moving your eidolon about the battlefield, is why it is there.

The other tags don't seem to have much to do with summoning, other than both being a conjuration effects.

I'll spare you the rest of my arguments and not weigh in further, but I did want to get your thoughts on this one aspect.

The array of tags on the Manifest Eidolon activity serve to make it a magical conjuration activity very similar mechanically to casting a spell (Conjuration, Magical) with a Verbal (Concentrate) and Material+Somatic Component (Manipulate) that provokes AOOs (Manipulate). The same as a 3 action Summon Whatever spell with Somatic, Verbal and Material components.

It also doesn't function in places that Summon Spells don't function - like Dimensional Lock - because it has the Teleportation trait. That may be the reason for it having that trait, rather than it being a true teleportation effect in the classic sense.

The net effect is that the vast majority of mechanics interact with Manifest Eidolon exactly as they would with a Summon Whatever spell - other than the fact that it is not actually a spell.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Paizo says its not summoned
Paizo has not said that. Stop lying to make your stance look better.
Then when has Paizo said that it is summoning, if we're so certain?
That it acts and is thematically summoning and they haven’t said otherwise.

So it's the Ancient Aliens argument.

"There's nothing that says it's summoning, but there's also nothing that says it's not summoning, so it must be summoning."

It doesn’t say one way or other, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and the duck is an Eidolon...
Funny I used that same anology to prove that its not summoning because it has nothing about summoning. Except for the legacy of the word eidolon, which you seem fine to disregard for everything else.

Just because it doesn’t have Evolution Points doesn’t mean it’s not an Eidolon, you need to get over that.

You used that analogy in addition to your lies, and that is why it fell flat. And that is what you have been doing, let’s not ignore that, you are outright lying when you claim that Paizo has stated it is not summoning (they have not) and that the text says it is not summoned (it does not).

This has been pointed out to you multiple times, and yet you continue to make these false claims, that is lying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FowlJ wrote:

It may interest y'all to, you know, actually read the playtest document at some point, considering the literal first sentence of the summoner section is:

Quote:
You’re the mortal conduit for a powerful being called an eidolon, which you can summon into your world.

This is the only place in the entire document that "summon" is actually referring to the eidolon.

Quote:

They also explicitly equate manifesting the eidolon with summoning it:

Ostentatious Arrival wrote:
If the next action you take is to Manifest your Eidolon or to Cast a Spell to cast a 3-action summoning spell, the summoned eidolon or creature appears in an explosion of energy or other visually impressive display.

You've pulled one of the three times "summon" and "eidolon" appear in that ability. Here's the other two:

Quote:
When you summon creatures or manifest your eidolon
Quote:
If the eidolon or summoned creature

Silver Crusade

Draco18s wrote:
FowlJ wrote:

It may interest y'all to, you know, actually read the playtest document at some point, considering the literal first sentence of the summoner section is:

Quote:
You’re the mortal conduit for a powerful being called an eidolon, which you can summon into your world.

This is the only place in the entire document that "summon" is actually referring to the eidolon.

Quote:

They also explicitly equate manifesting the eidolon with summoning it:

Ostentatious Arrival wrote:
If the next action you take is to Manifest your Eidolon or to Cast a Spell to cast a 3-action summoning spell, the summoned eidolon or creature appears in an explosion of energy or other visually impressive display.

You've pulled one of the three times "summon" and "eidolon" appear in that ability. Here's the other two:

Quote:
When you summon creatures or manifest your eidolon
Quote:
If the eidolon or summoned creature

So we have 2 instances of summoning referring to the Eidolon and 0 instances where it says it doesn’t, eh?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Its not a false claim, that is exactly what the text of the playtest says. You are the one stating that its false, despite the fact that what I said is exactly what I read.

No matter how much you say I am lying it wont change the text of the playtest and how its read.

Even with the 1 sentence pointed out by fowlj. Funny that some else had to point out that sentence despite me asking you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:

The array of tags on the Manifest Eidolon activity serve to make it a magical conjuration activity very similar mechanically to casting a spell (Conjuration, Magical) with a Verbal (Concentrate) and Material+Somatic Component (Manipulate) that provokes AOOs (Manipulate). The same as a 3 action Summon Whatever spell with Somatic, Verbal and Material components.

It also doesn't function in places that Summon Spells don't function - like Dimensional Lock - because it has the Teleportation trait. That may be the reason for it having that trait, rather than it being a true teleportation effect in the classic sense.

