You should probably know that this feat is considered broken by the devs and will be errated. Most GMs (including me) ban it.
Good to know, thanks!
Search Posts
I see you were too quick for my edit that snuck in an extra question. Im guessing the answer to that would be that the condition improves to grabbed unless i get a follow-up critical. Thanks for the help with the questions though. I doubt i'd ever bother grappling if i had enough actions for another pin to the spot attack anyway!
Oh ok. That's simple I suppose. No need for grapple traits or anything like that. Makes sense given the weapon has pinned them to the spot, rather than onto your weapon. Thanks, that simplifies things a lot. Couple of more questions before I go: 4. Can I use the grapple action on it the turn after I use pin to the spot, given the requirement of the grapple action is "You have at least one free hand or have your target grappled or restrained."? 5. If the answer to 4 is yes, does doing so maintain the restrained effect or does the condition improve to grabbed at the end of the turn? 6. I assume the DC to escape is based on my athletics as normal?
You Strike a target within reach. If you hit and deal damage, the target is also restrained as if you had critically succeeded at an Athletics check to Grapple. 1. Can you continue to make strikes with the weapon you used to make the strike? 2. What happens if this strike is made with a reach weapon that doesn't have the grapple trait? 3. This doesn't mention needing a free hand or the grapple trait, does that mean you dont need either for this strike's effect? (I notice the grapple action has the text "You can Grapple a target you already have grabbed or restrained without having a hand free." so is this strike an exception to the normal requirements of starting a grapple and you can maintain it normally without either of these things?)
Please unsticky, close, and lock this thread already, this is like having a "Feedback Box" to leave notes for a business that leads directly into a shredder.That is probably the point. So... How do we get our questions answered now?
Thanks for all the replies. The consensus appears to be that while it is a fairly underwhelming option and there are many better items available (thanks for all the suggestions) it does not require a hand to be worn and will work just fine for the purposes I described. (Only shooting with it when not wielding my weapon in two hands) Seems to be a nice, thematic little weapon that will save me from dropping my ranged option after shooting, if at the expensive of a extra gp and a proficiency feat.
Perhaps I should have clarified, my intent was to wield a two handed weapon most of the time, but be able to stop and instead make a single attack (standard action) with a wrist launcher. (Not twf or anything crazy) I assume the main draw of a heavy wrist launcher is the fact it doesnt occupy the hand and that's what separates it from the hand crossbow which is otherwise identical, barring the wrist launcher's considerably higher price. (I was intending to rip off the style of guts from beserk, surprising enemies with sudden wrist gadget, albeit with the character still having both hands.) I take it the wrist launcher works for this purpose? It seems obvious, but the lack of text spelling it out concerns me, so I'd like opinions.
Does a wrist launcher/heavy wrist launcher allow you to have a free hand when not firing it? It doesnt outright say you do, but I can't imagine you wouldn't because, well, its a wrist launcher. Usually these things are explicitly stated in the description though.
Pretty much my conclusion too. Its a shame, because my 1e eldritch "archer" throwing magus was great and I was hoping to convert them to 2e without feeling like I was making suboptimal choices, but optimal isn't everything, right?
Superhero landing!
Oh yeah, i can see a free hand is invaluable, but that doesn't help for wanting to dual wield throwing weapons. I think I've just fallen for the worst combination of class and fighting style and it cant be helped. The maths is not so off that I'll be useless, but I still feel stupid for noticing something isnt as good and doing it anyway. But I'm ok with that and hopefully they'll add more support for it in the future. I'm surprised it wasnt pointed out that dual-wielding and to a lesser extent throwing weapon builds got the short end during the playtest for the magus abilities, assuming arcane cascade and hybrid studies were included at that point. But perhaps they just needed to hold something back for future releases.
So I was looking at spellhearts and noticed one gave Resistance to falling damage and wondered, if your resistance to falling damage is higher than the damage you would have taken, do you still land prone? 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). This seems to read you do resistance before determining the damage you take, at which point I'd guess you wouldn't land prone as you would take no damage from the fall, but I was curious what other people think.
