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
351 to 400 of 525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

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.

I never played FF14 so that’s probably where my confusion stems from if the 1e Summoner class is inspired from that game


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
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.

Clearly not, but it also isn't an unreasonable assumption. Just like it is a reasonable assumption that if you want to be really good at archery, the Archer archetype is your best bet (not saying if that is actually true, just that it is a reasonable enough assumption).

Edit: Now that I think about it, I do recall being initially confused with why the Monk class revolved around martial arts, and nothing to do with European monasticism. That was a long time ago, and quickly cleared up, but it was my initial reaction.

The more I think about it, the more I like TheDoomBug's suggestion. It's not the class name that is the real issue, but that Summoning is attached to creatures called by conjuration effects and most of the spells that call them. Especially since the in game fluff of how summoning effects worked changed so dramatically between editions, with "summoned" creatures now being non-sapient constructs of raw essence, not a creature brought from another plane of existence via magic (which seems to be the best description of Eidolons).

I doubt that will happen, of course.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

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.

"Well people who mutliclass into Summoner or who took archetypes that gave them Summoner abilities could do it" isn't much of an argument.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
fanatic66 wrote:
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.

The Eidolon that the Summoner summons.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
fanatic66 wrote:
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.
The Eidolon that the Summoner summons.

"Manifests." The action is called "Manifest Eidolon."

Additionally, the Ostentatious Arrival feat makes a distinction between "when you summon creatures" and "manifesting your eidolon" in order to clarify that the feat applies to both.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
And I've never seen anyone confused by the FF14 summoner, which really works on the same summoned pet system.

LOL Does the game have specific abilities called summoning spells too that other classes use? It doesn't really seem like equivalent situations. If the game didn't already enshrine summoning as a specific type of spells, no one would have an issue with ta summoner not using them. :P

Cyouni wrote:
The existence of the summoned trait does not mean all things related to summoning have to have that trait.

I disagree: is it's not using the trait, it's another kind of ability be it teleportation, manifesting or something else. A summoning spell produces a Summoned creature: full stop IMO. To do otherwise is needlessly complicated IMO.

Silver Crusade

Draco18s wrote:
Rysky wrote:
fanatic66 wrote:
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.
The Eidolon that the Summoner summons.

"Manifests." The action is called "Manifest Eidolon."

Additionally, the Ostentatious Arrival feat makes a distinction between "when you summon creatures" and "manifesting your eidolon" in order to clarify that the feat applies to both.

Manifesting is summoning.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
]The Eidolon that the Summoner summons.

Nobody cares that the summoner summons an eidolon, they care that the summoner doesn't summon other things.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snes wrote:
Rysky wrote:
]The Eidolon that the Summoner summons.
Nobody cares that the summoner summons an eidolon, they care that the summoner doesn't summon other things.

That's a them problem then.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I disagree: is it's not using the trait, it's another kind of ability be it teleportation, manifesting or something else. A summoning spell produces a Summoned creature: full stop IMO. To do otherwise is needlessly complicated IMO.

Eh bombs lack the thrown trait, most spells lack the magic trait (they have the school traits, but that just says effects are associated)

Let's not get bogged down in conflating trait usage with verisimilitude/naming conventions.

Eidolons can be summoned in and banished at will by the summoner.

Summoners can also pick summoning spells.

I also think summoners could do with some summoned creature buff options, but suggesting it isn't a summoner on a weird technicality is being bull headded.

My ideal buffs would be, summoners share their tandem actions with eidolons and minions with the summoned trait and a focus spell "elite" modifier for summons.
I would save a "summon font" for a master summmoner esque class archetype.

Also, I have said this before but I still wish magus had been made a set of class archetypes rather than a class.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Snes wrote:
Rysky wrote:
]The Eidolon that the Summoner summons.
Nobody cares that the summoner summons an eidolon, they care that the summoner doesn't summon other things.
That's a them problem then.

Correct, which is why we are talking about the problem we are having here, on a board that, among other topics, is about the problems were having with the game.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
bombs lack the thrown trait

They don't need it. It's a ranged weapon. If it had Thrown, you could add str damage. Traits have meaning just like Summoned.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Let's not get bogged down in conflating trait usage with verisimilitude/naming conventions.

I'm talking traits not naming conventions. Summoning spells and Summoned are specific terms in the game. Summoning is specifically linked to the Summoned trait.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Eidolons can be summoned in and banished at will by the summoner.

