Secrets of Magic Playtest Aftermath

It makes me sad to not see a mention of expanding the amount of summoning spells the summoner gets, but I'm super stoked to see more evolutions and more eidolons. That said, I might just be projecting a bit of my desire to play a pf 1e style summoner in 2e. Since I play with free archetype rules at my tables anyway, I'll likely still get the flavor I want with a sorcerer/summoner multiclass.

The incarnate spells I feel will satisfy the flavor I want with my summoner, where I conjure monsters as my main magical attack, without necessarily having to rely on the mechanic of pulling out a whole new creature on the board, and likewise, I could reflavor some existing spells to capture the feel.

I hope eidolons can still use alchemical items, I've got a character concept for an artificer that boosts their battle buddy with mutagens and elixirs; a strategy I can't currently do with an animal companion

I cast banishment (or dispel magic) on your echoing fireball before your second turn.

Does it go away?

I don't see why it wouldn't. That's what dispel magic does after all. I didn't word it in a way that made it clear what you'd have to target with dispel magic, but then I didn't really word the 'movement' from point A to point B either.

But it's trivial to write it in such a way that yes, there's a visible "something" in the area that can be targeted (and still not a creature).

Also explodey burny sheep are awesome.

Baa-baa-baBOOM

So true^^

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

The spell you described and the spell I described do exactly the same thing.

is that a problem?

Yes, redundant spells are the definition of rules bloat.

So in other words- No, it isn't a problem, considering that there is no "Echoing Fireball" Spell in Pathfinder 2e.

There is an echoing spell meta-magic that allows you duplicate a casting of a spell 4th level or lower the next turn. But thats a level 18 feat, works only on low level magic, and would cost 3 actions on the turn of, with a follow up of 2 actions on the next turn in order to function.

Which is very different-- so not only was the original spell made up, and therefore not an actual redundancy of any kind (they could just as easily not choose to publish spells that would be redundant with the proposed incarnate spells) the closest mechanical implementation in the game would probably preclude any such spell ever existing.

The spell was supposed to be an example, and from your own text you've both made what appears to be a 9th level spell.

WatersLethe wrote:

I realize I may have come off as sarcastic or dismissive. I love you to death and your playstyle is totally valid.

But if I tried to pass off a book of evocation spells as a big gift for my necromancer player I would face a mutiny!!

I mean, from the pure metagame mechanics standpoint, in my experience a book of evocations is way more valuable to a necromancer than a book of necromancy spells, which would at best be a bunch of free gold for selling it, and at worst a 'taunt' making them feel like they wasted their resources.

Most Wizards I've run for choose all their core spells - in this case, all the necromancy stuff they really want - as their level up spells, or they buy them as soon as they can. A book of Necromancy spells would typically be strictly useless, but a book of spells of another desirable school (like evocation) would be pure gold in terms of giving them access to new resources. Especially if the character could justify using them while maintaining their idiom.

There's some exceptions in 2E, because of things like Animate Dead being rituals, but those are so iconic to the character archetype that I'd assume they'd be worked out with the GM ahead of time to ensure the character will work at all in the campaign.

So yeah, this particular case isn't exactly my normal perspective on things - its largely a mechanical/metagame item :D

True. We never had a problem with reflavoring the look of a spell without touching the rules of it.

Maybe the Incarnate would be more clearly a thing if it had a middle effect. That is to say, an effect for anything it moves through the space of before it disappears. Doesn't have to be an entirely new effect or even a roll; a simple penalty on the second roll for getting ran over by the ghost tornado would be fine, I think.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

The spell you described and the spell I described do exactly the same thing.

is that a problem?

Yes, redundant spells are the definition of rules bloat.

So in other words- No, it isn't a problem, considering that there is no "Echoing Fireball" Spell in Pathfinder 2e.

There is an echoing spell meta-magic that allows you duplicate a casting of a spell 4th level or lower the next turn. But thats a level 18 feat, works only on low level magic, and would cost 3 actions on the turn of, with a follow up of 2 actions on the next turn in order to function.

Which is very different-- so not only was the original spell made up, and therefore not an actual redundancy of any kind (they could just as easily not choose to publish spells that would be redundant with the proposed incarnate spells) the closest mechanical implementation in the game would probably preclude any such spell ever existing.