Ideally a way of making a non-throwing weapon into a throwing weapon would be good, but as far as I know that ability is limited to the lumberjack archetype with 1h axes, level 14 monks with finesse monk weapons, and a couple of dwarf only unique weapons. Even then, with the exception of a level 26 dwarven artifact (which may be able to be thrown with two hands), the best they can do is replicate a trident. If there was something to incentivize a dual wielding throwing magus that would be perfect, but as it stands there isnt really anything to incentivize a dual wielding melee magus at this point either. Its more odd that they skipped that when making the hybrid studies than anything else. Arcane cascade only working for melee strikes is extra salt in the wound. If only they had written "melee and thrown weapon strikes", that little boost would have helped. I dont remember, were the hybrid studies or arcane cascade part of the playtest?
I think perhaps the ranged only thrown weapons like javelins should have been better. Melee versatility is great but doesnt sell me on the idea of a throwing magus, because it'd be better to be a "melee magus that can sometimes throw" if using them, meaning primarily strength would be better etc etc and suddenly you're not actually playing a throwing specialized character. Similarly agile and forceful dont appeal much to a magus who is best when spellstriking and doesn't have much to incentivize attacking multiple times (like a fighter, monk, ranger, rogue or barbarian does, either due to higher hit chance, better economy strikes or big chunks of static/precision damage). I also dont think "you can have different ones with different enhancements" is a unique sell for thrown weapons, you could do that with any weapon and generally you'd have to have a generous gm or it'd be costly to have many different magic items. Its nice that some are small enough to be concealed, I'll grant you that. But the ones like that have even worse damage/range and outside of very rare rp situations concealing weapons almost never comes up. I have no doubt they'll add a harrow themed hybrid study or feats eventually. Hopefully when they do they'll give the magus more incentive to be throwing themed. You want to play Gambit. You beat me to it by 2 mins. Guess you could say that given paizo's love of harrow themed stuff that this possibility is... on the cards.
Every time I think about using a thrown weapon I can't help but compare them to bows, which from my perspective seem just plain better. Bows have longer reach, equal or better damage dice, dont require you to lose your weapon each strike/have to draw more/get the throwing rune to compensate, get more damaging traits (deadly d10 etc) and, from what i can see, more feat support. What do thrown weapons get? Well, you can add your full strength to damage instead of half like with propulsive, but if you're building around thrown weapons then dexterity is still going to be your primary stat. So even "maxing" strength as a secondary stat means this "extra" damage only gets you +5 damage at 15th/20th level, compared to bows that max out at +2 damage 10 levels earlier. Given that the magus is d8 hd, is an intelligence caster, only has middling saves and the fact that you can only raise 4 stats at a time, you'll probably have to at least partially neglect either strength, your casting stat or wisdom. The most rational choice to neglect is strength in my opinion, because spells are the draw of this class over other martials and will saves are generally very important. That makes the only thing that even slightly compensates for thrown weapon inferiority pretty hard to justify. Now that said, I'm not pooping on the design of the game and you shouldn't feel the need to get defensive. I'm curious how I can make the concept of a throwing magus work well, where I wont constantly be wishing I'd chosen to use a bow instead. Ive not used thrown weapons or seen them used extensively before, so is there something I've overlooked?
I'd most certainly NOT build a rogue with a summoner archetype in PFS expecting the Eidolon to be able to sneak attack or a monk expecting to be able to flurry. Monk being able to flurry while melded is out of the question. Flurry is an action that as an eidolon you cant use. The same as every other action you have prior to melding that are restricted. (Except dismiss eidolon) The discussion is around passive effects and conditions that persist through melding. Just popped in to clarify that so people dont get confused.