The net effect is that the vast majority of mechanics interact with Manifest Eidolon exactly as they would with a Summon Whatever spell - other than the fact that it is not actually a spell.

Well, it doesn't actually need to be a spell to count as summoning; the summoned trait only requires it be a conjuration effect, which this would qualify as.

Thank you for explaining your thinking.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Its not a false claim, that is exactly what the text of the playtest says. You are the one stating that its false, despite the fact that what I said is exactly what I read.

No matter how much you say I am lying it wont change the text of the playtest and how its read.

Even with the 1 sentence pointed out by fowlj. Funny that some else had to point out that sentence despite me asking you.

Point out where a Paizo staff member has said it’s not summoning.

Point out in the text where it says it’s not summoned.*

These are things you have claimed. Claims that are outright false aka a lie.

*And no, not having the Summoned Trait is not the same as saying it’s not summoned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
FowlJ wrote:

It may interest y'all to, you know, actually read the playtest document at some point, considering the literal first sentence of the summoner section is:

Quote:
You’re the mortal conduit for a powerful being called an eidolon, which you can summon into your world.

This is the only place in the entire document that "summon" is actually referring to the eidolon.

Quote:

They also explicitly equate manifesting the eidolon with summoning it:

Ostentatious Arrival wrote:
If the next action you take is to Manifest your Eidolon or to Cast a Spell to cast a 3-action summoning spell, the summoned eidolon or creature appears in an explosion of energy or other visually impressive display.

You've pulled one of the three times "summon" and "eidolon" appear in that ability. Here's the other two:

Quote:
When you summon creatures or manifest your eidolon
Quote:
If the eidolon or summoned creature
So we have 2 instances of summoning referring to the Eidolon and 0 instances where it says it doesn’t, eh?

Did you read that right. Thats 1 instance that a mechanic reference eidolon as summoned, 1 that refers to it as manifested, and 1 that is just "eidolon".

At no point was it just "when you summon a creature". Its always speaks about summoned creatures and eidolons separately.

The one time it does not mention a summoned creature its in the fluff before any of the mechanics are mentioned. Which only supports my mention of bait and switch.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly the manifesting vs summoning argument has been going on so long I've forgotten what the point of it even was.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Calling it “fluff” to further discredit it because it doesn’t support your stance isn’t doing yourself any favors.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
Honestly the manifesting vs summoning argument has been going on so long I've forgotten what the point of it even was.

They want the Summoner to be renamed because it doesn’t “Summon” the Eidolon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Salamileg wrote:
Honestly the manifesting vs summoning argument has been going on so long I've forgotten what the point of it even was.
They want the Summoner to be renamed because it doesn’t “Summon” the Eidolon.

If the Swashbuckler can be called the Swashbuckler, the Summoner can be called the Summoner shrug

Plus class recognition, I feel like Summoner is at this point subject to linguistic rules, after a while the use case defines the word.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
Honestly the manifesting vs summoning argument has been going on so long I've forgotten what the point of it even was.

It came about because some people want Paizo to add more support for summoned creatures. And would like for the eidolon to at the very least be treated like a summoned creature.

Thats it. Rysky has fought tooth and nail because to them manifesting == summoning. Despite a lot of people not seeing or reading it that way.

To the point she says that reading the text is lying. I mean how am I lying of its right there in the text? But now they want to push that you can summon without having the summoned trait, which makes no sense.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


Even with the 1 sentence pointed out by fowlj. Funny that some else had to point out that sentence despite me asking you.

The only funny part is that this debate has been tearing a quick road to nowhere for a month or so, far removed from any development on the Summoner or what most people care about, and with the subject matter so warped that the main parties involved are barely referring to the actual text or its larger context anymore. (It's probably funny if you have an extremely dry or cynical sense of humor, anyway.)

For what it's worth, it was 2 sentences. Unless you're about to tell me that an adjective right before a noun in English are no longer linked. :v

Ostentatious Arrival wrote:
If the next action you take is to Manifest your Eidolon..., the summoned eidolon...appears in an explosion of energy or other visually impressive display.

