The Warden of Aegis 7's page

I don't personally feel like I had much incentive to pick Summoner feats over Archetype feats for most levels. Most evolutions don't feel like they would meaningfully contribute to combat, and the Eidolons are a pretty strong package by default.

As a result, all of the builds start with Dual Studies, and out of the remaining 16 feats from the set of 4, only 3 of the feats were selected from the Summoner pool.
It might be worth looking into making some of the earlier Eidolon evolutions either more powerful, or making them into stepping stones for more interesting feats later on that either add to the Eidolon's DPS or give them more unique options in combat.
That said, I'm pretty satisfied being able to archetype with impunity and not feel like I'm losing any combat prowess, but it does feel weird having not many class feats that catch my eye.

I've seen a lot of people that like/are okay with evolutions as class feats, but I think the main advantage of separating them from feats is so they don't need to compete with multiclassing. In a lot of other classes, class feats improve your options, maybe with a numerical boost here or there. A lot of the evolutions aren't big option improvements (some are just straight numerical bonuses and nothing else), so they don't compete well with the wealth of options provided by archetypes. That's why I'm an advocate for making eidolon building a separate system, so I can make my eidolon run faster or swim-capable without missing the chance to pick up Tandem Move and similar as-yet-unseen tandem actions which do improve my combat options in a meaningful way.

Pronate11 wrote:

Now, if my summoner feels after some testing that the eidolon needs something more, I'm going to let him take a dedication and archetype feats for his eidolon (so the eidolon could gain rage from a barb dedication, or some casting). Would allowing the eidolon use weapons it gained proficiency with though these archetypes (like fighter dedication or mauler) be ok balance wise?

Allowing actual weapon use creates an option that is always superior to the default eidolon options, and creates an "alpha path". Any eidolon not taking weapon proficiency is inferior to one who does.

So yeah, it creates an internal balance problem (ie, not a problem relative to other classes - a problem where there's one clearly superior path for summoners).

The way I see it, eidolons could have the option to build for weapons or natural attacks, with weapons adding the obvious weapon benefits and natural attacks benefiting from some monster ability augments like grab. Of course among the options there would be optimal choices, but that's basically any game with options; I trust Paizo would be able to balance the two build styles so that neither would feel disadvantaged. Of course this assumes we get an eidolon that's meant to be built by the player more so than the ones we have here in the playtest.

Warden I agree with most of your points. The points were I disagree:

1) Shared HP: Right now the eidolon doesn't feel like a creature and more like its just a part of the Summoner. And that is not how the Eidolon should feel given its meant to be its own creature. I agree that its an interesting concept. But it shouldn't be used for the Summoner and their connection to the Eidolon.

That mechanic seems to be a much better fit for something like Possession abilities. Where the caster enters and becomes part of the creature. It also makes sense for the Synthesist as mechanically they are meant to be a single creature. Heck that was effectively what the PF1 Eidolon did (except PF1 used addition instead of just making their HP equal).

2) Action Economy. I understand why they are trying to share action economy. But as it stands it doesn't feel like they are both important. Instead it feels like the Summoner is controlling a puppet. This is another place were the mechanics don't properly show that both are different creatures.

Its like saying that you and another creature must share the same action pool because you are working together. How does working together lead to less actions? The same thing is happening here. They are meant to be different creatures, but somehow are getting less actions.

Well the main reason I'm willing to make those concessions is because action economy is extremely valuable and just giving the summoner double the actions a normal character gets would make them very difficult to balance. The current system kinda makes sense with the 2e summoner being a conduit for the eidolon spirit that they share stamina in a way. I think it looks worse than it is and with class feats focusing more on tandem actions this could work much more smoothly than is currently does.

The linked health pools I'm a bit more iffy about, less because of flavor and more because the summoner is either an eidolon's Achilles heel (when they already struggle enough to make it in combat), or else a bonus reward for focusing the eidolon down.

I think it would be nice to have some class feats that over the levels make an eidolon more independent of the summoner's health resources in the same way tandem actions do for action resources. Like somewhere along the line, the summoner could take a feat that separated the health pools, allowing the summoner to only take half damage from any damage the eidolon takes and vice-versa, all the way up to level 20 capstones that totally separate the two resources, so your eidolon is either completely health independent or completely action independent at the maximum.

Just throwing my two cents into the ring since I've read the playtest and built a low-level summoner to include as an npc in my game. I don't have any real play experience, so this is all just theory based on what we have in the playtest document.

I think the idea of sharing actions and health with the eidolon is a cool idea to help tone down the action economy of playing two creatures. I suspect in play that tandem actions will feel a little rigid with just the current options and I'd like to see some feat that allows the summoner to cast a 2 or 3 action spell while the eidolon gets an action or two to work with. Of course we'll probably get more tandem stuff with the official release, just saying I think that's a good place to head with class feats.

I agree, boost eidolon is kinda bad, and I think I know why. On paper the damage boost is more than reasonable for a cantrip that you get automatically, but it costs your tightest resource: actions. You're supposed to be managing two creatures, and the spell is locking damage the eidolon sorely needs behind 1 action a turn. Now this might be controversial based on what you suppose the eidolon's role is, but I think it should fall somehwere around the rogue and monk for damage output and durability, especially since this summoner only gets 4 spells a day and the eidolon is supposed to cover the rest. I really don't think it'll break into their niche without debilitating strike/skills galore or stances/ki.