Your physical form can (1)combine with that of your eidolon, granting benefits but limiting your capabilities. You Manifest your Eidolon, but instead of summoning it into an adjacent open space, (2)you become it. While Manifested in this way, (3)you use its statistics, and you can't act (4)except to direct it to use Manifest an Eidolon to unmanifest it.Since you can't act, you can't Cast Spells, activate or benefit from magic items that normally benefit you and not your eidolon, perform actions that have the tandem trait, or use other abilities that require you, and not the eidolon, to act. Your can't be (5)separately targeted while you are melded into it. When (6)you reach 0 HP, your eidolon unmanifests, leaving your body behind, unconscious and dying. 1a. The feat literally says you "combine". Not are replaced. Not that you cease to exist. Not that you unsummon yourself. 1b. The feat states it grants "you" benefits. Which makes sense. But under your baseless interpretation that you arent there, having been replaced, or that "you" refers to the player, not the character, this would make no sense, because "you" arent being granted the listed benefits, instead just "only being an eidolon". 1c. The feat states it limits your capabilities, it would not say this if you effectively didnt exist. You cant limit the capabilities of something that doesnt exist. 2. The feat states you become your eidolon. It does not state you are replaced by your eidolon. It does not state you ever stop being your character. Again, redhead becomes doctor does not equal redhead ceases to be redhead or is replaced by a doctor. (Very simple analogy) 3. The feat states you use its statistics. It doesnt state it uses its own statistics. It includes this because the character is the one using the eidolon's statistics. 4. The feat states that again, you still have the ability to act to do this one thing. Something you would not be able to do if you weren't still present. It goes on to list the ways the summoner is restricted in what actions they can take. Again, which would be redundant if the Summoner wasnt still there. It does not say any effects cease, suspend of otherwise are cured. 5. Stressing here that you cant be targeted "seperately" because you and the eidolon are one being. That would be completely redundant if the summoner was effectively not there. 6. Again, you, not the eidolon, because you dont "functionally" or "effectively" not exist or are replaced. Lastly "You cant act", in game terms simply means "you cant take your actions", thankfully the feat explicitly also allows you to use your eidolon statistics, which come with their own actions. The feat even lists one way in which you can still take actions: the action to dismiss your eidolon, included because eidolon's dont have this capability by default. Nothing you are trying to argue appears as comprehensively covered by the feat text. Yours is based not on the quoted text, but on a misunderstanding/massive oversimplification of the word "become", ignoring the larger context of the whole feat's text, and you're attempting to use that to justify overhauling what the feat is written to do. The feat is clearly designed and written to function similarly to 1e's synthesist. It does no more or less than what the feat text says. I will say that if that was what they meant by "you can't act," then it would have been more succinct to say, "The eidolon can Dismiss itself." It has no need to say that, because you are still present and you are the one acting as the eidolon. If the eidolon was the only thing present and you were no longer present, it would say "the eidolon can dismiss itself". But it doesnt, specifically because you are the eidolon and still you.
You stating your opinions that disregard the rules text and every explanation based on the text is getting old. Gortle and I are refuting with rules text from the feat itself stating exactly how it works. You are objecting based on nothing but belief on how you think it should work, not what the feat actually does. Again, a redhead that becomes a doctor does not cease being a readhead, the readhead is not "effectively replaced" by a doctor. The feat does nothing to transpose you into a pocket dimension or do anything fancy like that. It specifically says you combine and you use the statistics of the eidolon. Nothing more.
While Manifested in this way, you use its statistics, and you can't act except to direct it to use Manifest an Eidolon to unmanifest it. On the contrary, that is included purely because the eidolon's list of actions (ie, how it can act) does not include a dismiss itself. Therefore that text was included to say "you cant use any of your normal actions, except the action to dismiss the eidolon because an eidolon cant do that to itself by default." As you have "become" your eidolon and explicitly can only take actions as an eidolon, as per the feat text, that needed to be included as an exception, otherwise you'd never be able to change back.
I'm pretty proud of the mech suit analogy tbh. Its a good way of summing up exactly what the ability says it does in the simplest terms that everyone can understand.
Sneak attack requires you, the summoner, to make a Strike. The eidolon does not know how to sneak attack (if you require real world logic, think of it as trying to shout instructions to your fighter ally so that they can sneak attack). As pointed out, the feat specifically states it is "you" using the eidolon's statistics, as per "you use its statistics". In a way that I'd imagine is quite similar to a battle form, albeit without the wording that the statistics can't be modified. The melded character is one character, as it says you "combine" and "become" your eidolon. You arent shouting instructions to yourself. You are still you and you would retain your sneak attack knowledge, because the feat does not restrict that like it does for activated abilities. The confusion arises because sneak attack, despite being functionally just bonus damage, can be read as requiring the character to act (as if it were a triggered free action), despite not actually requiring an action. Hence me saying it is an unusual case compared to other types of bonus damage and is therefore up to GM judgement.
