Katrixia's page

Meanwhile, a synthesis eidolon is no stronger than a normal eidolon, and you lose access to pretty much all of your class features, spells, skill feats, ancestry feats, and the benefits of being in two places at once.

This is what really bothers me about Synth; you give up spellcasting, action-economy, feat usage, telepathic exploration, amount of class feats (Synthesis costs a feat slot and most feats, even a lot of class feats, in playtest do not affect a Synthesist)

What exactly am i getting for everything i sacrifice?

I want to do or have some things a regular Summoner & Eidolon cannot do or have; i want to be stronger than a regular Eidolon, not weaker. I'm 2 creatures basically fused into 1, nobody wants to play the "Summoner but we deleted Summoner and kept the Eidolon the same" class

When I see this in my head/suggesting it, I'm seeing the Summoner using act Together to Boost Eidolon (or Reinforce) without affecting the Eidolons potential 3 actions per turn.

Same action economy as a vanilla summoner, but the 4th action is limited to conduit spells and mental-only actions.

Oh you know what, that could work.

But I do think some sort of meaningful limitation is needed to avoid the Synthesis theme being a mechanically superior option that gets chosen for its power, and not its theme.

I think it's fair to limit spellcasting (unless you have the Eidolon spellcasting feats) while Synth'd.

I'm not sure i'd say the Synth would have a superior statline if we just don't include being able to use the Summoner's own mental stats.

I also think limiting it to a sub-class option, not accessible through multi-class, is another way to limit it; that way a Fighter with legendary can't just pick up Synth for a boost in damage, defense, or abilities.

I'm not sure about the Synth using conduit spells; i don't see using "Boost Eidolon" by spending an action as reasonable when the Eidolon is already behind in damage.
Again, you already sacrifice the action economy of the Summoner to go Synth, it'd be a little insulting if i had to cut it even more to still do overall less damage than a regular Eidolon.

rather than just replacing the summoner with the Eidolon.

"Pick up Synthesis to delete the Summoner from the Summoner class"

lmfao great job Paizo

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Another thing to consider is the Synth gaining the benefit from Boost Eidolon and the like, through some way; maybe a feat that auto-applies it for Synths or idk, something.

Ah that makes more sense then.

Issue is currently those have very varying degrees of impact. So I wonder what they'd do with say, synthesist to get it to function.

It could potentially open up some more interesting multicass ideas though. Suddenly a synthesist summoner with monk MC might be kinda cool.

I think instead of the Eidolon being placed upon you that maybe (at least, mechanically) the Summoner is fused with the Eidolon.

Taking out the text that currently reads something like "Things that would affect the Summoner or what the Summoner can do is prohibited"

I think allowing feats to effect the Synth as a creature from both the Summoner and Eidolon is what would make it work.
(Except maybe spellcasting, but i mean that's up for discussion how strong you really consider that to be as a Synth)

Right now, whether as a Synth or not, i don't think there's any way for an Eidolon to use anything from the martial artist archetype, use attack of opportunity through a multiclass, or benefit from something like Canny Acumen that the Summoner would have because technically that's something the Eidolon does not have.

I mean, sure, that's probably a workable option.

I'm not committed to my particular strategy on limiting Synthesists - I just think they need to be limited somehow.

And you know what? Regardless, i appreciate you Krispy.

I dont want them to end up as "Perfect Stats Man - the Guy whose main feature is his near perfect Attribute array!" Which is what you get if they have free access to all their Eidolon and Summoner attributes and abilities with no drawbacks.

That was essentially the problem with the 1e Synthesist as well.

I didn't say anything about that but i'll give you my opinion like before.

I really don't think Synth needs to be able to use the Summoner's mental stats; 2e is balanced in such a way, where the Eidolon gets boosts too, so there are no MAD problems.

You can already have your Eidolon be good at mental through boosts, using your own mental scores is really not a big boon at all and i think the vast majority of us wouldn't care if we didn't get it as a Synth in 2e.

You get to increase 4 stats each time you get a boost (which comes the same time as every other class), obviously as an Eidolon you'll boost STR/DEX/CON, but what about your last stat increase? That can go to any mental you want. INT/WIS/CHA. It's fine.

So "perfect-stats man" really isn't an issue.

Id like to see current Synthesis remain as a feat any Summoner can pick up, and the sub class/class path add some sort of fundamental feature that makes it a valid playstyle.

The ability to spend an action and access your Summoners feats/skills/abilities for a round, something.

Ontop of everything a Synth sacrifices in order to be a Synth, including the extra action economy, you want the Synth to spend an action to do what a regular Summoner can already do?

