Snes's page

So I agree that the +2-1+Free spread did edge a lot of ancestry/class combinations out of the realm of optimization, including ones that made sense on the surface (dwarf bard, catfolk cleric, elf champion, gnoll druid, lizardfolk witch). However, I also see the point of people who appreciated the potential ancestry-coded flaws provided for worldbuilding and roleplay opportunities.

Here's an idea I had to compromise the two positions: during character creation, each player always assigns two free boosts. But, before they do, they have the option of first taking a set boost and a set flaw specific to their ancestry. This represents the average case for that ancestry, but with the acknowledgement that there are plenty of people at the edges of the bell curve that don't fit the average case, especially among adventurers.

Elves for example could get +Dex-Con. So if I wanted the typical lithe archer, I could go +Dex+Wis+Int-Con and be perfectly happy fitting the archetype. Or, if I wanted to break the mold and go for a front-line barbarian, I could forgo the preset stats and put my two free boosts into +Str+Con, trading one fewer boost for zero flaws.

You could even use this feature to tailor some ancestries to particular regions. A character guide could contain a line like "Goblin from this region have the optional starting ability scores of +Cha-Con instead of +Cha-Wis to reflect the highly spiritual goblin tribes found here."

]The Eidolon that the Summoner summons.

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

You missed my point.

Summoners summon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The mammoth that I'd most like to see killed is the six ability score paradigm. Traditionally, Dexterity and Constitution are on-average the most valuable scores, while Charisma is frequently the least valuable. You'll notice that there are currently no PF2 ancestries that feature a Dex flaw. I'm in favor of splitting Dex into two skills (one for manual dexterity, the other for agility and balance), and either combining Con with another ability or making it separate from the ability score system entirely.

The odd thing to me is the Survival skill. Since Nature is a main skill in PF2, why not fold Survival into it? They're both Wisdom-based and the feats that aren't inherently Nature themed are still mostly used in nature, but usable in cities. If Nature were still Int, the divide would make sense.

I suspect a part of that is because they wanted each of the magic traditions to have a dedicated skill that wasn't used for much outside of Recall Knowledge rolls and the like. Combining Nature and Survival means Nature is significantly more valuable of a skill than Arcana, Occultism, and Religion.

Periodic Reminder - the Playtest Summoner left out Summoning related class features, intentionally, to focus testing on the Eidolon since Paizo already knows how Summoning functions.

It should not be taken as implying that the final class will not have additional support for Summoning.

I've seen this asserted multiple times, but as yet nobody has cited an actual source from the designers that this was their plan all along.

I don't care if the summoner summons their eidolon or manifests them or whatever. The issue is that by calling the class "summoner" players expect them to be the best class at all summoning magic, just like how the investigator is the best at investigating.

It should not be called something else.... they just need to bolt on the rest of the Class Features that they seem to have intentionally left OFF the Playtest that they felt are in a good-way in order to make them actually fulfill the role they're supposed to play, namely, actually Summoning things.

The Summoning Font is missing, I am confident by-design as I suspect what Paizo needed was for us to test Chassis of the Eidolon only without any meaningful customization. The Font and Evolution Customization are almost certainly done and being tested internally since what they really needed help with was to find out how the Action Economy works and how well people liked the new Subtype-Choice system that's akin to the Unchained Eidolon but without any bells or whistles.

It's possible your suspicions are correct, but I'd still really like to see a source for this myself.

No. The class has the iconic class feature that matches the 1E summoner in the Eidolon, and the class essentially has all the same core themes.

Nothing significant changed because of the action to call your eidolon being named "Manifest", and the shared hp and actions are essentially the exact same narrative concept as the original life link.

This doesn't actually address my points. The only change I think is significant enough to warrant a new name is the lack of innate summon monster spells, which I am totally fine with. I think the class is better without them, but if they go that direction, they should drop the name to better set player expectations.

If you're arguing that the class should keep the same name only because that's what it was called in 1e, to that I say that there is president, your honor. The paladin was expanded in scope and renamed as the champion. By that same token, the summoner can be contracted in scope and renamed as the invoker.