The spell was supposed to be an example, and from your own text you've both made what appears to be a 9th level spell.

An 18th level metamagic on a third level spell is not a 9th level spell, by any means.

The variance for spellcasters is on you, the player, to bring it - not expecting fireball to somehow occasionally not be a fireball.

Where did I say I expect a fireball to be something else?

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

The spell you described and the spell I described do exactly the same thing.

is that a problem?

Yes, redundant spells are the definition of rules bloat.

So in other words- No, it isn't a problem, considering that there is no "Echoing Fireball" Spell in Pathfinder 2e.

There is an echoing spell meta-magic that allows you duplicate a casting of a spell 4th level or lower the next turn. But thats a level 18 feat, works only on low level magic, and would cost 3 actions on the turn of, with a follow up of 2 actions on the next turn in order to function.

Which is very different-- so not only was the original spell made up, and therefore not an actual redundancy of any kind (they could just as easily not choose to publish spells that would be redundant with the proposed incarnate spells) the closest mechanical implementation in the game would probably preclude any such spell ever existing.

The spell was supposed to be an example, and from your own text you've both made what appears to be a 9th level spell.

An 18th level metamagic on a third level spell is not a 9th level spell, by any means.

An 18th level ability should be comparable to a 9th level spell.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

The spell you described and the spell I described do exactly the same thing.

is that a problem?

Yes, redundant spells are the definition of rules bloat.

So in other words- No, it isn't a problem, considering that there is no "Echoing Fireball" Spell in Pathfinder 2e.

There is an echoing spell meta-magic that allows you duplicate a casting of a spell 4th level or lower the next turn. But thats a level 18 feat, works only on low level magic, and would cost 3 actions on the turn of, with a follow up of 2 actions on the next turn in order to function.

Which is very different-- so not only was the original spell made up, and therefore not an actual redundancy of any kind (they could just as easily not choose to publish spells that would be redundant with the proposed incarnate spells) the closest mechanical implementation in the game would probably preclude any such spell ever existing.

The spell was supposed to be an example, and from your own text you've both made what appears to be a 9th level spell.

An 18th level metamagic on a third level spell is not a 9th level spell, by any means.

An 18th level ability should be comparable to a 9th level spell.

It is not, the whole point is that youre playing at a point where the effect is weak enough for them to offer you an option to cast it again without another slot. A base level fireball is more comparable to a cantrip or focus spell at that level.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

The spell you described and the spell I described do exactly the same thing.

is that a problem?

Yes, redundant spells are the definition of rules bloat.

So in other words- No, it isn't a problem, considering that there is no "Echoing Fireball" Spell in Pathfinder 2e.

There is an echoing spell meta-magic that allows you duplicate a casting of a spell 4th level or lower the next turn. But thats a level 18 feat, works only on low level magic, and would cost 3 actions on the turn of, with a follow up of 2 actions on the next turn in order to function.

Which is very different-- so not only was the original spell made up, and therefore not an actual redundancy of any kind (they could just as easily not choose to publish spells that would be redundant with the proposed incarnate spells) the closest mechanical implementation in the game would probably preclude any such spell ever existing.

The spell was supposed to be an example, and from your own text you've both made what appears to be a 9th level spell.

An 18th level metamagic on a third level spell is not a 9th level spell, by any means.

An 18th level ability should be comparable to a 9th level spell.

Not really. Suggesting that spells = abilities isn't an adequate comparison, especially since abilities can be vastly different and encompass more than just spells themselves.

It makes me sad to not see a mention of expanding the amount of summoning spells the summoner gets, but I'm super stoked to see more evolutions and more eidolons.

For real though, the lack of a universal Summon Creature Font (or whatever they might have called it) that doesn't eat into their 4 daily Spell Slots is a crippling blow, we can only hope that this is added again with the full release.

Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics, Bards, and Witches should NOT be able to use Summon X more times a day than a Summoner (even after considering they have a permanent Eidolon that's slightly more powerful than an Animal Companion), it just makes no sense at all.

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

It makes me sad to not see a mention of expanding the amount of summoning spells the summoner gets, but I'm super stoked to see more evolutions and more eidolons.

For real though, the lack of a universal Summon Creature Font (or whatever they might have called it) that doesn't eat into their 4 daily Spell Slots is a crippling blow, we can only hope that this is added again with the full release.

Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics, Bards, and Witches should NOT be able to use Summon X more times a day than a Summoner (even after considering they have a permanent Eidolon that's slightly more powerful than an Animal Companion), it just makes no sense at all.

I would like to point out that those classes still most definitely can (and will) summon more than a Summoner ever could. It's just the nature of having more spell slots by comparison.

The big difference between them would be quality over quantity, which is more than a fair trade, especially when realistically considering, they won't spend more than their top 2 spell level slots on them.

For real though, the lack of a universal Summon Creature Font (or whatever they might have called it) that doesn't eat into their 4 daily Spell Slots is a crippling blow, we can only hope that this is added again with the full release.

Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics, Bards, and Witches should NOT be able to use Summon X more times a day than a Summoner (even after considering they have a permanent Eidolon that's slightly more powerful than an Animal Companion), it just makes no sense at all.

I'll reiterate what I said during the playtest: the class should be given a new name to avoid this kind of expectation.

Themetricsystem wrote:

For real though, the lack of a universal Summon Creature Font (or whatever they might have called it) that doesn't eat into their 4 daily Spell Slots is a crippling blow, we can only hope that this is added again with the full release.

Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics, Bards, and Witches should NOT be able to use Summon X more times a day than a Summoner (even after considering they have a permanent Eidolon that's slightly more powerful than an Animal Companion), it just makes no sense at all.

I'll reiterate what I said during the playtest: the class should be given a new name to avoid this kind of expectation.

No

Temperans wrote:

Healing for example is not very visible, neither is things like dominate, or fear.

Umm, but all three of those ARE visible. With healing you see wounds close up, with fear you see someone starting to panic or hear them screaming, dominate is most arguable one, but it often accompanies character's behavior suddenly changing or them becoming more "placid"

Actually, in Golarion, spells are assumed to have visual manifestations above and beyond the specific visual effects described (damage done).

I believe, based on most of the artwork, it seems to generally be runic letters glowing in the air in front of the caster in a circle. I believe there are feats that can help hide this, but the default behavior as I understand it, magic effects generally look like magic effects, and you can generally roughly identify their source. Granted you might not know what it is going to do, until its already starting to do it to you, but the writing is on the air-wall so to speak for you to read if you can.

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

It makes me sad to not see a mention of expanding the amount of summoning spells the summoner gets, but I'm super stoked to see more evolutions and more eidolons.

For real though, the lack of a universal Summon Creature Font (or whatever they might have called it) that doesn't eat into their 4 daily Spell Slots is a crippling blow, we can only hope that this is added again with the full release.

Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics, Bards, and Witches should NOT be able to use Summon X more times a day than a Summoner (even after considering they have a permanent Eidolon that's slightly more powerful than an Animal Companion), it just makes no sense at all.

Keep in mind, in the 1st edition, your druid was normally, a reasonably strong spell caster, that had an animal companion, and could transform themselves into an animal as well, pretty much out of the box.

In second edition, these are all paths you can choose, with some potential to dabble between them a bit if you prefer.

We have the same situation here, I think. Aspect that were just baseline as part of the Summoner, have become Paths that you choose, no doubt for a combination of balance and choice metering. Rather than having a summoner with plenty of summons, generally stronger than a wizards, plus a companion creature stronger than you average companion (and likely more versatile), they are taking what they felt was the most iconic part of the summoner and making it the main thing. Yes, perhaps the 'master summoner' will eventually come out,potentially replacing the Eidolon with a font of summoning spells, and the ability to boost them similar to how a regular summoner boosts their Eidolon.

Summoners are called summoners because they summon their Eidolon (they 'Call' it from the Beyond and give it form in this plane). That is why they are summoners, not because they cast summon spells that wizards (or any number of other classes) can cast.

Another option that might have been interesting. A class that can cast summon spells from any of the traditions as a part of their own tradition and spell slots. However, non-summon spells they cast can only be spells that target themselves and/or other summoned minions (theirs or also potentially others). Basically widening aspects of the classes' spell lists to cross traditions, but then limiting the spell lists by restricting who/what they can target. Potentially have a focus spell or other per day ability that allowed you to put extra into a spell to allow it to target normal creatures/items normally.

