Search Posts
I also don't think there is a good way of doing a full two-martial hybrid character. That just seems too powerful and would overshadow all of the one-martial character classes that already exist, or even the one-martial with minion companion character options. Even if you had a fighter with an eidolon with legendary proficiency and Act Together, the numbers still work out better for flurry ranger with an animal companion on every attack except for the first one.
I have not taken a single spellcasting feat from the archetype. All six of my archetype feats are going towards my eidolon.
Summoner archetype needs a change that brings it on to the same level as animal companions. As it stands, archetype eidolons are only really good at being skill monkeys and are suboptimal in combat. At level 17, I am spending six class feats to have an eidolon that is worse in almost every way than an animal companion that would require half the feat investment.Every way other than the skills and spellcasting that they provide. You need to dump feats into summoner archetype to get spellcasting. Even more so than other casting archetypes, since you don't get cantrips or spellcasting for taking the dedication and are a bounded caster. It is arguably more viable as a martial archetype than a casting one. Keep in mind, if you do this, it is at the expense of your eidolon's power.
Duergar, drow, and svirfneblin. Also, lashunta and kasatha would be cool, but less of a priority for me than the cavern ancestries.
I fully support giving rogues martial proficiency and restricting wizards to simple weapon proficiency.
Summoner archetype needs a change that brings it on to the same level as animal companions. As it stands, archetype eidolons are only really good at being skill monkeys and are suboptimal in combat. At level 17, I am spending six class feats to have an eidolon that is worse in almost every way than an animal companion that would require half the feat investment. They have the same scaling as animal companions, but characters that have summoner archetype have one less action to work with than those with animal companions. You also need to spend your entire first turn summoning them. Furthermore, you need to spend feats to have expert weapon proficiency, to not roll saves against AoE with disadvantage (spending your reaction to do so), and to give your eidolon any sort of defining abilities. There is really no reason to take the archetype if you want to use it in combat. I think that archetype eidolons should either get Act Together, or their attacks should scale with the martial proficiency of the main character. I am partial to the latter, as it would differentiate archetype eidolons from animal companions. This would not unbalance the game, as the summoner would still have to spend their actions to attack. They would just be choosing whether to do it with their eidolon's attacks or their own. This also would not step on the toes of flurry rangers, as they still have a better chance to hit on their second and third attacks when compared to fighters. Animal companions also don't share MAP with the creature commanding them, so you would have a better chance to hit more often with an animal companion over an eidolon. I would appreciate it if someone at Paizo would crunch the numbers and give summoner archetype a serious makeover to make it better for martial classes.
Would probably be better to plug /r/Pathfinder_RPG in favor of /r/Pathfinder2e.
I really am not a fan of the new changes to ancestry ability scores for multiple reasons, both mechanical and otherwise.
If you're going to start writing content out of your setting, at least write it out. Take a scalpel and slowly excise it going forward instead of taking a cleaver to all future content right now. Should one person or a small group of people have the power to demand sweeping changes?
If you're going to start writing content out of your setting, at least write it out. Take a scalpel and slowly excise it going forward instead of taking a cleaver to all future content right now.
p. 102: The fire mote on element embodied does bludgeoning damage instead of fire damage pp. 198, 200: Storm druids are listed as an elementalist druid but aren't allowed to take the elementalist druid focus spells.
I like how they took over $450,000, delivered next to nothing, and all the community is getting back is vague statements. This is not a good image, contractual obligations be damned.
I'm not gonna pretend I read through the whole thread but these are the errors/inconsistencies I've found: - The nuclear mega missile launcher doesn't have the irradiate special while all other nuclear missile launchers have it. (SCR pg. 302-303) - The bows and shuriken in the Core Rulebook don't have analog, but the bows in Dead Suns AP 4 do. (Nets say in their description that they automatically tighten when they hit something so I'm leaving those off) (SCR pg. 179; DS4 pg. 44) - The Improved Unarmed Strike feat says in the description "You have trained to make your unarmed strikes lethal and strike with kicks, head-butts, and similar attacks." However, the benefit does not list that your unarmed strikes can be lethal, and it specifically says you need either your hands or legs free to make unarmed attacks (no head-butts?). (SCR pg. 158) - The Burning Archipelago (on the Sun) has a percentage of efreet inhabitants listed, yet there are no stats for efreet in any of the books. (PW pg. 12) - There are half-orcs as a race in the Core Rulebook, but no mention of orcs that I could find anywhere else. (SCR pg. 510)
This thread reeks of crotchetiness and gatekeeping.
I was reading through the core rulebook and noticed a few strange things: - Bows and shuriken are not considered analog. - The nuclear mega missile launcher (the capital one) doesn't have the irradiate property like its smaller counterparts. Are these intended? Am I missing something? Aliases
|