Another, unspoken reason thus far to avoid a point system and consider using simple bonus feats for extra customization resources:

Variance.

Remember all those people wanting class paths?

Eidolon Summoner, Synthesist, Master Summoner?

Those are way easier to balance when each is a discreet addition to the base system.

In the above examples, the Eidolon Summoner is bonus Evolution feats, rhe Synthesist is Synthesis and possibly companion abilities to make it Good (or bonus Synthesist feats), and the last is whatever Summoning system they choose to implement.

Its harder to implement those side by side if you've created an elaborate subsystem for Eidolons as your default consideration.

Personally, I really don't see Synth being good as anything but a sub-class.

Nobody who loved playing Synth in 1e wants Synth relegated to just a "defensive" (using that term loosely) option in 2e.

It needs the power-balance to compensate for losing so much.
It cannot be a worse-Wildshape Druid.

As well as the fact it's really too flexible if it gains the necessary power balance, it'd become a must-pick if it's not locked behind a choice the player has to make; they would have to dedicate to only manifesting as a Synth.

Does anyone have an idea how long the designers have before they need to hand the book over to editing to get it out in time? I'm curious how much time they have to actually digest and implement the playtest data, as that dictates an upper limit on how much the design can change.

That's what a lot of us are considering here.

It would be extremely generous - though I think possibly reasonable - to give the class 3 lifetime bonus evolution feats. Or maybe one flexible evolution feat.

More than that though? The class doesn't need that much additional free stuff, and definitely not a whole new currencies worth.

I'd say 5 (1 per ability boost; lv.1/5/10/15/20) would be more reasonable.

The shared effect for HP/action is a mess as soon as you look outside of the most basic slow and/or aoe damage spell.

Yeah, honestly, there really is a lot shared HP/effects/actions screws with that the Summoner class would need an FAQ entirely dedicated to itself, if not a rewrite of several rules to include concessions or exceptions to the Summoner.

Again, this is new territory for 2e, there are going to be a lot of newly introduced mechanics in SoM.

I just don't feel heavy rule contradictions on what people are assuming is "implied" (Such as the idea that the Summoner being tripped if the Eidolon is tripped is reasonable) is a good way to go about it.

I'm not opposed to giving a Summoner bonus Evolution feats - I've suggested that exact thing in multiple forms in the past.

Thats directly equivalent to the extra familiar abilities these Wizards and Witches get.

Listen, we get bonus evolution feats, i'll shut my trap about initial customization options.

I don't need 1e's evolution system, even though most of us loved it.

Although, i do still think a dummy template you build off for an Eidolon and ability choices would go a long way to saving page-space and still give players options to mechanically-support their narrative creations. (Nothing extra from what we currently get, i just don't feel we need roughly the same templates posted over and over again with different names; a lot is just repeated information)

Uh, that's what handwraps of mighty blows are. So yes, we do charge for these. Monks also pay feats for more interesting unarmed attack options associated with styles.

The Monk is not charged for it's fist material upgrades, no, which is what i was referring to.

No balanced solution for Summoners can be built on the foundation of granting the class too many "extra" effective character building resources. That means things like movement modes and damage resistance need to cost feats or gold, since that's what other players have to pay for those.

Should we start charging Monks gold for their unarmed improvements that other classes have to pay for?

Should we charge the Fighter feats for their extra combat flexible feats, Shield Block, or Attack of Opportunity that nobody else gets for free?

Maybe we should nerf the Barbarian since it gets damage resistance for free without paying gold or feats?

Let's be sincere here, there's no real issue with granting the Eidolon more customizability. Let's consider how the Summoner can be unique in what it's granted just like other classes. If you want to gatekeep damage resistance options to a later level that's fine, but there's nothing wrong with it being "free" or "extra" per the system's design.

The Eidolon has no options to gain armor and it is just as defensive as the Summoner itself for 8 levels of it's life, ontop of being two targets sharing 1 resource.
That's not an argument for damage resistance but to really consider how unique these new classes in SoM are and what new territory they are charting.

I don't even consider the Summoner itself to be 1 whole PC, especially not with what feat options there are for the Summoner itself without having to beg for other classes' options in the form of multiclassing.

And I never said synthesis was good. It's really quite bad, actually. I simply said it solved the issue with aoe damage you were having, which is a fact.

"Hey dude just don't play Pathfinder and that'll fix the issue with AoEs for you"

lmfao

Synthesis needs A LOT of help.

I really think it'd be better if we had an Eidolon dummy template we could build from.