That is in no way the intent, as the ability is not written to be that at all. That is your opinion on how it should have been written, not how it is. Using the word intent to justify overhauling what the ability says it does is wrong. Your view that it should be as if the summoner was unmanifested is not at all what the ability does, as the feat itself, I and others have mentioned, it is a combination, a fusion, a melding of summoner and eidolon, not a flip switch between the two where your character ceases to exist. The "open questions" you think exist are only present in your own suggestions of what the the feat should do, not what it actually does. With the understanding that you at no point cease to be the summoner (despite the fact you take actions as an eidolon after using the feat), the questions of whether you are still affected by conditions and persistent damage dont even need to be asked. The feat does no more or less than it says it does in the text. No pocket dimensions, no ceasing to exist, no suspending conditions, no suspending spell effects/durations and no suspending persistent damage. You simply lose the ability to take your character actions and instead take actions as an eidolon. As written, it is designed to be more of a marvel symbiote, or perhaps more aptly a "mech-suit" type ordeal (which is particularly relevant/fitting for a summoner melding with a construct eidolon). Which also makes sense considering the feat seems to be based on the popular synthesist summoner archetype from 1e which effectively had you "wear" your eidolon.
Yes, given the feat clearly states that "you" (the summoner) are the one being granted the benefits and you are the one using the eidolon's statistics, whether or not you still exist (or where you are) should not be in question and therefore you wouldn't lose any persistent damage, ongoing conditions or spells (both positive or negative) that are affecting you when you assume your melded form. As your actions are limited to that of your eidolon's while you and your eidolon are combined, you cannot activate any of your previous abilities, but any passive effects or effects that you previously used remain, provided they dont require you to act. Passive class abilities that dont call for you act (not actions or reactions) remain in effect. For example, i think sneak attack is dubious here because it calls out "if you strike". But this can be interpreted in two ways, one; it is just passive bonus damage under certain conditions and still applies, or two; it is a triggered effect reliant on you specifically acting. I can see the argument that its just bonus damage and reading any further into it is overthinking because it isnt itself a free action with a trigger or a reaction, so I'd say that at least is a gm call as to whether they believe SA qualifies as an ability that requires the summoner specifically to act, or just a bonus damage effect. In any case, thanks to the way multiclassing archetypes work and cross class feats being limited to 1/2 level, if SA and similar are allowed, such passive effects have no real potential to "break" the game or make anything overpowered, so there is GM wiggle room on that aspect at least. (Given you're either getting summoner feats at 1/2 level or getting severely watered down versions of SA etc.)
You are definitely the one using its statistics and you are definitely still present, albeit combined with the eidolon and controlling what actions to take while your normal actions are restricted. Aoe effects emanating from the summoner should continue to passively function and may well affect the eidolon due to being in the aoe. Similarly fire shield continues to function as the summoner and eidolon share a body and are attacked in unison (they explicity can't be targeted separately), triggering the damage.
One thing im confident of is that you cant use any attacks or actions granted from your original form when melded, as that aspect of your character cannot act. This includes actions granted by feats, like the monk stances that grant unique strikes or martial feats that grant special strikes with rider effects.
Suddenly, a seldom experienced sense of harmony settled over the thread, as many shared their agreements with one-another and engaged in like-minded discussion. In regard to stances, provided they dont require the summoner to act in a certain way after being activated I can't see why they wouldnt continue to function. (Act in this case meaning to take specific actions) Looking through the stance rules doesn't appear to discount it as a possibility at any rate. I see youve edited your post, in response, no, i dont believe effects that grant actions to the summoner work when using MiE as you cant act as a summoner when using MiE. You still exist and are present, acting as an eidolon, but you explicitly lose the ability to act as a normal character, instead taking actions only your eidolon could. Similarly sneak attack modifies your summoner actions and statistics, which you can no longer use, so that doesnt work either.
As the summoner can be targeted, albeit as a summoner/eidolon that cant have its component parts targeted separately, fire shield would continue to work, yes. As for conditions, any gm would be mad to have MiE act as a cure all to everything when used or dismissed, and yes, as per how the feat works the summoner would retain his conditions after assuming his eidolon's statistics and actions, or when reverting back to his own. Making up text to have the summoner cease to exist would indeed cause many unintended effects that are avoided by playing the feat as written. Unfortunately there are a couple of people here that dont like what the feat is written to do... I still don't think that works because they aren't dealing with you anymore, they're dealing with your Eidolon who does not have that ability. You as the Summoner no longer have line of effect to to any of the enemies, even if it kept going. You are still plowing along with the idea that you cease to be the summoner or you as the summoner somehow cease to exist. You are still the summoner. You are also an eidolon. You are both. You are a combination. That is what combine means. That is why the feat says you combine. You lose your ability to take actions as a summoner, but you gain the ability to take actions as an eidolon, as per the feat. You are the summoner AND the eidolon, as such you still have line of effect as you would normally. It isnt hard to get your head around, the feat does exactly what it says and no more than that. It does not create extradimensional pockets that the summoner disappears into to prevent line of effect, it simply adds the capabilities and ability to act as an eidolon while restricting MOST of the normal capabilities of the summoner. As most buffs are directly applied to the normal statistics of the summoner and while using MiE you arent using your summoner statistics, it stands to reason that MOST buffs dont apply once you use MiE (though thats a judgement call for GMs exactly the same as it is when using battle form statistics, at least until paizo clarifies it). Enemies taking fire damage when you are hit doesnt affect your statistics, so your combined form may well retain that effect from fire shield anyway as ravingdork likely realized when they suggested the spell as a example.