Plus, the class is almost certain to have additional summoning support on launch - as such abilities were intentionally excluded from the playtest due to them being known qualities.

I'm going to need a source for this. It seems unlikely that they would cut a significant 1e class feature from 1e from the playtest.

The fact that the class isn't a carbon copy mechanically of the 1E summoner doesn't mean it doesn't have the exact same thematic bones - you just can't look at mechanics exclusively.

I don't understand this line. Can you rephrase this for me?

I've thrown this idea out there in a couple of places and I didn't see a dedicated threat to discuss it. I think the class should be renamed in the final product.

A lot of people seem really dissatisfied with the lack of dedicated summoning abilities in the playtest summoner. I've heard it suggested in multiple discussion threads that they should get some kind of sommon monster focus spell, or even a "summon font" in-line with the divine font clerics have. Personally I'm against this idea because I think it eats up too much design space that I'd like to see reserved for the most interesting aspect of the class: the unique bond with the eidolon.

I do not blame people for coming away with this impression, because it makes sense. The class is called "the summoner," so why do I only get to summon one thing? Therefore, I propose a simple solution to this problem: don't call the class the summoner. I've heard suggestions for alternative names in the past, such as "binder" or "caller" or, my personal favorite, "invoker."

Mechanically, this would mean very little. I like that there are summoner class feats that play well with spells that summon creatures for those who like that kind of playstyle. I just think that being good at summoning creatures other than their eidolon should be something players should have to invest in instead of just getting for free as a consequence of the class' name.

Follow-up idea: what if "summoner" was a general archetype that any spellcasting class could take to get the kind of benefits players want from the "summoner" class?

Or just have different paths for different types of summoners as has been suggested before.

It seems clear to me that the different eidolons are intended to be the different paths for the class. They're analogous to sorcerer bloodlines or witch patrons. Different paths beyond that point should be relegated to feat trees.

Make subclasses like Rogues Racket, Cleric Doctrine, Barbarian Instinct, Druid Order.

Some possible options:
Transmogrifionist - Change the Eidolon to adapt quickly
Synthetist - Move around in the fused with the eidolon
Broodmother - Multiple weaker eidolons that can act together to accomplish something
Caller - Less focused on the eidolon, more focused on summons.

Summoner already has subclasses: the different eidolons. Same way witches have lessons, sorcerers have bloodlines, and oracles have mysteries.

Basically thread title. 4 spells known total and you have to choose summon x feels extremely weird for the class called the Summoner.

It's for exactly this reason that I supported the idea of changing the name of the class to something like "binder" or "invoker." The focus of the class should be on the unique nature of the eidolon. That's the cool, unique thing summoners bring to the table, not their ability to constantly summon minions. Those two class features always felt very disconnected.

I like the idea of there being feats that make summoning creatures better to appeal to players who like that playstyle. I don't like the idea of summoners getting extra access to summon spells just because it's in the name.

Misfire should be there. It's always been a problem with guns, and still is today.

I don't see how it's any more of a problem than swords getting dull or bowstrings snapping, two other real-world weapon malfunctions that the rules of the game completely ignore.

If misfires exist in any capacity (and I don't think they should), they should be only be a factor when the person using the firearm is untrained with them. If someone builds their character to use guns, their guns shouldn't randomly break in their hands. As I've pointed out before, casters no longer have to make concentration checks to see if they randomly loose their spells. The same courtesy should be applied to firearms.

Invictus Novo wrote:

...

Occultist - Archetype - they always came across as rather gimmicky to me and I think they would make a good Archetype for a lot of 2e classes
...
P.S. please don't hate me if I didn't do your favorite class justice :)

I hate you.

;)

What is an occultist to you? I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept. If it really can be summed up as "They collect magical trinkets that give them spells" then it's entirely possible that it could work as an archetype instead of a full class.

Considering how distinct all the different geniekin are, I presume that there will be different versatile heritages for each of them.