It'd save on page space, significantly, and allow more space for sub-classes.
Right now the Eidolons as your sub-class is not really selling it, i think changing how the Summoner plays vs your Eidolon sub-type would make for a more significant choice for subclass.
As well as, of course, allow for more pages for feat options.

Allow the template to choose their own abilities; that'd be a great addition to customization, to be able to choose your own Eidolon abilities.
Want an Undead green spectral fire breathing skeleton?
Pick up the breath weapon ability at lv.7 and slap that on your Eidolon.

Temperans wrote:

So just to make sure I understand. The whole of Summoner needs to fit in something like 10-13 pages if it follows the same as other classes?

Nope, we have a little more extra space for it than that. But the one in the playtest is already almost 13 pages long (I'm not counting the focus spells because they go in the spells section).

^Here we go

Temperans wrote:

And the whole "it can't be balanced" was disproved by me.

You did no such thing.

As for page count concerns, look at what all was allotted to the APG and its 4 classes. SoM only has 2 classes so it’s not completely unreasonable to think they might be allotted more pages.

I can't remember what Mark said, but somewhere around here you'll find a comment from him where he says something like" there's still more room for pages but it's getting close"

I dont see why Eidolon and Summoner can't have 8 HP each. The same as a Rogue.

Personally, i'd see it better if it was 6+10 rather than 8+8; i think the Summoner should stay the fragile caster she is.

Of course, still being able to contribute when the Eidolon is down.

I feel like at that point we're performing multiple really big stretches to make Con work for anything but "in combat".

Having no skills tied to it really kills Con as a main stat for me.

I love the concept, but mechanically it takes so much to make it work without "killing" a characrer concept that I can't find it worth it.

I remember you were the first one to cast down CON casting for the Summoner.

I have to admit that while it makes great thematic sense for the Summoner to be a CON caster, you made some great points i agree with.

CON has no skills tied to it, so you don't really "excel" at anything outside of combat.

The above are ideas, not a balanced concept. Animal companions would not be good enough with a weak character like the base summoner class. It has insufficient capabilities to work well with a base AC.

You have to show that the options are mathematically balanced using PF2 math, not toss a bunch of ideas out there based on the PF1 summoner class.

That's why this is so difficult. The eidolon has to be balanced and the summoner has to be balanced. So the variation has to be of a kind that doesn't provide a substantial mechanical advantage in any particular area.

Do you feel it's possible to have the Summoner be a balanced and satisfying class to play in 2e?

I keep thinking back to Animal and Wildshape Druid, at the very least it's fair to say the current playtest version is severely under-powered in comparison.
I wonder if you're in the same place i am; i've said it before but i have no idea how the devs must be feeling reading the feedback and seeing the playtest results unfold.
Summoner seems like a real challenge to balance and be satisfying, i have no idea how the devs are really going to do it, there's a number of small changes they could make but there are also some bigger issues that would need to be addressed and depending on how they're addressed, that may also create bigger issues. It's a sensitive class in 2e.

I mean, I consider the reliance on (and benefits of) retraining a huge flaw in the system.

Yeah retraining has a cost associated to it, even if minor, and it speaks volumes that it would be considered in any way the optimal way to play the class instead of a solution to a change of heart of your character conception.

Same goes for the idea that the Summoner should multiclass, you can make an argument for any class benefiting from multiclassing but we're here to talk about the playtest Summoner and the material found in the playtest; not try to band-aid issues by using other classes' material.

You literally lose your lower-level slots as you level, that's how the 2/2 scaling spellslot system for Magus and Summoner work, how is this even debatable?

I understand your spells increase in power, because you get access to higher level slots.
But you cannot cast spells from a 1st level slot once the slot is gone.

I'm not saying whether Magus and Summoner can use staves or not, that's a whole discussion in the General portion of the playtest forum, or even that i like or hate this new type of spellcasting but that is how their spellcasting works.

You can definitely still cast level 1 spells if you want. They are heightened to level 2 or 3.

They mean you cannot cast from a level 1 spellslot, as you lose your lower slots as you level.

At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if people don't want the Eidolon to obey all the summoned rules. If it's going to be such contention as to "the summoner is not a summoner because the eidolon doesn't have the summoned trait", let's grant that.

I'm, personally, not trying to make the case that the Eidolon should be a summoned creature or have the summoning trait; there are great reasons why the Eidolon is not a summoned creature and should stay that way.

I think people are more irate about the fact the Summoner itself isn't good at Summoning, nothing to do with the Eidolon.