They can be manifested and unmanifest.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Summoners can also pick summoning spells.

With 4 slots which makes them inferior in almost every objective way to any other caster using summoning spells.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I also think summoners could do with some summoned creature buff options, but suggesting it isn't a summoner on a weird technicality is being bull headded.

They are the worst casting class when it comes to summoning: Seems like a valid reason to wonder why it's called a summoner.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I would save a "summon font" for a master summmoner esque class archetype.

I'd prefer a subclass with a baby eidolon and the font right off the bat. As I wasn't a huge fan of the tandem actions, I wouldn't be excited to expand them.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Snes wrote:
Rysky wrote:
]The Eidolon that the Summoner summons.
Nobody cares that the summoner summons an eidolon, they care that the summoner doesn't summon other things.
That's a them problem then.
Correct, which is why we are talking about the problem we are having here, on a board that, among other topics, is about the problems were having with the game.

Luckily this is an easy user problem to solve, have them stop being so pedantic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Manifesting is summoning.

[citation needed]

There is exactly 1 spot in the playtest document that uses the word "summon" next to "eidolon" (and 6 other places that "summon" is used that is not also "summoner" all of which refer to the Summon ____ spells).

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

The vague description of the class at the top of the class entry. Every other place it talks about this same action it uses the word "manifest":

Quote:

You have a connection with a powerful and otherworldly

entity called an eidolon, and you can use your life force as
a conduit to manifest the eidolon into the mortal world.
An eidolon is a being formed of ephemeral essences—
typically mind, life, or spirit—that needs your body and
connection to this world to manifest.

Silver Crusade

Citation needed that Manifesting is not a form of summoning.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Citation needed that Manifesting is not a form of summoning.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Citation needed that Manifesting is not a form of summoning.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Nothing in the rules states that they are the same thing, if anything the rules go out of their way to indicate that they're not (by, you know, not using the word "summon" when referring to the eidolon).

Silver Crusade

Draco18s wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Citation needed that Manifesting is not a form of summoning.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Nothing in the rules states that they are the same thing, if anything the rules go out of their way to indicate that they're not (by, you know, not using the word "summon" when referring to the eidolon).

Manifest is not the same as the Summon spell and Trait, but it’s still summoning under Conjuration just like Calling is.

It’s on you to provide the burden of proof for the claim that Manifesting is not summoning.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

When I play a summoner, I don't want to summon anything except my eidolon buddy. "Casting Summoning Spells" can be an option for the class, but I want it to be a part of the chassis I can easily ignore for something equally powerful instead.

The last thing I'd want to do in a game like this is "pilot 3 or more bodies." 2 is enough.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:


It’s on you to provide the burden of proof for the claim that Manifesting is not summoning.

At this point I don't think burden of proof is really relevant anymore. Draco18s doesn't like the summoner, is very firm in that dislike, and wants to make sure people know it. I don't think there's much benefit in doing anything more than just leaving it at that. There's nothing to really convince or prove. At this point it's just a back and forth over subjective taste.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
At this point I don't think burden of proof is really relevant anymore. Draco18s doesn't like the summoner, is very firm in that dislike, and wants to make sure people know it.

While I also wasn't thrilled with the summoner, I don't think that impacted my dislike of it not having summoning abilities in the class. If the class would have run great and was a favorite of mine, I'd still have complained about the name if it wasn't actually summoning anything. IMO, it's 2 different issues. I'd have similar issue if the juggler archetype had nothing to do with juggling, the Linguist had nothing to to with languages or the Martial Artist was a about magic or Snarecrafter was about drum making...


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Snes wrote:
Rysky wrote:
]The Eidolon that the Summoner summons.
Nobody cares that the summoner summons an eidolon, they care that the summoner doesn't summon other things.
That's a them problem then.
Correct, which is why we are talking about the problem we are having here, on a board that, among other topics, is about the problems were having with the game.
Luckily this is an easy user problem to solve, have them stop being so pedantic.

Maybe stop being rude and easily dismissing the other side? I never played 1e and like many new people to pf2e, I come from d&d 5e, so my perspective is different. I actually really like the Summoner mechanics and the fantasy niche it provides, but the name is misleading. Summoner implies to me someone that summons various monsters to do it’s bidding like all the various summon spells. But that’s not mechanically how the Summoner works. It hyper focuses on your bond with an extraplanar creature. Sure, you get a few spells too but I’m more likely going to use those to buff my eidolon buddy than summon in waves of monsters. Even if I did, I don’t have enough spell slots to make summoning impactful enough.