That said, I was rather disappointed by how they handled versatile heritages in the APG. When the book dropped, I was not looking forward to choosing between low light vision, low light vision, low light vision, low light vision, and low light vision, with all additional customization options gated behind an ancestry feat.

I would have preferred it if the versatile heritages gave your the option to take any lineage feat for that heritage as a bonus feat or take improved vision.

Since we're generally discussing Psychic classes now, what about the Mesmerist? Class Archetype, Bardic Muse, different class entirely with new mechanics, what?

I've only ever read the class, so I have no particular attachment to it, but I'm curious what others think.

My thought was that multiple occult classes (psychic, mesmerist, possibly spiritualist) could be combined into one class with different disciplines. Just like druids pick an order to focus on one area of nature, this class pick a discipline to focus on one mental ability. Telekinesis, mind reading, hypnotism, maybe even communing with the dead could all be areas of focus.

You could also recreate psychic magic's emotion and thought components with a metamagic action or feat that replace any verbal and somatic components of a spell with "phrenic components" or something that lets them cast spells while remaining perfectly still and silent.

One thing that I found disappointing was the fact that the heritage feat for all the versatile ancestries was low-light vision across the board. I was hoping for some more unique benefits for the different ancestries.

The prevailing theory is that it'll be a Class Archetype for Cleric.

Seems like a big waste to me. I think there's plenty of thematic and mechanical distinction to the inquisitor to warrant its own class.

Sounds like Shifter multiclass dedication to me

The question is whether or not there's enough substance to the concept to justify it being its own class. Cavalier and vigilante have already gone down that route.

I thought I was clear that Versatile and Skilled do fully apply to people outside the Eurocentric fantasy norm. Hunter-gatherers are skilled, priests with extracurricular skills are versatile. However, I don't think the presentation in P2 suggests that. I think it's clear that humans are "regular" and are considered versatile and skilled,, and I think that has a not-incidental connection to the trope white middle-class people are "regular" and are considered versatile and skilled. I think this is really even clearer when you contrast the Versatile heritage with the Quah Bond feat. Clearly, some humans are more versatile than others.

Humans get to be treated as the default because this game is exclusively played by humans. Assuming that everyone who plays the game is straight, white, male, or any other demographic is wrong because this game can and should be approachable to everyone. Seeing as we're all humans, I fail to see how making them the most versatile option is wrong because it reminds you of past decisions that were wrong.

Misfires just seem very unfun. Other weapons don't randomly break on bad attack rolls. Maybe there could be some edge cases where they become applicable, but in general I think they should be cut.

I also advocate dropping the summon monster aspect from the class. It feels disjointed with the whole eidolon aspect, and it doesn't work with how minions function in 2e. And for good reason: giving one player almost double the actions per turn of every other player makes for very dull combats.

For that reason and others, I support changing the name of the class. "Binder" has already been suggested, but something like "invoker" could also work.

Also it wouldnt be that hard to have 2 very different paths. Druids do it, Sorcerers do it, Clerics do it. The problem at the moment is that we have no idea how Paizo would even start to convert the class.

In all those classes you mentioned, the core of the class stays the same. All druids are primal spellcasters, all clerics are divine spellcasters, all sorcerers cast from one tradition. The different druid orders, sorcerer bloodlines, and cleric doctrines change the secondary aspects of the class, but not the core.

What you're suggesting are two very different classes, one with a single customizable pet with story relevance and one that spams summon monster over and over again.

On a related note, we really need to find a new name for the occultist now that "occult" has a specific in-game meaning.

You could also say a cleric's arrangement with a deity steps on the witch's toes because thematically both get their powers from some an outside force of greater power than themself. And the difference is the nature of the relationship between the two.

Some people did say that, which is why the witch didn't have access to the divine spell list in the APG playtest. I acknowledge that the witch and the summoner go about things differently, but think that, with the benefit of a new edition, we have the opportunity to take another look at the conceit of the class to see if we can't expand on the original formula.