I mean, out of all the spellcasters that can summon...Summoner is literally the worst.

There is nothing to augment any summons, no extra resource for summoning, and spellcasting only scales to 9th-level spells so you can't even use any 10th-level summoning spells.

Again, i have no problem with it because i only care about the Eidolon, but i see exactly why people are angry over this.

It's not just the fact that the class' name is adverse to what it's actually good at, it's also the fact that the Summoner using summoned spells and augmenting summoning was a big part of Pathfinder 1e Summoner's playstyle for many people.
It's definitely not an insignificant portion of the Summoner's identity, like Aspects were.
(Sorry to all who actually were fans of Aspects, i never met any of you lol)

You can get most of its effects permanently, via feats, if you spend them... but thats going to eat all your feats.

Right, that's kinda my problem with it.

The reason you took a pause there before saying "...but that's going to eat all your feats"

You and i both know that devalues those feats by a lot because, why not just use Evolution Surge?
It's free(Costs 1 focus point), powerful, versatile, effects basically last almost all encounter-long, etc.
It is very effective at what it does, i agree.

Suddenly, my Eidolon doesn't seem so customizable; suddenly, the Summoner becomes the "Evolution Surge" class.
The Summoner already has a dull routine of expectations every encounter.

Again, i like Evolution Surge, it is very effective, efficient, and powerful...it just kinda makes the class more dull because i know with how good it is and how insignificant the feats that grant permanent options are in comparison.

It almost sounds like i'm trying to make a call to nerf Evolution Surge but that's not really what i'm trying to get at.
It's not broken, it doesn't trivalize other classes, the problem isn't how powerful Evolution surge is.

Midnightoker wrote:

They get three actions to start, so that’s already a big advantage. It probably can’t be much stronger than Bird.

Locks the summoner half out of most spellcasting or attacking + moving in the same turn to take those three actions though, which is not something a druid or ranger has to deal with.

People really need to understand that the biggest comparison to power budget is the Animal Druid for the Summoner and the Wildshape Druid for the Synthesist.

Summoner does not have anywhere near the spellcasting power and versatility of the Animal Druid, the Eidolon is definitely stronger but it's not entirely better than an Animal Companion.
The trade-off here for all the lost spellcasting power doesn't seem to be equivalent to what the Eidolon does gain over the Animal Companion of the Druid. Summoner's problems seem to be more than just tweaking some number to make it not so undertuned. I think certain mechanics need a rewrite, such as lifelink/shared HP, so the Summoner's interactions with other mechanics aren't so complex or counter-intuitive.

I have no idea what the devs must be thinking or feeling right now reading all of the feedback on the playtest Summoner; sincerely, i hope Mark isn't anxious about what he's read in the feedback, i have no idea how "on the clock" playtesting material testing is for devs.
I'm no game designer but i struggle to think how the Summoner will look when finalized, a lot will have to be fixed/changed beyond a few sentences being re-written, i don't see the final Summoner looking too much like playtest.

I like Evolution Surge.

Evolution surge is STRONG, in my eyes.

My only problem with it, and it seems the same feeling is numerous among people's given feedback, is that i don't like how much the class seems to rely on Evolution Surge.

Evolution Surge is strong, but it's also extremely dull, it kinda trivializes other options i would want to pick, i'd rather if Evolution Surge were a strong and versatile tool a Summoner could use to get flight or the other things it grants rather than seemingly the only way to gain those options at those levels.

Like others, instead of "Just use Evolution Surge" i'd rather my Eidolon ACTUALLY have certain abilities that would make sense. Like a Dragon Eidolon having the ability of temporary flight at early levels.

I understand due to balance, you can't just grant an Eidolon permanent flight at lv.1 though.

After yesterday when Logan got his head bitten off for posting two comments (and rather innocuous ones at that) for the first time since basically the playtest started, "We had our chance" is what comes to mind.

If they do decide to come in and make comments again, that's great, but considering how poorly we responded, I wouldn't if I were them. And that's besides the fact that anything they say, comment, or do by the nature of who they are can compromise the opinions of the people here (or anywhere else it is noted what they said).

We'll get to hear their thoughts likely in a stream or post playtest commentary.

I'd like that, a stream or post-playtest commentary; just so i can hear what big things stood out for the devs and what comments they have to people's questions and experiences.

And Summoner's DO already get a ton of stuff at level 1... and we really want Expert Unarmored there too.

More than that i think Eidolons need Master prof. in unarmored a little sooner.

It sucks to be a frontliner that has the same AC as a wizard, unable to use armor, and no other real form of defense like Temp HP for 6 levels.