This thread is in a response to devs posting their thoughts on the play test so it’s only natural we are sharing our thoughts on the play test as well. I know the name “Summoner” was used in 1e but the class is different now and it might be worth considering that it was never a well fitting name in the first place (although it’s hard for me to say without having played 1e).


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember when that guy had that huge meltdown on the playtest forums when they changed the name from paladin to champion?

Anyway. Quit it already. This is (just one of) the dumbest arguments that people keep dragging across threads. Yelling back and forth isn't changing the opinions of anyone, including the people at Paizo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So thematicly this current incarnation of the summoner is more captain planet, Billy batson than a tradition d&d high fanatsy summoner who drags dozens of demons through tears in the fabric of reality.

If you want the fantasy of I summon half a dozen smiling malicious monsters to fight my battle for me (I call this the darkness fantasy) well pathfinder 2e is incapable of fuffilling it. You should be playing pathfinder 1e or 3.5 for that.

Though summoning has always been a drag throughout all the edditions,in 3.5 pathfinder it was brokenly good and a complete fath, in 4e no they nailed it in 4e, in 5e its a fath and brokenly good, in pathfinder 2e its a fath and its rubbish.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:

Remember when that guy had that huge meltdown on the playtest forums when they changed the name from paladin to champion?

Anyway. Quit it already. This is (just one of) the dumbest arguments that people keep dragging across threads. Yelling back and forth isn't changing the opinions of anyone, including the people at Paizo.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I have no issue with the name change from Paladin to Champion. If anything, it proves that Paizo is willing to change "sacred cows" when it comes to class naming. The only reason I chimed in was to share the perspective of someone that is new to Pathfinder.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think it's beneficial to have the Summoner either focus on the Eidolon or on summoning spells. When players clog up the battlefield and use six actions a round, it starts to drag on the game flow.

I can easily see a class archetype that ditches the Eidolon to beef up summoning spells, making them last longer, or have stronger abilities etc.

Since they've already committed to making a Synthesist class archetype, they could throw in the Master Summoner archetype as well.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

I think it's beneficial to have the Summoner either focus on the Eidolon or on summoning spells. When players clog up the battlefield and use six actions a round, it starts to drag on the game flow.

I can easily see a class archetype that ditches the Eidolon to beef up summoning spells, making them last longer, or have stronger abilities etc.

Since they've already committed to making a Synthesist class archetype, they could throw in the Master Summoner archetype as well.

I would hope there was a path for the summon spells from the start. I really do think its fundamental.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

I think it's beneficial to have the Summoner either focus on the Eidolon or on summoning spells. When players clog up the battlefield and use six actions a round, it starts to drag on the game flow.

I can easily see a class archetype that ditches the Eidolon to beef up summoning spells, making them last longer, or have stronger abilities etc.

Since they've already committed to making a Synthesist class archetype, they could throw in the Master Summoner archetype as well.

Agree. Summoning Spells tend to be really weak in their current iteration. I know they have some occasional nice riders, but the summon usually lasts for a round or two and hardly hits anything that is not below the Average Party Level. Frankly, there isn’t much incentive to go for summon spells in the current class chassis.

I know I’m in the minority here, but I liked the idea that someone suggested about having a Summoning Font. Or maybe have a Martial Caster like feature that tied to summoning spells

I didn’t play 1e much, but wasn’t Summon Monster a core part of the class?


richienvh wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

I think it's beneficial to have the Summoner either focus on the Eidolon or on summoning spells. When players clog up the battlefield and use six actions a round, it starts to drag on the game flow.

I can easily see a class archetype that ditches the Eidolon to beef up summoning spells, making them last longer, or have stronger abilities etc.

Since they've already committed to making a Synthesist class archetype, they could throw in the Master Summoner archetype as well.

Agree. Summoning Spells tend to be really weak in their current iteration. I know they have some occasional nice riders, but the summon usually lasts for a round or two and hardly hits anything that is not below the Average Party Level. Frankly, there isn’t much incentive to go for summon spells in the current class chassis.

I know I’m in the minority here, but I liked the idea that someone suggested about having a Summoning Font. Or maybe have a Martial Caster like feature that tied to summoning spells

I didn’t play 1e much, but wasn’t Summon Monster a core part of the class?

