The eidolon is still very much customisable, it's just that that customisation isn't achieved in the same way it was in 1e, and that's rubbed a few people the wrong way.
I mean, it does specifically say "bonuses or penalties that apply to all attack rolls." Which clearly states that if the bonus applies to only specific attack rolls, or specific types of attack roll, it doesn't then apply to spell attack rolls. E.g. bless applies to all attack rolls, so it'd apply to spells too. But the quicksilver mutagen specifically said ranged attack rolls. Since it specifically and only applied to ranged attack rolls, and not "all attack rolls", then it doesn't apply to spell attacks at all, even if the spell attack is done at range. Also, it does specific that "spell attack rolls work a little bit differently". They're specifically different than the other two types of attack roll, which means there's no reason that a bonus that is specific to one of those types would then also apply to spell attack rolls. Only bonuses to "all attack rolls" apply, not specific types.
Well considering valet explicitly allows the familiar to draw and give you an item of light or negligible bulk, it seems like the game supports familiars at least being able to hold that much.
This thread is pretty interesting, and it even made me consider my own stance on the matter. If someone completely refuses to use poisons, I think that's kinda strange. It's essentially the same in my mind as refusing a bard's buffs. Were I the alchemist and someone refused my poisons, I'd certainly be confused, and think it strange. That being said, my response to them refusing would be "ok". Like yeah, I'd have every right to think it's weird that they'd refuse, but they have every right to refuse, and the reasoning is none of my business. I think it'd be fair to ask why they refuse, but if they don't want to say then it's none of my business. You certainly shouldn't force it on anyone, in the same way they shouldn't force anything on you. There's certainly an argument to be made in regards to people helping you achieve your character vision in being the poisoner, but you should also allow others to achieve their character's vision, even if that includes not using poisons. Ultimately, though I agree it's kinda weird to refuse without like a good in-character reason beyond "poison bad", it really isn't my place, nor is it anyone elses, to decide what others should or shouldn't do.
Speak any of your languages, ... transform into a perfect duplicate ... Deliver or Share spell with any ally (member of the team) ... Can't steal well ... It can't become a Chad with animals of its kind (Get the Druid wild empathy or charm spells that target animals of ots kind). Animal Exemplar. In order: speech, master's form (kinda), spell delivery, partner in crime, kinspeech (to an extent). Of course, some of these aren't perfect (master's form being the same ancestry and such, but not a perfect duplicate), but things like speech and spell delivery are exactly something you're saying they can't do.
It's a shame that summoner isn't getting more spellcasting, but if "more spells" and "weaker eidolon" are mutually inclusive, I think it's for the best to keep it as it is. On the flip side, more customisation and options seems great, especially a first level feat. And synthesis being an archetype would definitely allow it to work better than as a single feat. The act together change going through is a great sign, too. Overall, very happy with how these classes seem to be going, and incarnate spells seem very interesting.
making skill challenges interesting with a multitude of options. Ngl, that kinda sounds like like a group specific thing to me. Like, that doesn't sound like a system wide issue, more than it does a reflection of how your gm builds obstacles. Unless you're directly referencing certain adventure paths or what have you, in which case the issue would be with them, not the system. Case in point, I have never experienced what you're talking about. In my current campaign, we've gone from level 3 to 11, and we've never had an obstacle that amounted to "you roll this specific skill, better hope you're good enough at it". There's always options, and choices, and often times there's a way to surpass the obstacle without even having to roll. We get out of it what we put in, which I think is fair in games like pathfinder. I get that every table is different, and my experiences clearly aren't the same as everyones', but I think that could also apply to the idea that obstacles are a single roll pass or fail type thing - that is to say, it sounds kinda specific to your table, especially considering the response from some others in the thread.
Sharing map seems reasonable to me. The eidolon is at the power level of a martial, and stronger than an animal companion. Giving it its own MAP is like separating the MAP of the fighter's two swords, just because they're different weapons. You could just throw a greatsword on the summoner, and get 1d12 and 1d8 attacks at full map from level 1, which even a fighter can't really do. I think a tandem strike action would be really cool, as it'd basically be like a economy fixers like every other martial class gets, and it'd cost a feat to keep it balanced. But getting two strong full MAP attacks from level 1 for free seems weird, especially on the summoner.