Remember that Skilled Familiars don't actually have any level of proficiency, meaning they can't do anything that can't be done Untrained.

...which probably should be errataed, but currently it has not been.

Not to mention, that an Eidolon is capable of instant mental communication anywhere in its 'leash' range, meaning that an Eidolon can actually relate what it finds anywhere it can get to - and the party can adapt to what it finds, as the Summoner can just relate it instantly.

Beyond that? Anything a player character can do without feats... which is a lot.

What levels do you feel would be the earliest you could see the Eidolon getting both temporary and permanent flight?

Are you satisfied with the current playtest flight access?

Aspects is a part of being a summoned creature. I have cared and called it out but others not so much.

But most people are treating manifesting as summoning. Even if they are in no way shape or form the same. Outside well creating a body.

Oh have you actually wanted 2e Summoner to have Aspects still?

No yeah, manifesting isn't summoning; not in traits, rule restrictions, minion rules, or anything. Like it's only summoning in flavor and even that is debatable.

I, personally, don't have much vested interest in arguing that with people though since i'm sure Summoner will get actual summoning-related options in the finalized release.

...

Like i agree with you, mechanics matter and rules matter, but just talking about the topic of "Eidolon customizability" i think it's important to ask what is tedious to have as a mechanic and what is not.

Damage resistance to a type of damage? Mechanics, absolutely, if Paizo gives us some Electro-elemental Eidolon give me Electric-resistance 10, electric-immunity, or something. Don't just tell me my Eidolon is some force of electricity and it still take damage to electric attacks like normal, the mechanics should support the themes and flavor.

But things like how in 1e there were 6 different evolutions for attacks like bite, claw, tentacle, etc.? That's kinda tedious don't you think? Having to spend evolution feats for such specific attacks that you need specific body parts for?
Just give me the 1d8/1d4(agile) and let me modify that attack in different ways, mechanically (B/P/S, elemental damage, weapon traits, etc) instead. It's less tedious if i can just make my attacks how i want them instead of having to choose between 6 or 7 different types of attacks like in 1e.

I don't think it'd a bad idea to lose the mechanical requirement of needing specific body parts, no; i like that i can just flavor my attacks to be a bite, claw, tentacle, or whatever attack.

I think the Synethesist is probably technically slightly "better" at combat, but in general this is a hard comparison.

Synthesist has less limits on availability, but currently give up even more "in form" than a wild shaper. If they get to use their own mental stats or spellcasting, synthesis probably takes a solid lead.

Wildshaping Druid has better accuracy, more tankiness (better AC+temp HP on transformation), better damage, better attack versatility, and 10th level full spellcasting.

The only hang-ups are "availability" (which has never been an issue for Wildshape Druid) and you can only use your 10th level full spellcasting outside of Wildshape.

Availability is fixed as a high-level feat option (which again, never was an issue) and if the only thing i have to do as a Summoner to get full 10th level spellcasting with legendary proficiency is be limited to only use it outside of being Synth'd, i'll take that; 100%, that's an easy trade.

Again, i think it is important to compare the Synth to a Wildshape.

I will say that i think Synths using their own mental stats is over-rated in 2e, i think the few people who have recommended it are largely over-valuing using your own mental stats; Eidolons already get the ability boosts to their stats which has massively lessened MAD problems, i can already make my Eidolon good at want i want in it's mentals.

I'm against mechanical optioms for things that don't need them, and which have the potential to upset the careful balance established in PF2E.

PF2E is great, but thats partially because its fair.

Summoner should follow that trend, not avoid it.

I'm in agreement with this, i don't believe me imagining my Demon-type Eidolon as a Red-skinned and horned Japanese Oni or a friend imagining it as a Red-skinned and fur-legged goat-hooved hellspawn should carry some mechanical distinction; i think we just have different views on what is fair and careful balance.

I will say that i completely understand people's views on wanting more mechanical customization and diversity is very valid.

I don't see a reason that can't be offered in the form of at least being able to choose your Eidolon abilities (Phantom having Dedication Aura and Dragon having Dragon's Breath; it'd be nice to be able to choose that a future Undead-type Eidolon can breathe green spectral fire by taking the Dragon's Breath ability to support my imagination)

If something rewrites most of the CRB, i would consider that adverse to 2e's design goals though.

But i think Summoner definitely has a place to be a rich and fulfilling class to play that doesn't need to do so, it's just a bigger challenge because you need to balance for 2 creatures; the best place to look at balance is in comparison to the Animal Druid and see what kind of power balance that class gets.
As is, the current Summoner has nowhere near the same raw spellcasting power of the Druid, and the Eidolon is stronger than an Animal Companion for sure.