It was and it wasn't, you got Charisma + max level summoning spells per days which were effectively quickened and with a duration 10 times that of the normal summon spells duration, but you couldn't have your eidolon out at the same time as your summon and you couldn't have more than one summon spells going at time. So you couldn't do the caster trick of summon, summon, summon and flood the field with dudes. Unless you were a master summoner and you could.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:

Remember when that guy had that huge meltdown on the playtest forums when they changed the name from paladin to champion?

Anyway. Quit it already. This is (just one of) the dumbest arguments that people keep dragging across threads. Yelling back and forth isn't changing the opinions of anyone, including the people at Paizo.

Wouldn't have been an argument if people didn't try to say we're not allowed to express opinions here.

It is really weird that so many of act defensive when someone dislikes a decision of Paizo's. No one is asking you to fix it. No one is even asking you to respond if you don't want to.

Our money is just as valid as yours. Our enjoyment of the game is just as important as yours. I'd really appreciate it if y'all would quit acting like we need your permission to speak up.

It would be one thing if people were clogging up thread after thread with unrelated issues to the post topic, but this is on topic.

Edit: Also, if I recall correctly, it wasn't the class name that caused him to ragequit as much as it was that champions could be multiple alignments. He so strongly identified with the class that the idea that alignments besides LG could have abilities similar to his paladins ruined the game for him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

I think it's beneficial to have the Summoner either focus on the Eidolon or on summoning spells. When players clog up the battlefield and use six actions a round, it starts to drag on the game flow.

I can easily see a class archetype that ditches the Eidolon to beef up summoning spells, making them last longer, or have stronger abilities etc.

Since they've already committed to making a Synthesist class archetype, they could throw in the Master Summoner archetype as well.

That would be cool, yeah. One nice side effect of the proficiency system is that, even if you could summon multiple lower level minions, you probably wouldn't bother except under extremely limited circumstances.

Maybe these incarnate spells could fill that need? If they add a sustain mechanic so that you can have multiple running around (not sure how with a 3 action cast, but let me dream a moment), their deliberately limited action possibilities might allow a summoner to have multiple "summons", but not take up a lot of table time to manage.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Citation needed that Manifesting is not a form of summoning.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Nothing in the rules states that they are the same thing, if anything the rules go out of their way to indicate that they're not (by, you know, not using the word "summon" when referring to the eidolon).

Manifest is not the same as the Summon spell and Trait, but it’s still summoning under Conjuration just like Calling is.

It’s on you to provide the burden of proof for the claim that Manifesting is not summoning.

You pretty much just stated the proof. The complaint is that the Summoner class is not the best at spells that result in minions that have the summoned trait. As you said earlier, they manifest an eidolon in its place. You don't see that as a disconnect, but other people do see that as a disconnect. You've mentioned before that you'd prefer that conjuration wizards be the best at casting Summon spells, and that's fine, but I personally would rather they both have options to be equally good at casting Summoning spells, and let their other class abilities create a distinction.

I also don't think there's anything particularly special about the name Summoner. It's not like it's a major in lore term. Caller or Binder would work better from both an in-game lore perspective and be mechanically distinct from current game terms.

Grand Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'll just say that if it was a widespread problem, it will be a data point they can see in the playtest surveys. If it's the case, they'll change things to fit. The fact they didn't mention anything of that sort here makes me think it's a vocal minority problem. Or they just didn't mention this and will make changes that fit. We'll see.

Let's just agree to disagree here. This back and forth will convince nobody, and create more noise than necessary.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The last 4 or 5 pages have been nothing but this discussion, I think the point has been made. You've been repeating the same arguments over and over for a while now. Let's find something else to talk about and give feedback/suggestions on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

I think it's beneficial to have the Summoner either focus on the Eidolon or on summoning spells. When players clog up the battlefield and use six actions a round, it starts to drag on the game flow.

I can easily see a class archetype that ditches the Eidolon to beef up summoning spells, making them last longer, or have stronger abilities etc.

Since they've already committed to making a Synthesist class archetype, they could throw in the Master Summoner archetype as well.

I think this would be a good solution, have a variant of the Summoner class through a Class Archetype that replaces the Eidolon with beefed up small fry summoning mechanics. It certainly beats agonizing over whether a trait that mostly just carries the mechanical weight of limiting certain spells is some kind of straitjacket on what a certain class means.