This should really be enough. Calling it an error just undermines the sanctity of all this "evidence" for manifesting not also being summoning. I don't even think Rysky, or anyone involved in these discussions, is against what you want; extra support for the traditional summoning spells and Eidolons alongside them has been a popular request. Why are you digging in your heels so much on a completely pointless semantic debate when both parties ultimately want the same general things? (And that particular question goes to both sides, more or less.)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe I'm not looking forward to the addition of two of the coolest classes Paizo game designers ever made. I sure hope sometime before release the designers do enough to make the summoner and magus fun and powerful. We need new lower tier power classes like we need holes in our head.

I used to really like the life oracle, but I wouldn't touch this version. Too many headaches for no real gain. Now the angel sorcerer feels more like a life oracle's level of healing power.

My buddy after another round of trying to get panache back with multiple attempts stated he will never play a swashbuckler again. He loved this class in PF1, now he's reached the point of such frustration he never wants to play it again. Though he does seem to still like the witch for hex cantrips. He's made two witches so far. He really puts a high premium on variety and being able to do something other than cast spells with a caster class.

I'll always give Paizo a chance because they've made a lot of good stuff over the years. I really can't say I like what they've done with the Magus and Summoner so far. Just makes me want to go back and play the PF1 summoner and magus as those two classes had amazing design. So fun, varied, and powerful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
Temperans wrote:


Even with the 1 sentence pointed out by fowlj. Funny that some else had to point out that sentence despite me asking you.

The only funny part is that this debate has been tearing a quick road to nowhere for a month or so, far removed from any development on the Summoner or what most people care about, and with the subject matter so warped that the main parties involved are barely referring to the actual text or its larger context anymore. (It's probably funny if you have an extremely dry or cynical sense of humor, anyway.)

For what it's worth, it was 2 sentences. Unless you're about to tell me that an adjective right before a noun in English are no longer linked. :v

Well I did admit it does shake my argument.

But my counter argument to those is that its 2 sentence (1 fluff before any rules and 1 as part of a feat that specially mentioned the creatures and eidolon separately) compared to the rest of the class which says the exact opposite.

If Paizo came out and said, "yes the eidolon counts as a summoned creature" I would stop. But until then its ambiguous at best, and decidedly not summoned at worst.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
But now they want to push that you can summon without having the summoned trait, which makes no sense.

This is already how the game works, as it happens.

Summon X spells summon creatures with the Summoned trait, but if you look at creatures summoned through other means (particularly in published adventures), they can and do lack it.

I'm thinking of Age of Ashes books 2 and 4 for specific examples - an angel and a gelugon, both specifically called out in the text as summoned, but with no associated trait. Several other creatures throughout are 'conjured' instead of summoned, but function identically.

If paizo at any point intended for the Summoned trait to be a necessity for the narrative action of summoning, then they have literally never actually followed up on making sure that that was true.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Which I agree its problematic to figure out when does it make sense or not.

If the eidolon said, "you summon an eidolon it does not get the summoned trait" we would not be having this conversation. But they are using manifesting which is not summoning by most definitions, but some people are seeing it as summoning.

Unclear language is unclear.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, by the logic some people are engaging in this thread, "yelling at someone until they cry" is not an emotional attack unless it has the "emotion" and "attack" traits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Such a vicious mockery is from 5e Bards no? (jk)


The rules also explicitly state that an eidolon is "not a minion" (which is relevant because Summoned creatures have the Minion trait).


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We're discussing whether the designers consider the primary mechanic they designed for the Summoner class to qualify as Summoning or not.

Pack it up boys and girls, we've reached peak paizo forums.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

We're discussing whether the designers consider the primary mechanic they designed for the Summoner class to qualify as Summoning or not.

Pack it up boys and girls, we've reached peak paizo forums.

That point was raised elsewhere, and more or less dismissed because... reasons?

But yes - its the iconic thing a Summoner does, and meets the narrative and literal definition of summoning.

Its summoning.

Dataphiles

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I can't believe I'm not looking forward to the addition of two of the coolest classes Paizo game designers ever made. I sure hope sometime before release the designers do enough to make the summoner and magus fun and powerful. We need new lower tier power classes like we need holes in our head.

I used to really like the life oracle, but I wouldn't touch this version. Too many headaches for no real gain. Now the angel sorcerer feels more like a life oracle's level of healing power.

My buddy after another round of trying to get panache back with multiple attempts stated he will never play a swashbuckler again. He loved this class in PF1, now he's reached the point of such frustration he never wants to play it again. Though he does seem to still like the witch for hex cantrips. He's made two witches so far. He really puts a high premium on variety and being able to do something other than cast spells with a caster class.