What if you wanted to summon something that wasn't from another plane, like a dragon? What if you just wanted to treat your eidolon as a glorified animal companion and not care about who it is or where it came from? Witches can do that because they don't need to know specifically where their power comes from, but it's hard to ignore your patron-equivalent when it's standing right next to you.

Why did you even ask if you were just going to shoot down the thing that the summoner's build was in 1e (particularly in answer to your question about things that other classes can't do) and say that it should be something different?

In part to suggest an alternate design direction a class named "summoner" could take, in part to suggest that, if this class sticks to summoning only one creature, maybe it should be given a different name.

I'd like to take a step back and look at the summoner on a fundamental level. What is the intended draw of the class? What kind of character concepts does it seek to fulfill that can't be fulfilled by other classes, both narratively and mechanically?

If I had no idea what a summoner was or how it worked, how would you sell me on the class?

I never made such a request. At all. An improvised weapon with no penalties is essentially a simple weapon with no traits. The issue lies with the cost of enabling a character concept.

The Weapon Improviser sounds like a lot of fun, but it's overkill for some character concepts. Dedications have a high opportunity cost; they're not a one-size-fits-all solution. This is why I'm hoping APG will also have a general feat.

The Juggle feat and Juggler Dedication handled this perfectly. If juggling items is part of your character concept, you can select the Juggle feat. But if you want to specialize in using the feat and get access to more cool and useful abilities, then you can take the Juggler Dedication.

When you're trying fit together different pieces of the game to create a character concept, the sizes of the available pieces make a huge difference.

If your goal is to carry around a specific barrel with you wherever you go and not to use whatever items are on-hand each combat, it sounds like you want to be less of an improvised weapon fighter and more of an unusual weapon fighter. Maybe what you should be asking for is a method for turning a non-weapon item into a weapon to remove the penalty.

Like I said before, you should work with your GM to see if you can perform a Crafting activity during downtime, or find a master woodwoorker and pay them to build you a specialty barrel that fits your needs.

The Weapon Improviser sounds like a lot of fun.

However, I am very concerned it will become the only option to negate improvised weapon penalties.

Losing a class feat and the opportunity to select an archetype is a steep price to pay when I just want my alchemist/barbarian to use a barrel of ale as a greatclub.

Why not ask if you can reinforce the casket to make it durable enough that it can be treated as an actual greatclub? Make it so it can't be described as "something that wasn’t built to be a weapon" and it is, by definition, not an improvised weapon.

Wither Limb (Spell 6)
[Necromancy]
Traditions arcane, divine
Cast Two Actions somatic, verbal
Range touch; Targets 1 living creature
Saving Throw Fortitude; Duration varies

You cause one limb of the target to shrivel and weaken. As you cast this spell, chose one of the target's arms, legs, or wings that isn't already effected by wither limb. The target must attempt a Fortitude save. On any result other than a critical success, add the following effects to the spell depending on the chosen limb:

Arm The target loses use of one of its arms for the duration of the spell. It cannot use that arm to perform actions with the attack or manipulate traits. It immediately drops anything held by that arm. Worn items such as rings and gauntlets remain worn.
Leg The target loses use of one of its legs for the duration of the spell. It takes a –10-foot status penalty to its Speed and a -4 status penalty to any Acrobatics and Athletics checks with the move trait except for Fly. If all of the creature's legs are affected by wither limb, it falls prone and can't use the Stand action for the spell's duration.
Wing For the duration of the spell, the target can't Fly. If all of the creature's wings are affected by wither limb, it is encumbered for the spell's duration.

If the target is affected by a heal, regenerate, or restoration spell with a spell level greater than or equal to wither limb spell level, wither limb ends.

Critical Success The creature is unaffected.
Success The creature is drained 1 and the duration of the spell is 1 round.
Failure The creature is drained 2 and the spell has unlimited duration.
Critical Failure As failure but the spell affects up to two limbs of the chosen type. Both limbs must be on the targeted creature.