As well as talking about Synthesist, i think the best comparison should be the Wildshape Druid which...as is, does much, much more than the Synthesist currently can; the current balance is not what i would call fair for a Synthesist. Although, i believe everyone is in agreement already that Synthesist needs much more than what is currently offered and most of all of the divisiveness is to be found in the relationship the Regular Summoner has with the Eidolon.

What happens if an enemy uses whirlwind strike and both the Summoner itself and an Eidolon are side by side and thus hit?

Would said creature make a strike against both the Eidolon and the Summoner separately to roll for hit? Would the damage only apply once? What if both rolls to hit succeed?

Whirlwind Strike specifies that it is making multiple attacks and not just one attack, although i can understand if due to flavor people get confused and believe it is the same as an AoE.

Until then, I'm of the opinion that wands and staves become more mandatory than potions, talismans, scrolls, etc., due to their extremely limited spellcasting.

Ya know, funnily enough; people aren't even actually sure if Summoners or Magus can use staves lmao due to them losing their lower-level spellslots.

There's a whole thread on the discourse around it, i doubt it was the intention of the devs but it's something that came up.

I don't understand the Flurry of Maneuvers example. I understood "affected by anything that would change a creature's actions" as anything that affects the number of actions. The example given in the PDF is slowed, and that's the kind of condition that this is talking about - prone is something that would be resolved individually, your eidolon can be prone while the summoner isn't. Flurry of Maneuvers is two separate trips that have two separate results, there is no "take worse" here because you're not sharing the result.

Thank you, that's what we've been saying; it makes no sense that the Summoner and Eidolon would share everything when it comes to things that resolve individually; effects that do not both target the Summoner and Eidolon at once.

A non-Summoner cannot be struck twice by Skittering Assault. That's the point we're making.

The subordinate strikes created by Skittering Assault are coming from the same source effect. It is a perfectly valid reading of the rules that two identical subordinate actions created by this single effect cannot damage the Summoner+Eidolon unit more than a single time.

A problem with shared hp compromising survivability of the Summoner only exists with your interpretation, which is quite possibly an indication that your interpretation may not be correct .

If something doesn't work, the very first diagnostic step should be turning it off and on again. The second should be determining if you're actually using it as intended.

I understand the point you're making, but again it seems like you have a problem with the shared HP pool.

There are several other examples of classes with minions, animal companions, or summons where clearly each instance of damage is recognized as it's own effect.

You don't want the Summoner to be so vulnerable, i get it, but clearly the intent here was not to make them immune to separate instances of damage that they both are not sharing.
Clearly the intent was for situations in which they both would be subject to the same effect, such as a fireball or a 3-action heal.

The same source effect is not the same effect Krispy, it's already been established that the game recognizes that each subordinate action is it's own effect and instance of damage.

That's not just my opinion, that's a core part of 2e's design.

Krispy, i agree that if your interpretation causes so many issues that maybe it's not the right interpretation.
For instance, how your interpretation literally breaks or creates a need for several exceptions and concessions to so many rules in the game.

Our interpretation doesn't break anything in the game or have needs for concessions or exceptions to be made that's not already found in the playtest material.
Your only problem is the fact it puts a spotlight to Summoner's vulnerability with having 2 targets sharing 1 resource.

Skittering Assault cannot hit any other class twice.

The worst possible outcome for other classes is a single crit. There is no reason it should be worse for summoner, and is clearly contrary to the intent of the rule.

Subordinate actions are not separate effects from the activity. Flurry of blows (and similar effects) are the only thing that should need special handling - strictly RAW the damage outcome is different if the attacks are split or focused, which is why I put forward the question of "what happens for a non-summoner".

No other class has 2 targets to 1 resource, clearly that is the reason it is more apparent for Summoner.

Again, it seems your problem is with the shared HP pool.
Subordinate actions are separate effects from the activity, there is a reason resistance and weakness are applied to each instance of effect and damage, there is a reason Flurry has a special clause that deviates from the norm.

What happens to a non-Summoner if it gets striked twice? It takes the damage for 2 strikes. It is not immune to the second, separate, strike

What happens to a non-Summoner (Animal Druid, Beastmaster, Witch's familiar, Sorcerer with a Summon) who's creature is also targeted by Skittering Assault? It takes the damage for the strike and the creature also takes it's damage from the strike, they are not both being targeted by 1 strike or an Area of Effect, they are all being targeted by separate strikes and effects.