I'll always give Paizo a chance because they've made a lot of good stuff over the years. I really can't say I like what they've done with the Magus and Summoner so far. Just makes me want to go back and play the PF1 summoner and magus as those two classes had amazing design. So fun, varied, and powerful.

I wasn’t interested in the summoner and nor will I be unless the Synthesist completely removes the pet aspects. I just don’t like pets, and I’ll admit I have no horse in the summoner race.

But magus... I don’t believe it’s that it’s that far from being where I want it to be, and I definitely believe arcane champion would have been closer to being magical all day than keeping slots, but I guess I’ll have to see what happens. I just want a magical warrior that can feel magical all day (whether that’s through spellstriking cantrips or focus cantrips) and be... maybe 90% of a damage martial (barb, fighter, etc.) in effectiveness, and when using resources maybe 120-130% if the resources are that limited. Keeping in mind it’s still a glass cannon with 8hp/level, and baseline master weapons+greater weapon spec puts you about 80% of fighter, Barb, rogue, etc.

Playtest magus doesn’t feel magical all day because cantrip spellstriking sucks and it’s closer to 80% resourceless 100% with resource.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like the idea of just calling it a soul binder - you have bound your soul to a being from another world but that is neither here not there and all arguments about the name are just crazy.

I like they changed the Act together ability. Its still a little clunky but not ridiculously restrictive like it was.

I still hate the conduit cantrip concept, it feels like an action tax and not a good one. Its not an exciting ability. Just bake it in or make it a conduit spell with a duration of 1 minutes.

I would like them to do more with Conduit spells for combat evolutions. The play test had some but I would rather gave mechanical combat advantages - even numbers advantages in terms of stats even if they needed a trade off like mutagens.

I would like a little more role for the summoner in combat other than just a narrative device to cast conduit cantrips. I mean as of right now the summoner itself is largely forgettable in combat other than the cantrip and I feel that is an awful waste of potential. I want the summoner itself to have more of a role in combat.

The rest I can live with. Its not amazing but its decent.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

It seems to me the question is "does the Eidolon (or any summoned creature, for that matter) exist in the moments before it is summoned (or manifested, if you insist)?"


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep the Summoner really should have a role in combat.

I really did think that Summoner would be the best class to introduce teamwork feats because it naturally has 2 creatures. But the playtest didnt really show anything of that sort.


21 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, it's not real summoning unless it comes from the Summoné region of Galt. Otherwise, it's *Sparkling Conjuration*.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
I really did think that Summoner would be the best class to introduce teamwork feats because it naturally has 2 creatures. But the playtest didnt really show anything of that sort.

I thought Tandem feats had some possibilities, though I’m not sure they’ll have the page space to explore it properly.

Which is another reason I’d like to see evolution get *off* feats, even if you wind up spending just as many feats to get pick up evolution points or whatever. That would create room to focus on actual interesting abilities like Tandem actions or boosting focus spells, rather spending column space making sure than darkvision has the appropriate feat tags.

I’m not sure we’ll see a PF1 version of Teamwork feats, not with the way class feats work. Would make more sense to just make them class feats on something like the Inquisitor or a Marshall/Envoy/Mastermind class.


Ed Reppert wrote:
It seems to me the question is "does the Eidolon (or any summoned creature, for that matter) exist in the moments before it is summoned (or manifested, if you insist)?"

Depends. The fluff text for each eidolon implies or states that your eidolon had a life and existence outside and before their connection to you. Arguably your eidolon's body does not exist prior to manifesting. That seems to be what the fluff text is getting at, though the teleportation tag belies that (unless it only has that tag for the secondary function of teleporting your eidolon while within range).

So depending on what you mean by exist, this answer can be legitimately argued either way going off the playtest document.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You're still at debating that ? Guys go make a dedicated thread already. This is not an eidolon specific thread xD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, this thread started with people commenting on the dev feedback, then spiraled into a replica of the summon/manifest thread on the Summoner forums.