You Manifest your Eidolon, but instead of summoning it into an adjacent open space, you become it.At this point, you are gone. There is only one character, the Eidolon, remaining. This is what your entire argument is based on and the feat does not at all support it. The feat clearly states "Your physical form can combine with that of your eidolon, granting benefits but limiting your capabilities." If the summoner is gone like you suggest, the feat would not list the ways the summoner is limited in their capabilities because there would be no need. Just because you "become" something doesnt mean you cease being everything you were before. A redhead that becomes a doctor doesnt stop being a redhead because they've become a doctor. A summoner that combines with their eidolon doesnt stop being the summoner just because they've become their own eidolon. As per the feat, they can no longer take actions as the summoner, they can only take actions as an eidolon, using their eidolon's actions and statistics. The feat does exactly what it says. No more. No less. You are no longer targeted separately simply because you are just one creature. You are combined. Melded. Merged. Strangely, in many ways this feat resembles a significantly more strict battle form effect in what it actually does. As a final point, yes the stances could be viewed as potentially more dubious than the later, better examples such as aura of despair.
Functionally your summoner ceases to exist. It limits your capabilities because all that's left is your Eidolon. Except as detailed in the feat, that is clearly not the case. Sorry i didnt reply to your earlier question by the way. To answer you, while you are "combined with your eidolon" the line of effect would be from your form as normal, in this case being your combined form. If you didnt exist (or were in some kind of an extradimensional hideaway) you would have no line of effect.
If what you say is true, then as soon as you Merge with the Eidolon, all your magic items will suddenly stop working, and you would just have to stand there (since you can't act) until you Unmanifest it. It makes way more sense if the Eidolon were the one acting, and thus only benefiting from normal Eidolon stuff, while the Summoner were hidden away safe inside the Eidolon's form. You are literally ignoring what the feat says and what im saying. Nowhere does it say all your magic items suddenly stop working and nowhere does it say you just stand there. It doesnt say you just stand there because you are COMBINED (actual word used in the feat) with the eidolon which obviously can move. Again, the feat is "meld" not "be replaced by". It is not a change places, as I said in my last post its functionally more akin to using your eidolon as a marvel symbiote that takes over control and uses its superpowered statistics and limiting the summoner's capabilities. The summoner is still present, as the feat says. Furthermore hazards like fire or lava do not "target" you. Targeting is a game term for targeted effects, like single "target" spells or strikes that "target" you. Aoe spells affect all creatures in their area, a rare few may target specific creatures in an area separately, but that is not the case for all aoe effects. Unfortunately your idea that the feat is used to create a totally safe "hideaway" for the summoner is not true.
That is not at all based on the rules and entirely based on you imposing your own ideas onto what the designers wrote. The first line of the feat states: "Your physical form can combine with that of your eidolon, granting benefits but limiting your capabilities." It doesnt say you cease to exist or are replaced. It says you combine with the eidolon. It then says it limits your capabilities, not removes them entirely, then lists the exact ways it limits your capabilities, including causing you to use your eidolon's statistics and preventing you from acting. The feat does exactly what it says. I understand people will generally only post here if they disagree with the conclusion at this point, but I dont understand how there are people genuinely coming up with the idea that the feat does any more or less than it says it does. I ironically agree that they couldn't have been more clear explaining the feat. They listed exactly what it does. You combine, you merge, you meld, you dont get replaced by your eidolon, you simply cant act (except to direct it to use Manifest an Eidolon to unmanifest it) and in addition you cant be targeted separately. I get the impression a few people glanced at the feat without fully taking in what it says and got the wrong first impression (that it somehow removes the summoner entirely) and its completely new content so that's to be expected, but the feat's text simply doesn't support that assumption. Its worth noting that as written, while you cant be targeted separately, you absolutely can both be affected by the same environmental effects at the same time, meaning walking into lava/fire can be quite bad as both are affected. If it helps, you should think of the feat less as being replaced by your familiar and more of a Marvel Comics Venom Symbiote situation.