Honestly, its all kind of a moot point because any 'confusion' would die as soon as the player read the description of the Summoner class that spends many paragraphs equating 'Summoner' with Eidolon. At that point the only remaining question is one of whether we like the idea of the Summoner having extra support for those spells.

Which, like, I do, so I think a class archetype for that is an appropriate solution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey actually, I have a question I want to ask:

What kind of spell support do you guys want to see going forward? Are we trying to diversify the lists to support things like occult blasting, or are there unrepresented capabilities we're looking for to keep them separate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be alright with diversifying the lists a bit, as long as they still somewhat stay in their lane. For instance, I don't think occult should get a spell that's just "mental fireball" but stuff like "mental fireball that deals less damage but stupefies" is a good way to diversify the lists while still keeping them focused.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Salamileg wrote:
I would be alright with diversifying the lists a bit, as long as they still somewhat stay in their lane. For instance, I don't think occult should get a spell that's just "mental fireball" but stuff like "mental fireball that deals less damage but stupefies" is a good way to diversify the lists while still keeping them focused.

That's a good point actually, and it reminds me of the riders on 4th edition powers. Each power would basically admixture the role associated with the power source, with the role associated with the class it was a part of-- so an Invoker would cast spells that made it a controller, but those spells would generally have some small heals or buffs associated with them as well, because the divine power source was flavored to be supportive.

We kind of have some of that already, the way Flame Strike is weaker than fireball in range and damage (for its level) but has the special effect of piercing fire immunity and resistance in a neat way. Since most of the people casting it don't have access to fireball, it presents a world in which divine casters *can* blast, and even have unique perks when they do so, without treading on the toes of the traditional blasting list too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
I would be alright with diversifying the lists a bit, as long as they still somewhat stay in their lane. For instance, I don't think occult should get a spell that's just "mental fireball" but stuff like "mental fireball that deals less damage but stupefies" is a good way to diversify the lists while still keeping them focused.

You mean like Phantasmal Calamity, which is essentially the exact spell you describe? :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Consider the names of existing PF2 classes. Alchemist, Fighter, Investigator, and Sorcerer are named after their key abilities, assuming "sorcery" means spellcasting. Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Witch, and Wizard are named after professions that the class resembles. Monk is named after the Shaolin monks who practice martial arts. Swashbuckler is named after a cinematic combat style that the Swashbuckler exemplifies. Barbarian and Champion are named after lifestyles that are iconic for the classes.

Summoner is named after a spell that resembles manifesting an eidolon. The connection is weaker than the names of most classes, but not as weak as the connection between a monk and living in a monastery or between a barbarian and the Roman name for a primitive tribe. It is close enough to understand the ordinary people of Golarion calling a summoner by that name, short for "eidolon summoner."


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Imo, the summoner is just in a weird spot for me.

The lore of the class implies it should be good at conjuring, but it can't even cast 10th level summoning spells, and it lacks the spell slots to summon with any higher level of frequency. I actually like the 4 slot casting, but combat summoning is only really viable if you drop a max level spell, since otherwise the monster's stats are too low to meaningfully do anything.

Mechanically, it actually gets a lot of really fun looking metamagic feats for summoning spells. Making a mini explosion when you summon is really cool. Letting you move your eidolon when summoning is really cool. Giving your summons the benefit of your conduit spells is really cool. Only being able to use these things 1 or 2 times a day is why quickened spell doesn't feel very cool.

I'd actually be perfectly happy if a summon font was something you had to spend class feats for. Heck, that way we'd be able to get both the classic pf 1e summoner feel alongside, say, a God-Caller or what have you who's magic is more specized into calling one specific extradimensional being instead of being good at conjuration in general


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Salamileg wrote:
I would be alright with diversifying the lists a bit, as long as they still somewhat stay in their lane. For instance, I don't think occult should get a spell that's just "mental fireball" but stuff like "mental fireball that deals less damage but stupefies" is a good way to diversify the lists while still keeping them focused.

You mean like Phantasmal Calamity, which is essentially the exact spell you describe? :)

Synaptic Static (5e spell) could be another good model for an Occult like Fireball. Deal mental damage and impose a bane like effect on creatures that fail their Will save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Hey actually, I have a question I want to ask:

What kind of spell support do you guys want to see going forward? Are we trying to diversify the lists to support things like occult blasting, or are there unrepresented capabilities we're looking for to keep them separate?