It is okay to discuss that, but maybe that deserves its own thread. I think it has been more than 6 pages of discussion on that. Magus discussion became non-existent as did the discussion on other Summoner aspects. Heck, even a genuine question on whether people were going to keep playing the classes got buried alive.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, honestly this has become impossible to read. The points have been made, they just got repeated over and over for 6 or 7 pages. I think the devs got it guys.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In an attempt to take the conversation somewhere new, what new fears are you guys hoping to see for these classes? One big hope for me is fighter-style fears for the Magus with a distinct magical edge. For instance, a feat that allows you to teleport to the opposite side of an adjacent enemy and make a strike they're flat-footed against. Or transmute your arms into noodle arms for a round to increase your reach.


Salamileg wrote:
In an attempt to take the conversation somewhere new, what new fears are you guys hoping to see for these classes? One big hope for me is fighter-style fears for the Magus with a distinct magical edge. For instance, a feat that allows you to teleport to the opposite side of an adjacent enemy and make a strike they're flat-footed against. Or transmute your arms into noodle arms for a round to increase your reach.

an extra focus point regen feat would be nice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's been kinda hard to build up my interest in this (and new Pathfinder content in general) when so much of the forum posts have been very semantic arguments. Sorry for my contributions to that atmosphere; I'm hardly separate from it. With PF1, I had some external friends I could chat with about new stuff and get excited, so it's probably me missing that more than the forums.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
In an attempt to take the conversation somewhere new, what new fears are you guys hoping to see for these classes? One big hope for me is fighter-style fears for the Magus with a distinct magical edge. For instance, a feat that allows you to teleport to the opposite side of an adjacent enemy and make a strike they're flat-footed against. Or transmute your arms into noodle arms for a round to increase your reach.

Hmm. I'd enjoy a feat to give Summoner either a permanent lower-level evolution feat, or a focus spell to temporarily get one of their eidolon's evolution feats.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
In an attempt to take the conversation somewhere new, what new fears are you guys hoping to see for these classes? One big hope for me is fighter-style fears for the Magus with a distinct magical edge. For instance, a feat that allows you to teleport to the opposite side of an adjacent enemy and make a strike they're flat-footed against. Or transmute your arms into noodle arms for a round to increase your reach.

I put this specifically into my feedback in the survey. A teleportation variant of Sudden Charge, an evocation-based effect similar to Power Attack, an illusion that produces something similar to Quick Reversal... Not the exact mechanics, but similar effects that show how the magus uses magic to fill in for what fighters do with just pure training and skill. The Spell Parry feat is the archetype (no, not that kind of archetype) of what I want to see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
In an attempt to take the conversation somewhere new, what new fears are you guys hoping to see for these classes? One big hope for me is fighter-style fears for the Magus with a distinct magical edge. For instance, a feat that allows you to teleport to the opposite side of an adjacent enemy and make a strike they're flat-footed against. Or transmute your arms into noodle arms for a round to increase your reach.

Body morphing stuff like that seems like it would be more primal or occult than Arcane. Which is semantics, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with the change happening on your weapon than on you. Edit: though I just remembered fist magi. I suppose it needs to be able to apply to both, but I'd still want it to prefer your weapon, and only apply to you if your unarmed strike is your main weapon.

I remember way back, when people were first talking about how the magus could fit into the current lineup of classes, my inkling was that a Magus could modify weapon traits in a limited fashion. With the possible revamp or removal of Magus potency, I could see something like that taking its place, like being able to make your hammer a reach weapon for 1 minute or the like. Possibly also being able to apply multiple critical specializations (your crossbow now bleeds like a Knife weapon in addition to pinning as a bow).

From what the devs have said, there's also math that does into how valuable weapon traits are and hard rules on, like, how big of a weapon die a finesse weapon can be. But breaking those rules in a specific, supervised fashion is the proper role for magic.

There's feats that have this kind of stuff, so I can see it being made into a focus spell.

Shisumo wrote:
I put this specifically into my feedback in the survey. A teleportation variant of Sudden Charge, an evocation-based effect similar to Power Attack, an illusion that produces something similar to Quick Reversal... Not the exact mechanics, but similar effects that show how the magus uses magic to fill in for what fighters do with just pure training and skill. The Spell Parry feat is the archetype (no, not that kind of archetype) of what I want to see.

Also, all of this please.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I was also thinking of stuff like the Magus having the equivalent to Attack of Opporrtunity but only when he has a spell "loaded".

Or the equivalent of Lunge, but by extending the reach of the weapon by "lashing" with the spell, so you do a weapon melee roll with reach, but only the spell effect is applied, not the weapon damage.