For what its worth, im grateful for the responses in this thread and happy to find out more about the strengths of the summoner class and where they shine. I fully understand peoples frustration that the class doesn't achieve summoning superiority through the use of the conventional summoning spells, but im surprised to see so much of the discussion devolving into inflammatory comments.
You misunderstand that Your character doesn't cease to exist otherwise it wouldnt have to specify what you cannot do when you use the ability. Also meld with eidolon says you can't be separately targeted while you are melded, implying you are still there and can be affected by things and affect things passively, you just cant be targeted. That comes with its own perks and drawbacks, but basing your understanding on the idea "the Summoner isn't even there" as you state, is flawed. Granted the list of things that can carry over when using meld into eidolon is EXTREMELY limited due to the wording of the ability, but there are a rare few passive benefits which can continue to function. Off the top of my head the only things i can think of are passive effects like the stances from the marshal archetype, activated prior to using meld. Their effects are passive and affect every ally within a certain range, freshly manifested eidolon included. Im sure there are spells that offer similar aoe effects that dont require the character to act that could similarly be activated prior to melding that would also continue to function, but again, the list would probably be quite short due to meld into eidolons restrictions. Finally, nobody is suggesting the "Eidolon to suddenly have access to all the Summoner's abilities". Dont exaggerate in an attempt to dismiss others. I simply pointed out there is a very small collection of niche abilities that could continue to function after melding. From what i can tell, the answers to my original post are:
Edit: Other abilities that can continue to function include the passive auras from the champion class, like aura of despair. Are they worth it? Eh, probably not. Im sure there's more though.
Good point on sneak attack, I edited that one into the post on the 59th minute of the post being up so it was a bit of a rushed thought. Also im aware you cant act to activate a stance or spell AFTER becoming an eidolon and that the list of stances and spells that dont affect only your statistics or provide you with actions is very limited. Might be fun trying to find them though for this purpose.
Still no mention of sneak attack, hunters edge: precision, rage or weapon specialization bonus damage while in battle form I take it?
Ooh thats nice warlock flavor. Thanks.
Can someone explain what these rituals are to me and of they're worth looking into?
I was thinking side by side, beyond that no plans. I was hoping to have a character that sometimes melds into eidolon but can "split" himself in two and attack in unison when the situation calls for it. Just because i like that character concept to be perfectly honest. I hear that being near your eidolon is just asking to be hit by aoe effects and die though, so I wanted to know what the work arounds for that might be. Though ive just come across some threads saying that issue is exaggerated, so perhaps im just looking for other helpful tips and suggestions.
1: When you become your eidolon while you have buffs active on you, do you keep them after transforming? 2: If you are in a stance then become your eidolon, are you still in the stance after you become your eidolon? From reading the ability I cant see why you wouldnt after "you become it", provided you dont attempt to use any activated abilities from said effects. Just thought of another one:
How should I build a summoner that fights in melee with their eidolon? Most importantly, how can I make said character able to survive aoe spells that would hit both eidolon and themselves and boost survivability in general, given their weak proficiencies.
Thanks. Another tangentially related question: Can a summoner cast lower level spells with his spell slots? For example, casting a 3rd level spell at 15th level, using their 7th/8th level slots? So does that mean you cant have a 3rd level spell from summoner levels once you lose your slots of that level? For example, if you're playing a summoner and you're like "wow this aqueous orb spell(3rd level) is great", when you then reach 9th level, is it removed from your repertoire and you cant cast it, or can you choose to keep it/relearn it as a higher level spell despite it not having a heightened effect?
Thanks. Another tangentially related question: Can a summoner cast lower level spells with his spell slots? For example, casting a 3rd level spell at 15th level, using their 7th/8th level slots?
What? First edition Summoner was somehow worse at summoning, despite getting a sizable pool of silent, stilled minute-per-level standard action summons? Nothing will be good enough for you if that wasn't good enough. Yes quidest, a few 1e archetypes gave the same action economy summoning as a summoner, with extended duration and also retained their full 9th level spellcasting progression, meaning they were both more powerful and more flexible than the summoner. (Because 9th level casting is amazing for everything) Anyway, thanks everyone for the responses. I had assumed when the 2e summoner arrived it would bring summons up to being a little more viable and thought i must have missed something when looking over the nethys site. As a related question, as I'm attempting to build a character that controls multiple beasts, is there anything preventing a summoner from having both an eidolon and an animal companion? And is there any drawback to using both at the same time?