I'd prefer they not try to muddle the list themes too much by adding offbrand spells like Occult blasting or the like. Honestly I wish they'd had stronger thematic underpinning from the get go, but that ship has sailed.

The spell support I'm really looking for is more cantrips. A lot more cantrips, at least a couple 1 action ones with a crit effect (if striking spell sticks with the "lower accuracy for more crit chance" theme). I have a list...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I like how the divine domains effectively add spells to their list, as do the witch lessons, and sorcerer's bloodlines. I like that it provides a way of get some additional variance between characters of the same class.

Each of those has an underlying theme to it that makes it seem pretty appropriate use of the mechanic of allowing the tradition to be spread out a little for that particular caster.

I'm pretty sure I'd rather not see that busted wide open with pick any spell feats, adding them to your list. However, if they come with themes, perhaps archetypes representing a new school of magic, so to speak, that might expand the list thematically, might be an option.

I wouldn't want tons of new spells to simply insure that every tradition has a spell that does all the same things, just different ways. It seemed like that sort of happened in the past to grant 'healing' to the arcane side, and flying to the divine side, or some such by kind of reflavoring something about the spell and changing a few numbers. Not against it in occasional key places that are meaningful and flavorful. But if it becomes commonplace, it makes the choices lose their meaning. So if we are talking about expanding the traditions to make sure everyone can do everything out of the box, I hope that doesn't happen.

But enabling various themed options seems good. When thinking about ways to do the Magus and Summoner, I remember getting the idea of potentially using other filters relying on specific aspects of the spell to generate new sub-lists. Things like I'd mentioned before, spells only being able to effect the summoner, and other summons (or manifested) creatures. Or limiting something to spells that are primal and only target self. This might be a way to utilize existing spell lists, and have the potential for new spell to fall into availability with new content that comes out.

I'd like to see more spells with varied casting times/action requirements. I also think it would be nice to see some new one action spells, potentially especially cantrips [whose spell slots wouldn't be consumed rapidly by 1-action spells]. How about some more potential Reaction spells? Those are things we haven't seem many examples of, and I'd like to see some more.

I'm curious about having new Variant versions of existing spells. Ones that have minor but potentially meaningful differences in an otherwise common spell. Lets take for instance the Shield spell.

Variant Shield spell:
Summon Shield - Cantrip 1
Summoning Cantrip
Future Rulebook (SoM) pg. 999
Traditions divine, occult, primal
Cast Single Action verbal
Duration until end of next turn, sustained up to 1 minute as long as it continues to be held.
You summon a magical shield. This counts as using the Raise a Shield action, giving you a +1 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn. It requires a hand to use, but the hand is considered free for the purposes of spell casting, such as but not limited to qualifying for holding material components. The shield helps hold and direct itself, so it does not add to the wielder's bulk.

When you sustain the summoned shield, it counts as a Raise a Shield action, giving you a +1 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn, and the shield remains summoned until the end of your next turn.

While the spell is in effect, you can use the Shield Block reaction with your summoned shield. The shield has Hardness 3. The shield's BT is equal to its Hardness, and its HP equal to 2x its hardness.

If your summoned shield has taken any damage from a shield block, the spell can't cast it again for 10 minutes.
Unlike a normal Shield Block, you can use the spell's reaction against the magic missile spell. (contemplating if this should be kept, or should go away)

Alternately, you could allow them to resummon their shield if it has taken damage if it is not broken. However, if they do, if it has not been at least 10 minutes, the sheild returns in the same damaged condition it was last in. Otherwise, if this option was chosen, if the summoned shield was broken when they last had it, it would not be able to be resummoned until 10 minutes had past, at which point a fresh shield would be summoned.

If the shield is dropped, or no longer held it vanishes immediately.

Heightening the spell increases the shield's Hardness, BT, HP.
Heightened (3rd) The shield has Hardness 5, 5, 10.
Heightened (5th) The shield has Hardness 8, 8, 16.
Heightened (7th) The shield has Hardness 10, 10, 20.
Heightened (9th) The shield has Hardness 15, 15, 30.

The new version summons a magical shield, which can be used to block, but can survive strikes unlike the standard versions, but is otherwise weaker against specific attacks.