Keep in mind, in the 1st edition, your druid was normally, a reasonably strong spell caster, that had an animal companion, and could transform themselves into an animal as well, pretty much out of the box.

In second edition, these are all paths you can choose, with some potential to dabble between them a bit if you prefer.

We have the same situation here, I think. Aspect that were just baseline as part of the Summoner, have become Paths that you choose, no doubt for a combination of balance and choice metering. Rather than having a summoner with plenty of summons, generally stronger than a wizards, plus a companion creature stronger than you average companion (and likely more versatile), they are taking what they felt was the most iconic part of the summoner and making it the main thing. Yes, perhaps the 'master summoner' will eventually come out,potentially replacing the Eidolon with a font of summoning spells, and the ability to boost them similar to how a regular summoner boosts their Eidolon.

An option for a summoner to lose their eidolon so they can get a bunch of summon spells makes about as much sense as an option for an oracle to lose their mystery so they can get a bunch of divination spells.

Again, I feel that this wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue with people if they had called the class something else. Later down the line they could introduce a summoner archetype that any spellcaster could take that gives them access to bonus summon spells, as well as extra features for summoned minions.

People bringing up different potential names for a class in construction is fine.

Demanding it not be called Summoner anymore because it didn't meet your specific criteria on what a Summoner from this or other media is got old real fast.

People bringing up different potential names for a class in construction is fine.

Demanding it not be called Summoner anymore because it didn't meet your specific criteria on what a Summoner from this or other media is got old real fast.

This isn't for my benefit. I'm making this suggestion on behalf of everyone frustrated with the lack of free summon spells included in the class, which is a clear departure from the class' 1e design. "The summoner is called 'The Summoner,' therefore it should be the best at summoning" was a common refrain all through the playtest, up to and including this very discussion thread. Changing the name adjusts player expectations so they don't go in looking for class features that aren't there.

Not really sure how having the name "Summoner" will make people go "oh this class can cast summon spells for free!".

People bringing up different potential names for a class in construction is fine.

Demanding it not be called Summoner anymore because it didn't meet your specific criteria on what a Summoner from this or other media is got old real fast.

Seconded

Not really sure how having the name "Summoner" will make people go "oh this class can cast summon spells for free!".

I'd be happy if it actually summoned things better that ANY other caster in some way: free summons would be one way to accomplish that.

Or more potent summons, or summoning creatures off tradition, or not for free but as a focus spell and thus part of the class chassis, or that summoning font Mark mentioned that replaced the 4 slot casting...

Summoner really should have much longer duration summon spells. Something that would make Summons useful out of combat.

Not really sure how having the name "Summoner" will make people go "oh this class can cast summon spells for free!".

The same thing that makes people think Clerics are religious, Investigators search for clues, Bards play music, and that Fighters commit violence? Names have meaning and convey intention. If they introduced a Striker class that focused on support spells people would just as confused. A class and a mechanic share a name which implies that the class should using the mechanic as its main thing.

The summoned tag appears to the root of the issue now though. Apparently some of the writers have said it isn't even accurate. So Summoned things are created, not summoned, but the Eidolan, which is summoned apparently, isn't Summoned and now we have Incarnated summons which are also not Summoned.

Get used to this mess, unless of those words changes, people will keep insisting that these two need to match. My vote's now on the tag. Just call it conjured, they're all conjuration spells, except (Pretend to) Animate Dead which is Necromancy, but at least doesn't label itself a summon. I don't like that PF2 has 5e's "Is a Melee Weapon Attack an 'Attack with a Melee Weapon' or a 'Melee Attack with a Weapon'?" nonsense. (It's the latter, by the way, and, yes, it matters.)

Get used to this mess, unless of those words changes, people will keep insisting that these two need to match. My vote's now on the tag. Just call it conjured, they're all conjuration spells, except (Pretend to) Animate Dead which is Necromancy, but at least doesn't label itself a summon. I don't like that PF2 has 5e's "Is a Melee Weapon Attack an 'Attack with a Melee Weapon' or a 'Melee Attack with a Weapon'?" nonsense. (It's the latter, by the way, and, yes, it matters.)

Hmm, you'd still have the spell name itself as "Summon..{whatever}" for most of these spells, so that would need to be addressed, but this is a solution I hadn't considered. That would effectively make Eidolons and the planar binding ritual the only way to truly summon, which would certainly accomplish the end goal of making summoners feel like they're the best at summoning.