Dubious Scholar really should have said "Player".

Would any other Player suffer damage twice from Skittering Assault?

No.

Eidolons are a core part of the player character and the Summoner class, unlike Animal Companions which are a feat reward and not a core class feature.

They are "part of" the Summoner, which I know some people don't like - but that's not actually a divergent concept from 1E summoners in my opinion.

Idk if you know this but no other player would roll twice and take the worse result either.

Any other class can be struck twice from separate instances of damage, yes.
The reason it is more apparent in the Summoner is because it is 2 targets sharing 1 resource; that doesn't change the fact the Summoner and Eidolon are separate creatures that can each be individually targeted.

The Summoner is not suffering damage twice; the summoner is suffering damage from the melee strike it took and the Eidolon is suffering damage from the melee strike it took.
The Summoner and the Eidolon were not both targeted by one strike, and we've already been over the fact that regardless of the origin of subordinate actions, each strike is recognized as it's own effect by the foundation of 2e's rulesystem.

Again, it seems to me that you have a problem with the shared HP pool. I know you've said otherwise, it just seems that way to me with the issues you have with how the Summoner interacts with other mechanics and rules of the game.

The intent is not to make the Summoner and Eidolon immune from their own separate instances of damage

This is why I'm pushing for the common-sense result of "can it do this to any other class". It's a very easy rule to apply and has no pesky edge cases to fuss out.

Yes, you can strike at any other class twice.

The whole point of the Summoner and Eidolon's relationship in combat is that they are, in fact, 2 targets draining from the same resource; unlike how other classes are simply 1 target.

That's why it makes sense they would each take normal strike damage from their respective, separate, instances of damage.

Deriven's goal here is to make the mechanic look as cumbersome as possible as a way of convincing people to join them in petitioning for the mechanic's removal.

Not only are the questions rhetorical, but even attempting to answer them is potentially undermining their crusade, which probably explains the passive aggression and naked hostility being thrown your way.

Deriven's not the only one bringing up concerns to the issues the current Summoner introduces.

Several people are bringing up issues with interactions to 2e's rulesystem, numerous examples of exceptions and concessions that would have to be made, and mechanics that put the Summoner into a not satisfactory spot.

You can't just look at the feedback so many people have and ignore them , see it as unjustified, because it doesn't fit your worldview or because people bring up good points others will also see.
We all want Summoner to be cool, fun, effective, and a class that will bring value to 2e; we all have the same goal here.

I still say that beyond all the other rules issues, the biggest problem with your interpretation of the rules is that it violates the apparent intent, which is to limit damage to the summoner from single effects that target both the Summoner and the Eidolon.

Your hang up here seems to be that the Flurry of Blows case 'doesn't make sense' from a logical standpoint, and to that I say - so what? Its a game, a grand abstraction.

All that said, there is one key point that might convince me that Flurry of Blows isn't a good example, and thats the fact that the two Strikee it makes fail to live up to the 'identical effects' clause in Summoner because the two Strikes are made with different bonuses due to MAP... which would make it different from effects such as Skittering Assault.

I maintain that it doesn't seem in line with the intent that Skittering Assault would cause damage to the Summoner twice, and that the...

I agree with the idea that the devs' intent is to limit damage that targets both the Summoner and the Eidolon, i do not agree that extends to single-targeting damage that does not actually target both the Summoner and Eidolon.

If that were the case, you now introduce a host of issues with having to explain and list exceptions to several rules in place in 2e's system, but more-so there is not text found in the actual playtest that would support the idea that the Summoner and Eidolon do negate single-target damage that targets the Summoner and Eidolon separately.

It's not just Flurry of Blows, me and others keep bringing up all these issues that keep coming up if your line of reasoning is what's actually how the Summoner should be played; the reason the Flurry of Blows clause is important is to outline how subordinate actions of abilities are actually treated with regards to targeting, what constitutes an effect or instance of damage.

I just want to also throw out, i don't hate you Krispy; i understand where you are coming from. I also would really like for a dev or someone to pop in and say "Hey _BLANK_ is wrong; here is actually how it works and what type of things it does interact with"

Poison is the one claiming to know how the rules "actually" work. While we may disagree with whether the letter of the rules achieves the intended result, I don't see anyone disagreeing with the design principles Krispy has pointed out.

Yes, i do believe i know how the rules work, just as Krispy has made their case to how they believe the rules work; i'm not special to that regard.

Check out any number of responses in the threads related to how this will complicate the math in future scenarios.