An "in battle" focus refill could be interresting, like once per encounter you can refill 1 focus point by landing a critical strike or having someone critically fail a save against one of your spells.

Spell Recall would also be pretty neat, 1 Focus point, refill one of your lower level spell slots with a spell you have already cast today. Maybe it would take 2 actions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
It seems to me the question is "does the Eidolon (or any summoned creature, for that matter) exist in the moments before it is summoned (or manifested, if you insist)?"

Depends. The fluff text for each eidolon implies or states that your eidolon had a life and existence outside and before their connection to you. Arguably your eidolon's body does not exist prior to manifesting. That seems to be what the fluff text is getting at, though the teleportation tag belies that (unless it only has that tag for the secondary function of teleporting your eidolon while within range).

So depending on what you mean by exist, this answer can be legitimately argued either way going off the playtest document.

Well, if it exists in body before you manifest it, then you're summoning it - meaning you are calling it to you. If it only exists in essence, not in body, before you manifest it, then the act of manifesting is not, or at least not entirely, summoning. Maybe you're creating the body and calling the spirit/essence to inhabit that body temporarily. Which would still be, in some sense and IMO, summoning.

That last paragraph would seem to apply to summoning spells, as well (summon animal, for instance).

Grand Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
It seems to me the question is "does the Eidolon (or any summoned creature, for that matter) exist in the moments before it is summoned (or manifested, if you insist)?"

Depends. The fluff text for each eidolon implies or states that your eidolon had a life and existence outside and before their connection to you. Arguably your eidolon's body does not exist prior to manifesting. That seems to be what the fluff text is getting at, though the teleportation tag belies that (unless it only has that tag for the secondary function of teleporting your eidolon while within range).

So depending on what you mean by exist, this answer can be legitimately argued either way going off the playtest document.

Well, if it exists in body before you manifest it, then you're summoning it - meaning you are calling it to you. If it only exists in essence, not in body, before you manifest it, then the act of manifesting is not, or at least not entirely, summoning. Maybe you're creating the body and calling the spirit/essence to inhabit that body temporarily. Which would still be, in some sense and IMO, summoning.

That last paragraph would seem to apply to summoning spells, as well (summon animal, for instance).

Yeah, considering the official "lore" is that you "create" an average representation of the creature you summon, it would make sense that the main difference of an eidolon would be that this one have a specific soul/mind that you also bring into that manifestation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalaam wrote:
Yeah I was also thinking of stuff like the Magus having the equivalent to Attack of Opporrtunity but only when he has a spell "loaded".

Now that I think about it, would it be in character for the damage to not come directly from you, but be a magical effect of some kind? I imagine it would still do the same damage as your weapon, but perhaps its damage type changes depending on the spell you have loaded.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Well, if it exists in body before you manifest it, then you're summoning it - meaning you are calling it to you.

There you go, ladies and gents, teleportation is summoning.

All you've really done there is shown that all of the Conjuration school has something in common. Again, just because Conjuration does not mean Summoning.

All paparazzi are photographers, and all that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not to be a broken record but in efforts to change the subject, I do hope that in some way, shape, or form, magus potency stays. Mechanically I loved being less reliant on magical weapons, on the chance the character finds themselves weaponless they could enchant another or even themselves. Maybe a focus spell to straight up summon a weapon, close to what a shifting rune does but instead being able to create it instead of change a weapon. Or maybe the magus can rune their own body so that anything they use (or just their fists) gets those runes applied to them. Even if it's a little behind a fully runed weapon (which it would be since it would have no property runes) I still feel like there's some cool design space there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Magus Potency could be slightly tweaked to work like a constant +1 to hit, stacking over potency runes. And getting Runic Impression upgrades it to allow you to add an additional property rune along with it. This would make the Magus the real master of magic weapons, the one that can get a +4 Flaming Shocking Sonic Frost sword !


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was also thinking (and yes it hurts to think, my dumb brain is not used to it) that the ability to use any type of Strike on Striking Spell was nice, it'll probably be dropped somehow since as it was it was unusable without multiclass (though I assume it is/was planned to get some stuff like power attack as base magus feats) but I wonder if we'll get some different versions of Striking Spell. Like we have the Cleave variant, what else could we have ? A Felling Strike variant ? A Dispelling Spellstrike where you use the stored spell level (-1 maybe) as counterract modifier ?

451 to 500 of 525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Secrets of Magic Playtest Aftermath All Messageboards