Eidolons are not Summoned in the Playtest. They are manifested.

Unless they change that for the full release the only way to trully summon will be Planar Binding. Which used to be a Calling spell, and still does use "call" for its descriptor in PF2.

Oh, if I wasn't clear, that change would open the door to just rename manifesting into "summoning", since there would no longer be a competing rule or trait.

Since my main objection wasn't on style, but on nomenclature, this would address my objections to the class name.

Sadly I never got around to playing the playtest. From quick glance there was only one thing I disliked about the playtest classes and that was the 4 spell slot system.

It just seemed like the classes will both excel in short adventuring days but any day with 4+ encounters they would just feel kind of rough.

Other than the the Summoner looks really fun and Magus I am sure unsure about. Hopefully they can make the striking spell feel satisfying without feeling overpowered. We definitely don't want Magus to just become a "better" martial.

About incarnate spells I "love" them. I am a huge Final Fantasy fan and am surprised they seem like they are just going to let EVERY character use these. I thought for sure they were going to make a specific class/dedication that had summon like spells.

Rysky wrote:

Not really sure how having the name "Summoner" will make people go "oh this class can cast summon spells for free!".

The same thing that makes people think Clerics are religious, Investigators search for clues, Bards play music, and that Fighters commit violence? Names have meaning and convey intention. If they introduced a Striker class that focused on support spells people would just as confused. A class and a mechanic share a name which implies that the class should using the mechanic as its main thing.

The summoned tag appears to the root of the issue now though. Apparently some of the writers have said it isn't even accurate. So Summoned things are created, not summoned, but the Eidolan, which is summoned apparently, isn't Summoned and now we have Incarnated summons which are also not Summoned.

Get used to this mess, unless of those words changes, people will keep insisting that these two need to match. My vote's now on the tag. Just call it conjured, they're all conjuration spells, except (Pretend to) Animate Dead which is Necromancy, but at least doesn't label itself a summon. I don't like that PF2 has 5e's "Is a Melee Weapon Attack an 'Attack with a Melee Weapon' or a 'Melee Attack with a Weapon'?" nonsense. (It's the latter, by the way, and, yes, it matters.)

You missed my point.

Summoners summon.

Someone coming from P1 and going “ oh they had a pool for summon spells that lasted longer than normal in P1 so they’ll surely have it in P2” is an assumption and failure on their part, not on the name of the class.

In P1, just like P2, the main thing of the Summoner is the Eidolon. Guessing they have that would have some base. Assuming any other class abilities directly carried over exactly into the new edition is just that, an assumption. And a bad one at that.

Eidolons are not Summoned in the Playtest. They are manifested.

Unless they change that for the full release the only way to trully summon will be Planar Binding. Which used to be a Calling spell, and still does use "call" for its descriptor in PF2.

But Eidolons are summoned.

Eidolons are not Summoned in the Playtest. They are manifested.

That's what I said. Not Summoned (capitalized, game tag), but summoned (lower-case, normal word). I don't want to go down this road again.

At this point, I prefer removing summoning as a game term and it being a broadly acceptable flavor term, so Conjuring, Manifesting, Incarnating, and any other synonym of Summoning you could find or make up can be a type of summoning, but all have distinctive meanings and rules. That would allow summoned to be used as generic term in descriptions without confusion.

Look at this:

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.

In the same block that says it's not Summoned, it still calls it a summoned creature. Obviously an easily fixed mistake in early preview, but I feel it highlights that the term confusion even affects the people making the game.

It doesn’t say it isn’t summoned, it says it doesn’t have the Summoner Trait.

Two different things.

Guys I think you made your points now xD No use trying to convince each other, I am pretty sure devs (if they also read those answers) got what you wanted to say xD

I'm sorry, it's just that this problem of "one word being used two different ways back-to-back" seems so obvious to me and it's extremely frustrating. Especially now that the Errata has been released and some people are debating the differences between attacks, the Attack tag, and "attack rolls". I feel like I'm back in 5e.

"It's summoned, but it's not Summoned." is going to be a freaking mantra. What's the point of having a tag if you're going to have keep pointing out all the times that you are NOT using it?