I think they mean more in the vein of druid orders or bard muses. Y'know, the thing 2e already has. I think it'd work pretty well, since it'd let people better fill the different niches that they desire from summoner.
Contributing in battle does not a PC make. A wizard's spells aren't the pc.
If you can point to the part of the playtest that says the eidolon is the pc, go ahead and prove it.
Oh and here comes more strawman. I did NOT say break the balance of the game than get exactly what I want. I said RISK being slightly OP than be literally irrelevant. The alchemist, sad to say, is a waste of page space. Which is disappointing because it was my favorite 1e class. If no one plays summoner because its 1) boring 2) underpowered 3) uninteresting then whats the point? Might as well not print a class at all. Maths, not customization, makes a class more or less powerful. Maths do. And atm our summoner has far more customization than our Eidolon. That binary between op and useless is itself a strawman of your own making. Also, you've made it evident that your idea of "useless and boring" amounts to "doesn't use evolution points". Therefore, you saying that you'd rather risk being op than be useless and boring is essentially saying "I'd rather potentially be stronger than every other class than not get the system I want". It's not a strawman, it's using logic and reasoning. You also seem dead set on the idea that the eidolon is doomed to be terrible and useless if it doesn't get evolution points, which is weird. No other class gets that, so why is it a must-have on summoner? And you can't say "because 1e did it", because that argument doesn't hold for any other class either. Customisation begets versatility, which itself is powerful. Also, of course the summoner gets more customisation, it's the pc. The eidolon is a class feature.
Yes, it is at level 10. That doesn't discredit it's existance. 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.
Just because the ancestry gets it doesnt mean the Eidolon gets it. They also share HP so resistance to energy is much less useful for summoner than it would be for other classes, especially since the Eidolon will be in the front line and the summoner will be far in the back. Being wildly OP shouldn't be a "perk of the class", though. Frankly, if the thing you want to do that no other class can is just "be stronger than them", then I don't know what to tell you. You can keep wanting that, I guess, but it's not gonna happen. Also, if the aoe thing is so bad, just take the feat that mitigates it. Or just use synthesis. It's not as bad as you make it out to be.
Yes, very much this. If it can be done well, and be made balanced, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. Heck, I loved the evolution system in 1e. It's only downside was that it wasn't really balanced. If it could be made to work in 2e, I'd be more than happy with that. Yeah, it'd be a weird change is design paradigm compared to all the other classes, but hey, I'm not gonna look a gift eidolon in the mouth.
Yeah, there's no chance of getting flight any earlier than it already does, simply because it wouldn't really be balanced. I think that's actually a big proponent of this debate. I feel that a lot of people that value the 1e evolution system seem to misunderstand the balance issues that would bring. To use Temperans' proposed system as an example, having an eidolon with a fly speed, burrow speed, and elemental resistance at level 1 seems a bit much, especially considering how difficult it is to get those on other characters. The only ancestry that I know gets a burrow speed off the top of my head is shoony at level 9, but that costs 2 ancestry feats, and only works through loose dirt. Imagine the shoony player finally getting their limited burrow speed, then realising that the eidolon has already been doing that, but better, for 9 levels. Not only is that a feelbad moment, it's probably unbalanced in the eidolons favour. And energy resistance for free from first level seems a bit much as well. Yeah, there are a few ancestries that do that, but summoner already gets one. A summoner getting a second ancestry essentially for free doesn't seem balanced. And I get the feeling that issues like these would keep coming up in a point based system, making it very hard to balance.
Yeah, I agree. And summoner definitely needs to be a bit stronger, and definitely needs more feats, including monster abilities. I just don't think a system akin to evolution points is the right way to go about it in 2e, is all.
And you ignore everything else I said. There's another one off the checklist. And yes, birds do get flight at level 1. But y'know what they don't get? everything an eidolon gets. Like, a bird can't even open a door, never mind breathe fire. Are you saying every character should get flight at level 1, just because a bird does? That's a very poor comparison.