If that is what it should accomplish, then I really don't think it's there yet. Giving it special access to monster abilities and a wider range of combat options in general will give it its own martial flavor and make it more fun to play in general, since the current eidolon can't do much more than attack and 1-2 limited special abilities from its type. In simple terms, if 1/2-2/3 of the class is martial, that martial 1/2-2/3 should be competent without wasting an action every turn to try and help their sorry dps. And above just basic competency, they should get some of their own wonderful turn-by-turn strategic options that make pf2 martials so much fun.

Evolutions. This is difficult because 1e has such a hideous amount of customization that anything less will feel restrictive to 1e players, but I think the current template system just swings too far into a kind of rigidity that feels very 5e in a game very much unlike 5e. Moreover, making evolutions a class feat thing just feels wrong because every evolution reduces other options like tandem actions and spellcasting options (conduit or otherwise).

I think eidolon building would actually work very well as combat-oriented familiars. The familiar system already has a lot of abilities you might want to put on an eidolon, and all you'd have to do is design a similarly structured Eidolon list with more permanent choices and a growing pool of abilities to buy. Level-lock the choices for balance and that would feel a lot better for those that really want mechanical weight to their build choices. It would also open up class feats for more options to fighting with your eidolon (also a great place for unique, class-defining, extremely fun turn-by-turn martial decisions). You can even keep the base forms like dragon and angel, but just make them "starter packs" of abilities rather than binding multi-level contracts.

Synthesists. I absolutely love the idea of synthesists, and it's kinda unfortunate that they've been reduced to a single 1st level feat. Yeah we'll probably get more synthesist stuff in the final book, but the feat we can see right now is actually mostly useless. You give up all the interesting ways the eidolon and summoner can interact, and you give up spellcasting, and you give up the ability to act as anything but the eidolon (which I'll remind you isn't very strong or very fun at the moment), and the only benefit is that the slightly easier to hit summoner isn't targetable now, which doesn't mean much since they share hit points anyway.

So here's my idea to make the synthesist work: bring back the idea that the melded synthesist is both eidolon and summoner so that the summoner can use their own feats, skills, and class abilities while fused, with the tradeoff that they lose their spellcasting while melded. This is fine and basic for a 1st level feat on a summoner that wants to go full martial in combat, and then you can have class feats later on that make the melding more efficient or open up more options, maybe even bringing back the spellcasting at some point. This would allow a summoner to take a fighter or barbarian archetype and get to go full bio-iron man as it was always supposed to be. Numbers-wise the synthesist would still be in the monk/rogue range and it's still only an archetype so I doubt there's be enough overlap to invalidate any other class. I figure it'd fit a similar niche that the berserker mutagenist alch does.

Sorry for a actual wall of text, half of this is just me trying to get my ideas out of my head. I have big hopes for this class and I really hope the final version captures the wonderful feel of the 1e summoner without being so ridiculously broken. As I test out the class some of these criticisms might fall away, but I'm fairly confident in this assessment.

Part of that though was also that Eidolons were just broken when optimized. I think that has less to do with stats and more to do with having 8 natural attacks.

Also very possible. I guess it wouldn't be huge, I'm mostly worried about ti feeling unfair that you can max stuff like Demoralize and Bon Mot just with your key ability and still lift the big rocks without paying a cost. Maybe stick a feat tax on it so you have to commit like 2 class feats or something by 4th level to get mental stats, idk.

The Warden of Aegis 7 wrote:

Hot take: I'm totally fine having synthesis disable spellcasting, but I want it to allow the Summoner to use martial feats/class features through the eidolon; I want to take the barbarian archetype and have a raging eidolon. I think it's a decent tradeoff since you give up the versatility of spellcasting for the versatility of martial feats and would play a lot better into the idea of a much more fighting-minded summoner.

You won't threaten the actual barbarian's niche since you only have the archetype (you'd have to balance against abuse for the summoner archetype though) and since your numbers will generally be a bit worse. Then your spellcasting becomes more of a utility thing for either out of combat or if you just want to play more traditionally and use your conduit spells. The way I see it, it'll fill a similar niche to the mutagenist alch that goes ham in melee: not as good as a full martial, but still fun.

This I agree with. But honestly, I think Eidolons if it doesnt use our stats for mental, it should offer us an array to pick from so we dont just 100% suck at skills such as recall knowledge while in our suit.

Mmm, yeah, and it would be nice to be able to use that killer intimidation while still roided out in beast mode. The thing is I played a 1e synthesist and even unchained I was a nightmare. Like I went toe-to-toe with an optimized magus and handed his ass to him on a silver platter before turning a rogue into a fish with baleful polymorph, so I think being careful with stat melding would be good.

Maybe it would work if only your Cha remains because your intellect and instincts are too melded with your eidolon? Maybe Synthesist becomes a kind of dedication and one of the drawbacks is that you need to share your four ability boosts with your eidolon instead of it getting its own?

Hot take: I'm totally fine having synthesis disable spellcasting, but I want it to allow the Summoner to use martial feats/class features through the eidolon; I want to take the barbarian archetype and have a raging eidolon. I think it's a decent tradeoff since you give up the versatility of spellcasting for the versatility of martial feats and would play a lot better into the idea of a much more fighting-minded summoner.

You won't threaten the actual barbarian's niche since you only have the archetype (you'd have to balance against abuse for the summoner archetype though) and since your numbers will generally be a bit worse. Then your spellcasting becomes more of a utility thing for either out of combat or if you just want to play more traditionally and use your conduit spells. The way I see it, it'll fill a similar niche to the mutagenist alch that goes ham in melee: not as good as a full martial, but still fun.