Unrelated, do the iconic Summoner and her dragon have names? I'm really digging that design. I can't wait to see that beast in color. I hope it's blue.

You missed my point.

Summoners summon.

Someone coming from P1 and going “ oh they had a pool for summon spells that lasted longer than normal in P1 so they’ll surely have it in P2” is an assumption and failure on their part, not on the name of the class.

In P1, just like P2, the main thing of the Summoner is the Eidolon. Guessing they have that would have some base. Assuming any other class abilities directly carried over exactly into the new edition is just that, an assumption. And a bad one at that.

A lot of people assumed that a new class called "summoner" being introduced in a game that already has a mechanic called "summoning" would be naturally good at that mechanic. It's like if they added class called "illusionist" that used Penn & Teller-style slight of hand tricks instead of illusion magic.

The "Sike You Thought" style of dismissing player assumptions does not lead to an enjoyable play experience for anyone other than you. Generally speaking, it is the developer's job to correctly set player expectations, or at the very least to not set up false expectations whenever possible.

Rysky wrote:

You missed my point.

Summoners summon.

Someone coming from P1 and going “ oh they had a pool for summon spells that lasted longer than normal in P1 so they’ll surely have it in P2” is an assumption and failure on their part, not on the name of the class.

In P1, just like P2, the main thing of the Summoner is the Eidolon. Guessing they have that would have some base. Assuming any other class abilities directly carried over exactly into the new edition is just that, an assumption. And a bad one at that.

A lot of people assumed that a new class called "summoner" being introduced in a game that already has a mechanic called "summoning" would be naturally good at that mechanic. It's like if they added class called "illusionist" that used Penn & Teller-style slight of hand tricks instead of illusion magic.

The "Sike You Thought" style of dismissing player assumptions does not lead to an enjoyable play experience for anyone other than you. Generally speaking, it is the developer's job to correctly set player expectations, or at the very least to not set up false expectations whenever possible.

”Sike you thought” is not in play here, only people’s own assumptions and wants.

P1 Summoner was not the greatest at Conjuration/summoning, it was about its Eidolon.

Assuming they would have a pool of summon spells that lasted longer than any other summon and could outright trivialize mechanics is only a mindset possessed by those thinking/wanting it to be the P1 Summoner.

To those who never played P1 there’s no “Sike” or expectations. It’s called Summoner. It summons its Eidolon.

I'm sorry, it's just that this problem of "one word being used two different ways back-to-back" seems so obvious to me and it's extremely frustrating. Especially now that the Errata has been released and some people are debating the differences between attacks, the Attack tag, and "attack rolls". I feel like I'm back in 5e.

"It's summoned, but it's not Summoned." is going to be a freaking mantra. What's the point of having a tag if you're going to have keep pointing out all the times that you are NOT using it?

Unrelated, do the iconic Summoner and her dragon have names? I'm really digging that design. I can't wait to see that beast in color. I hope it's blue.

Or you could try not being so pedantic about it?

The Summon Trait, and summoning, are not the same thing. The Summon Trait does not dictate all of Conjuration.

”Sike you thought” is not in play here, only people’s own assumptions and wants.

It's not fooling people, they're just objectively wrong!

Snes wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You missed my point.

Summoners summon.

Someone coming from P1 and going “ oh they had a pool for summon spells that lasted longer than normal in P1 so they’ll surely have it in P2” is an assumption and failure on their part, not on the name of the class.

In P1, just like P2, the main thing of the Summoner is the Eidolon. Guessing they have that would have some base. Assuming any other class abilities directly carried over exactly into the new edition is just that, an assumption. And a bad one at that.

A lot of people assumed that a new class called "summoner" being introduced in a game that already has a mechanic called "summoning" would be naturally good at that mechanic. It's like if they added class called "illusionist" that used Penn & Teller-style slight of hand tricks instead of illusion magic.

The "Sike You Thought" style of dismissing player assumptions does not lead to an enjoyable play experience for anyone other than you. Generally speaking, it is the developer's job to correctly set player expectations, or at the very least to not set up false expectations whenever possible.

”Sike you thought” is not in play here, only people’s own assumptions and wants.

P1 Summoner was not the greatest at Conjuration/summoning, it was about its Eidolon.