If you split HP, one of the two is still taking all that damage. Not only that, but if they both crit fail, split hp means they both take double. As it is now, you're only getting that damage once. I'd much rather "you take a bad hit sometimes" than "you take a bad hit sometimes, but it happens to each individually and takes twice the resources to recover from" Not sure I understand why people are essentially saying "this mechanic is bad because sometimes I'm unlucky. I want it changed so that it's even worse when I'm unlucky"
Barbarians also get Fast Movement from a class feat, which literally adds 10 feet, which also adds to your point.
The focus competes with evolution surge. Not sure that would be fun, but I could see them doing this for the Master Summoner making them choose between enhancing the eidolon and summoning a creature. Yeah, that was actually my reasoning. I feel a full on summoning font might be a bit much for the class, as it might draw power away from other things. Having it compete with evolution surge would make it use up less of the power budget. It'd also give some more interesting choices mid-combat, forcing you to choose between a buffed eidolon and an extra body on the field.
What are you talking about? Every class gets far more customization than the Eidolon. I do not want, as a summoner, to be more customizable than my Eidolon. Yes, because eidolon is not the class, summoner is. The eidolon and summoner combined have just as much customisation as every other class, which is as it should be, because they're just one class.
I never said classes don't get unique things. Everything you listed is a class feature. Y'know what a summoner gets? An eidolon, which is a whole extra creature. Of course classes get unique things, but no class gets a unique point customisation thing, and no class should. The eidolon is a class feature, and should be modified using class feats, just like every class does. I'm fact, let's use your own example -the barbarian customising their rage - for comparison. Barbarians pick their instinct (dragon, animal, spirit, etc), and get extra abilities based on that choice as they progress. All the other customisation they get is through class feats. Summoners pick their eidolon type (dragon, animal, spirit, etc), and get extra abilities based on that choice as they progress. All the other customisation they get is through class feats. Oh, wow, hey, they're exactly the same, even down to some of the available first level options. If you gave the summoner a point system to upgrade their eidolon, it'd be extra customisation that no class has, and that the game isn't balanced for. And you can't use familiars as comparison, as familiars have no combat prowess, except maybe delivering spells for you. They are so much weaker than an eidolon that you really can't compare them unless you actively want the eidolon to be as weak as they are. And the familiar ability system is no more similar to the eidolon point system than regular feats are. It's literally just "pick a choice", just like feats. And yes, I have read the 1e summoner. It was actually one of my favourite classes, and I'd appreciate if you didn't try to imply I don't know what I'm talking about.
Yes, I agree that the summoner needs more summoning support, and that the eidolon needs more customisation options. But I think using class feats is the best way to go about that customisation. And yes, summoner needs a better way to get summon spells, though I'd rather in the form of a focus spell rather than a font (plus, if it did get a font, it'd probably only be 6 spells at max, like cleric (as they get a max of 6 extra heal spells at level 20, unless you spend your apex on charisma instead of your casting stat)).
But there doesn't need to be parity. So much of 2e is completely different that 1e. Every class has changed to fit the new system. Why are you so adamant that the summoner be the exception?
I really want eidolons to be full of customization that does not require feats. Otherwise its dull, boring, and not an eidolon. Why should eidolons have customisation outside of feats? No other class gets special customisation outside of feats. There's very little reason for paizo to make PF2e with a very specific focus on feat progression, just to ignore the careful balance they very specifically created. What about "having to play by the rules" makes this class boring, or not an eidolon? Don't you typically advocate for making the summoner themself useless and pushing all the power to the eidolon? That's exactly what you can already get, since you can devote all your feats towards the eidolon. If you got what you wanted (useless summoner, special eidolon customisation) what would you even use feats for then? It just seems nonsensical, and poorly thought out.
Ok, those are good points, never thought about it that way. I still like the idea, but yeah, not being able to actually actively utilise your best stat would be pretty sucky.
Con as a primary and casting stat sounds great. I get the feeling Paizo would be reluctant to go for it, as it's something of a departure from typical casters, but I think it'd be real cool.
That is such a bad faith argument. That is very clearly not what anybody was intending or advocating for. The only way the fluff could break the game is if you intentionally do so, which everybody on the side of reflavouring has explicitly said wouldn't be the point. You reflavour with the specific intent to not break the game. The fact you though that would be at all a compelling argument in your favour is shockingly laughable.
Which multiclass feats effect the Eidolon??? None, as far as I'm aware. So it's a good thing I never said they did. I said that they would benefit the summoner, not the eidolon, because I was specifically referencing a summoner that joins his eidolon in combat, like OP said they wanted.