Now is where someone accuses me of just reflavoring a spell and allowing another tradition(primal) to have it. Yep, now you see how natural it is to happen, and how you need to be careful. So it would need to be weighed against how much it adds, helps the game, and is is balanced. I tried make the new spell sort of weaker, given the shield can persist potentially through more than one shield block.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Remember when that guy had that huge meltdown on the playtest forums when they changed the name from paladin to champion?

Which was weird since "the class is champion, the LG subclass is paladin" was the compromise position threading the needle between "there should be paladins of any alignment because LG isn't special" and "'Paladin' kind of means that 'knight in shining armor, by-the-book, goodie two-shoes' type; someone who breaks the rules or is cruel can be a divinely inspired warrior, but we shouldn't call them a paladin."

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Wouldn't have been an argument if people didn't try to say we're not allowed to express opinions here.
You're allowed your opinions, just like others are allowed their opinions in response to yours, of course an asinine opinion is met with a bitter response.
AnimatedPaper wrote:


It is really weird that so many of act defensive when someone dislikes a decision of Paizo's. No one is asking you to fix it. No one is even asking you to respond if you don't want to.
It has more to do with the weeks of insults and gaslighting and general petty vehemence that spawned and reach for anything within grasp around every fabric of the in-work class that was presented.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Our money is just as valid as yours. Our enjoyment of the game is just as important as yours. I'd really appreciate it if y'all would quit acting like we need your permission to speak up.
You don't. People also don't need your permission or blessing to respond either. And the act itself of disagreeing with you is not an attack.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
You pretty much just stated the proof.
Manifesting is summoning until and if the Designers say otherwise.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
The complaint is that the Summoner class is not the best at spells that result in minions that have the summoned trait.
This kinda leads into the pedantism I'm talking about, loading all your [general your] complaints that it doesn't do this specific thing regarding this miniscule thing (also a reminder that the Summon Trait didn't exist in P1) and therefore should exclude it from the name it has, even though it still summons and summons its Eidolon, comes across as a bad faith argument born out of spite and pettiness which brewed from the playtest forums, rather than an earnest discussion.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
As you said earlier, they manifest an eidolon in its place. You don't see that as a disconnect, but other people do see that as a disconnect. You've mentioned before that you'd prefer that conjuration wizards be the best at casting Summon spells, and that's fine, but I personally would rather they both have options to be equally good at casting Summoning spells, and let their other class abilities create a distinction.
And I'm perfectly fine with both Summoners and Conjurers getting more fun stuff to play with.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I also don't think there's anything particularly special about the name Summoner. It's not like it's a major in lore term. Caller or Binder would work better from both an in-game lore perspective and be mechanically distinct from current game terms.

I also wouldn't be bothered if they changed the name to something they thought was more fitting.

The issue I have, and the crux of all of this, is people demanding the name being changed because it doesn't check every box on their super specific summoning class bingo card and claim it is not a a summoner at all. A push that started with people bitter over the fact that the P2 Summoner A doesn't copy every single ability from the P1 Summoner resulting in a broken headache of a mess this go around.

There's a few legitimate requests for different names here and there, but the push for the name change was born out of a petty desire to attack and tear down everything involved with the Playtest version, it did not start as a genuine discussion for improvement.

Wanting a different name cause you think it's cooler is perfectly valid, claiming "the Summoner shouldn't be called Summoner because it isn't the Summoner" is juts asinine.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
Remember when that guy had that huge meltdown on the playtest forums when they changed the name from paladin to champion?
Which was weird since "the class is champion, the LG subclass is paladin" was the compromise position threading the needle between "there should be paladins of any alignment because LG isn't special" and "'Paladin' kind of means that 'knight in shining armor, by-the-book, goodie two-shoes' type; someone who breaks the rules or is cruel can be a divinely inspired warrior, but we shouldn't call them a paladin."

Yeah that was a headache as well.


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

Paladins. One of Charlemagne's twelve Paladins was a knight named Ganelon, whose claim to fame, according to legend, was that he betrayed his fellow Paladins to the Saracens, leading to the death of Roland, who in addition to being a Paladin was Charlemagne's nephew.

So much for "Lawful Good". :-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

History matters less than pop-culture in terms of determining the fantasy of classes. Like the stuff monks can do has a lot more to do with Hong Kong action films, anime, and novels that are more about "entertaining" than "accurate" than it has to do with "anything anybody from a monastery ever actually did."

351 to 400 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