Assuming they would have a pool of summon spells that lasted longer than any other summon and could outright trivialize mechanics is only a mindset possessed by those thinking/wanting it to be the P1 Summoner.

To those who never played P1 there’s no “Sike” or expectations. It’s called Summoner. It summons its Eidolon.

PF1 Summoner was the best at Summoning.

They had the longest duration Summons. Had a pool of Summons going all the way to max level and Gate so they did not need to spend spell slots. Could have the most summons at any one time. Had the literal best buff spells. And their Eidolon was literally the best summon creature outside of using Gate to bring the herald of a Deity.

Summoner were the best summoners. Even if they were not the best conjurers.

************************

P.S. To those who did not play PF1.

At 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier... He can cast this spell as a standard action, and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level)... At 19th level, this ability can be used as gate or summon monster IX...

Prepare additional summon spells equal to X+Charisma at your highest spell level...Cast these spells using 2 action, and you can sustain for up to 10 (maybe an 20) minutes... At 19th level this can be used as Gate (or some high level summon spell)...

Rysky wrote:

”Sike you thought” is not in play here, only people’s own assumptions and wants.

It's not fooling people, they're just objectively wrong!

If their thought process was "even though this is a completely different edition and system this class will still have literally all the exact same abilities that caused a lot of issues in that old system in this completely new system", then yes.

Draco18s wrote:

Rysky wrote:

”Sike you thought” is not in play here, only people’s own assumptions and wants.

It's not fooling people, they're just objectively wrong!

If their thought process was "even though this is a completely different edition and system this class will still have literally all the exact same abilities that caused a lot of issues in that old system in this completely new system", then yes.

You straw-manned thing there, I think.

That's not what people are thinking when they read "the summoner."

Here, let me quote the actually relevant bit for you:

A lot of people assumed that a new class called "summoner" being introduced in a game that already has a mechanic called "summoning" would be naturally good at that mechanic.

Snes wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You missed my point.

Summoners summon.

Someone coming from P1 and going “ oh they had a pool for summon spells that lasted longer than normal in P1 so they’ll surely have it in P2” is an assumption and failure on their part, not on the name of the class.

In P1, just like P2, the main thing of the Summoner is the Eidolon. Guessing they have that would have some base. Assuming any other class abilities directly carried over exactly into the new edition is just that, an assumption. And a bad one at that.

A lot of people assumed that a new class called "summoner" being introduced in a game that already has a mechanic called "summoning" would be naturally good at that mechanic. It's like if they added class called "illusionist" that used Penn & Teller-style slight of hand tricks instead of illusion magic.

The "Sike You Thought" style of dismissing player assumptions does not lead to an enjoyable play experience for anyone other than you. Generally speaking, it is the developer's job to correctly set player expectations, or at the very least to not set up false expectations whenever possible.

”Sike you thought” is not in play here, only people’s own assumptions and wants.

P1 Summoner was not the greatest at Conjuration/summoning, it was about its Eidolon.

Assuming they would have a pool of summon spells that lasted longer than any other summon and could outright trivialize mechanics is only a mindset possessed by those thinking/wanting it to be the P1 Summoner.

To those who never played P1 there’s no “Sike” or expectations. It’s called Summoner. It summons its Eidolon.

I never played P1e and the name confuses me. I know the class has origins in 1e, but the class would make more sense to have a different name IMO. It’s essentially a Digimon class as you have your digidestined (character) and their Digimon partner (eidolon). The class is super focused on making your eidolon cooler and the emphasizing the bond between both of you.

Edit: this isn’t a dismissal of the class as I love Digimon and would love to recreate that fantasy in TTRPG. I just don’t think the Summoner name fits the core of the class which is really the eidolon and the pair’s bond

Rysky wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

Rysky wrote:

”Sike you thought” is not in play here, only people’s own assumptions and wants.

It's not fooling people, they're just objectively wrong!

If their thought process was "even though this is a completely different edition and system this class will still have literally all the exact same abilities that caused a lot of issues in that old system in this completely new system", then yes.

You straw-manned thing there, I think.

That's not what people are thinking when they read "the summoner."

Here, let me quote the actually relevant bit for you:

Quote:

A lot of people assumed that a new class called "summoner" being introduced in a game that already has a mechanic called "summoning" would be naturally good at that mechanic.

And they are, no one else can summon an Eidolon.