What makes the summoner better at summoning than a wizard using summoning spells? I know 1e had the issue that the summoner was generally inferior to many archetypes of full casters when it came to summoning, so does 2e fix this and if so, how?
I'll have to see the numbers to work out exactly how useful they'll be for combat (and how much use they'll likely see), but I like the sound of variety and the tricks they can pull off. In an ideal world their AC would at least scale somehow, but new content is always welcome so I'm relatively happy already.
Eagerly waiting to check out the new secrets of magic content now. Curious to see if the new forms are better at anything niche that the existing forms couldn't do already.
The whole point of this thread was to think of overpowered ways to exploit a known bug in the game to their benefit. Excuse me sir, the point of "this thread" (assuming you meant this thread we're in) was to find out if it had been flagged for errata because it seemed poorly written. I mean, I still agree completely that obviously broken things shouldn't be exploited just because they haven't released the errata yet, but I felt I had to clarify that. Very rarely stuff is flagged for errata that I dont agree should be, (such as sixth pillar mastery, because i believe the feat investment combined with the limited usefulness to most characters offsets the benefits enough) but the horse support text is not one of them. They need to fix that crap otherwise horses will become every blaster's "must have" accessory. I still wonder if they intended a character to receive the benefit only when mounted, or if the benefit can be gained at any time; as is the case for all the other animal companion support abilities.
Yeah, your grevances are shared by many, me included, but it seems very unlikely they'll retroactively fix/errata the existing spells. At this point its much more likely they'll simply add more until people have so much choice they dont miss their old forms, or they'll add better support feats for older forms. I'd like both, but only time will tell.
As i mentioned earlier, at least you'll have dragon synthesist summoners to fill your "being a dragon" needs.I’m never going to say no to o more draconic options, but that’s not the same IMO. Dragon Form shouldn’t have awkward heightening and it’s something I hope gets addressed in an errata I think its amazing that they're introducing a way of becoming a dragon in early levels at all, given that dragons are supposed to be magical, near-deific apex creatures. But anyway, the scaling issues at higher levels aren't limited to dragon form (as discussed for animal and aerial forms being pretty much unusable past 12th level). I agree with this as a design principle, as it encourages learning new spells, but in practice it feels awful for people that dont want to abandon their forms and hopefully they'll introduce some support feats that allow all the forms to scale better past their intended levels. Including such changes without requiring feat investment would make the later forms less appealing and probably undermine their design intent.
For sure but not everyone wants variety, you know? If I want to play. Dragon themed caster, which isn’t hard given there are two sorcerer bloodlines for it and an archetype, I just want to transform into a dragon. It seems odd the spell doesn’t auto heighten. If someone wants a variety of battle forms, then they can pick up a number of different form spells.I just wish the form spells heightened every level. I love Dragon Form but it bums me out that I can’t reliably use it at all levels at a consistent power level.It sucks but I guess it forces variety.... As I mentioned earlier, having such a small number of forms being actually viable at a given range actually does more to harm variety too. And in case you missed it earlier as well, at least you'll have dragon synthesist summoners to fill your "being a dragon" needs.
I just wish the form spells heightened every level. I love Dragon Form but it bums me out that I can’t reliably use it at all levels at a consistent power level.It sucks but I guess it forces variety.... It forces every druid to go through the same progression of forms and be near indistinguishable from every other shaping druid. Variety would be if each druid wasn't locked to the same progression or had ways of customizing their forms. For the druid it's too late to rework the spells to heighten at all levels and i dont think they need to either. (Adding feat support options would go a long way to improving my issues with lack of customisation/animal form drop-off.) Luckily if all you want from your character is to turn into a dragon consistently, a dragon synthesist summoner build using the upcoming Secrets of Magic book has you covered. It remains to be seen if that will be an effective/viable play style though. In my opinion dragon shifting doesn't feel as druidic as animal shifting, so im ok with the summoner having that level 1-20 capability instead of the druid.
That feat is flagged for removal and the dedication itself is flagged for errata to remove it's proficiency bonus. They violate their internal guidelines on who gets what and when. Can you link me to where paizo said that? I'm not doubting, I'd just like to see!
|