Obviously, i don't want the Summoner to be so vulnerable.
Obviously, i would like it so it doesn't not take extra damage.
But the way the playtest rules are written are pretty clear in that it really is only specifying when the Summoner and Eidolon are subject to the same effect.

If i strike the Summoner once it takes damage, if i strike the Eidolon once it takes damage. These may be the same "type of effect" in that they are being dealt damage from a strike, but they are not both being subject to the same effect; each strike is an individual effect. (I'm just talking regular strikes here, 1-action)

Now here's the crux to Krispy's argument: Are abilities that contain subordinate actions to be considered one effect, the very same, or are not?

If that's the case, that would mean something like Flurry of Blows would be one effect; that's when we get into some huge problems with how other rules are written.

Flurry of Blows states:

" If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses

That piece of information is important, it's a clause that's meant to illustrate that how Flurry works is adverse to how such an ability with subordinate strikes would normally work.

Normally, such an ability would be subject to resistance and weakness per strike. These abilities are not treated as if they are one effect.

What do we find when we read the rules on resistance?
Here is what we find:

"If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you take that type of damage, you reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed amount (to a minimum of 0 damage).

So what have we discovered?

We've discovered that:

Abilities such as Flurry, Path of Iron, or Skittering Assault are not simply one effect, they are abilities that hold more than 1 effect; each strike is it's own instance of damage and effect.

I'm the one who has been accused of overapplying the rules, but i beg to differ in that i find those of you who seem to take the word "effect" so literally and applied so liberally to be the ones who are actually overapplying the rules in regards to what the Eidolon rules does and does not interact with.

Again, i'm very willing to hear the opposition out so long as they argue in good faith.
Which aside from my own experience being gaslit, i have noticed people like Temperans, Deriven, Graystone, or Gortle not be extended that courtesy.

But please, if you have any thoughts or objections to my analysis in regards to the interaction between abilities, interactions with rules such as resistance, and what constitutes an "effect" then i am very open to hearing you out.

Thank you friends.

A summon monster font that is mutually exclusive with the eidolon is my preferred solution. I also think the summoner should have some in-class way to steal the conjurer wizard focus spell, it's something both should have in the same vein as both Fighters and Barbarians having Power Attack.

I'd actually prefer the Summoner get maybe some better stuff than Augment Summoning lmao but of course i agree.

I think sub-classes really are the way to go and making the font mutually exclusive from the Eidolon would really save time and effort on design, so people simply choose how they want to play.

Whereby a division of power is attributed differently.
(Power Total: 4)

Eidolon Caller (Regular Summoner)
Power: 2/2 Equal

Synthesist
Power: 0/4 Leaning toward Eidolon

Master Summoner
Power: 4/0 Leaning toward Summoner

Really, you like Augment summoning ?

The problem is its very specific, and your summoned creatue is probably only going to lasts 2 rounds - because summoned creatures are far far too weak to last longer. Boosting it with a +1 just doesn't seem to be worth paying much for. I can normally find something better to spend a focus point on.

But I do agree some sort of font in this area would be good.

I mean, compared to the Summoner, i like that Augment Summoning does something for normal summons.

But yeah it's not really that great, it's more that i'm jealous that Class B has better garbage than i do even though that garbage would be more relevant for me to have.

I will refine my view on this matter.

An enemy casts an AoE spell that gets both the summoner and its eidolon. The spell inflicts damage and blinds the target on a save failure. The summoner saves, the eidolon fails.
The effect on the shared HP is the worse one: full damage, due to the failed save. Only the eidolon is blinded: there's no reason to share that condition, since it doesn't has any effect on shared resources like HPs or number of actions.
Yes, being blinded limits your actions somehow; but only the eidolon's ones. The same goes for paralyzed, prone and all the others.

The only things that affect both the summoner and the eidolon are healing/damage, effect that modify the number of actions (like Haste), and effect that dictate what you do with those actions (like Command). All of these affect both, regardless of which one you target. And for these only, the 'worst result' rule applies when the same effect targets both.

I pretty much agree with this.

This is why Skittering Assault would apply.
It's the reason that something like Flurry of Blows dictates you combine both attacks for the purposes of resistance or damage, you are making individual strikes whereby were it not for that clause resistance would normally apply twice; once per strike as it is not one effect taking place but two effects.

Easily fixed with sub classes.

Eidolon focused. Makes Eidolon stronger.
Synthesis focused. Merges you with the Eidolon.
Summon monster focused. Gives summoning font.

I agree, sub-classes would make this possible and be a huge boon for how people would like to play the Summoner.