Rysky wrote:

Snes wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You missed my point.

Summoners summon.

Someone coming from P1 and going “ oh they had a pool for summon spells that lasted longer than normal in P1 so they’ll surely have it in P2” is an assumption and failure on their part, not on the name of the class.

In P1, just like P2, the main thing of the Summoner is the Eidolon. Guessing they have that would have some base. Assuming any other class abilities directly carried over exactly into the new edition is just that, an assumption. And a bad one at that.

A lot of people assumed that a new class called "summoner" being introduced in a game that already has a mechanic called "summoning" would be naturally good at that mechanic. It's like if they added class called "illusionist" that used Penn & Teller-style slight of hand tricks instead of illusion magic.

The "Sike You Thought" style of dismissing player assumptions does not lead to an enjoyable play experience for anyone other than you. Generally speaking, it is the developer's job to correctly set player expectations, or at the very least to not set up false expectations whenever possible.

”Sike you thought” is not in play here, only people’s own assumptions and wants.

P1 Summoner was not the greatest at Conjuration/summoning, it was about its Eidolon.

Assuming they would have a pool of summon spells that lasted longer than any other summon and could outright trivialize mechanics is only a mindset possessed by those thinking/wanting it to be the P1 Summoner.

To those who never played P1 there’s no “Sike” or expectations. It’s called Summoner. It summons its Eidolon.

I never played P1e and the name confuses me. I know the class has origins in 1e, but the class would make more sense to have a different name IMO. It’s essentially a Digimon class as you have your digidestined (character) and their Digimon partner (eidolon). The class is super focused on making your eidolon cooler and the emphasizing the bond...

How is it confusing to you? It's about summoning your eidolon, which no one else can do?

PF1 Druid Elemental Ally could summon Eidolons with no Evolution points. So Summoners were not the only ones who could do it. And anyone could call an Unfettered Eidolon via Planar Binding.

Summoners were just the best because they could get evolution points.

Remember PF1 lore is still cannon.

fanatic66 wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Snes wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You missed my point.

Summoners summon.

Someone coming from P1 and going “ oh they had a pool for summon spells that lasted longer than normal in P1 so they’ll surely have it in P2” is an assumption and failure on their part, not on the name of the class.

In P1, just like P2, the main thing of the Summoner is the Eidolon. Guessing they have that would have some base. Assuming any other class abilities directly carried over exactly into the new edition is just that, an assumption. And a bad one at that.

A lot of people assumed that a new class called "summoner" being introduced in a game that already has a mechanic called "summoning" would be naturally good at that mechanic. It's like if they added class called "illusionist" that used Penn & Teller-style slight of hand tricks instead of illusion magic.

The "Sike You Thought" style of dismissing player assumptions does not lead to an enjoyable play experience for anyone other than you. Generally speaking, it is the developer's job to correctly set player expectations, or at the very least to not set up false expectations whenever possible.

”Sike you thought” is not in play here, only people’s own assumptions and wants.

P1 Summoner was not the greatest at Conjuration/summoning, it was about its Eidolon.

Assuming they would have a pool of summon spells that lasted longer than any other summon and could outright trivialize mechanics is only a mindset possessed by those thinking/wanting it to be the P1 Summoner.

To those who never played P1 there’s no “Sike” or expectations. It’s called Summoner. It summons its Eidolon.

I never played P1e and the name confuses me. I know the class has origins in 1e, but the class would make more sense to have a different name IMO. It’s essentially a Digimon class as you have your digidestined (character) and their Digimon partner (eidolon). The class is super focused on making your eidolon cooler and

...

As you said no one can summon an EIDOLON. The class is all about your eidolon and the bond between you and it. It’s not about summoning random monsters to fight for you which is what summoning spells do in d&d/pf. That kind of summoner is really just a conjugation wizard. The Summoner class really just revolves around their eidolon which is super cool but deserves a more fitting name IMO. I like the class because I can live my childhood fantasy of having a digimon, but the name is confusing.

Summoner really should revolve around both the Eidolon and Summon Monster.

The existence of the summoned trait does not mean all things related to summoning have to have that trait. Just like not all archers have to have the archer dedication. Just like monks don't have to be from a monastery.

And I've never seen anyone confused by the FF14 summoner, which really works on the same summoned pet system.