I am very glad that the class isn’t forced to rely on summoning, though. I agree, I was never interested in the summoning stuff from 1e, and any summon stuff in 2e would've gone unused.
The argument of dropping spellcasting is one that I've seen mentioned a couple times, and while I personally disagree that it's a good way to go, I can definitely understand why others would like to go that direction. The part about having to wait for your build to come online is kinda strange to me though. Every class has to wait, depending on what your vision is. I had an idea for a wizard that used and infused magic into a bow, and it didn't actually come online until like 10th or 12th level, and hardly had 2 wizard feats to rub together (this has changed slightly since the addition of the Magus playtest, but that's a different kettle of fish). Plus, on the subject of having abilities that don't fit the vision, that also happens with lots of builds. If I wanted to make a buff investigator luchador, I'd likely have to wait awhile to get that to work properly, and on top of that would have lots of very investigator-esqe abilities that don't fit. Either I live with it, or use a different class as a base. I definitely agree that it'd be nice to enable a more combat involved summoner, but there's always multiclass feats for that.
Everyone I know associated the 1E summoner with the aspect of the class that was unique to it - the Eidolon. Big agree. I routinely forgot it had regular summoning stuff. The whole point of the class to me, and everyone I know, was the eidolon.
You're the only person here confusing flavour for homebrew. Everyone that has said they'd be cool with it has acknowledged that no rules would be changed, just the description of how the end goal is achieved. That is quite literally flavour, and not homebrew. And yes, all those issues you brought up are valid concerns. It just so happens that some can ignore those concerns, and others, such as yourself, can't. Nobody is in the wrong here.
Correct, it was climbing. But people are free to flavour it however they want, including flavouring it as flying. You don't have to agree, and nobody is trying to force you to do the same. It's starting to sound like you just don't want people to have fun in a different way than you do, tbh.
For what it's worth, summoner is one of, if not the only class with class feats that directly benefit summoning. Not many, unfortunately, but certainly more than a wizard, or a character with trick magic item. So yes, it is most certainly better at summoning than a majority of other classes. The lack of spell slots isn't great, however. More slots, or a summoning font, or more preferably a focus spell, would greatly benefit the class in this respect.
The eidolon should have its own set of customization even if its very basic. I wouldn't agree with that. The fighter fights, and gets feats that improve their fighting.
Likewise, the summoner summons (or manifests, or calls, or whatever. They are all - to me - functionally and narratively indistinct (but definitely are not mechanically indistinct)) and so gets feats that improve their summoning. Whether those feats affect their summon spells, or the manifesting of their eidolon, or act as evolutions for the eidolon, they're all customisation for the summoner, as they're customising either how the summoner summons, or customising the things that the summoner summons (or manifests, or whichever term you prefer). The eidolon is very customisable, you just have to use class feats to do it. I don't see any reason that summoner should be the only class to get an extra set of upgrades/customisability, other than "1e did it", which I think is a poor excuse given the general trend of 2e trying to distance itself somewhat from its predecessor.
It's useless in most cases, but when it works, it REALLY works. As awesome as it is when demons are around, how often are they? That just kinda sounds like a decent amount of the divine spell list to me. Being very potent in select circumstances is just as good as somewhat potent all the time, assuming you are in those situations at least sometimes. Maybe just leave angel eidolon for when it's abilities will be useful, in much the same way you wouldn't play an investigator to run something like tomb of annihiliation or whatever.
Ahh, of course, I knew I shouldn't have skimmed the spell entry. That's my bad, apologies. As for everything else you said, I'd agree wholeheartedly. The flavour with the phantom examples is great! I don't personally think the eidolon should be able to be banished or dispelled, or should at least get some sort of extra resistance against it (perhaps owing to the link with the summoner, or something like that), but yeah, as it stands it can definitely get banished.
Yeah, saying an eidolon doesn't have customisation is like saying a ranger doesn't have customisation. Like, yeah, sure, it doesn't - if you ignore all the feats that customise it. They statement "the customisation isn't achieved in the way I would prefer" is a valid statement. Saying "there isn't any customisation" is ignorant at best, and a disingenuous lie at worst.
|
