draco_nite's page

The first thing I thought of when I saw the Grippli was car insurance and an accent.

A human and a kitsune who have a child will produce one of two things: A human child or a kitsune child. Which one occurs depends on chance as much as anything else.

So you can't have foxgirls like Ahri?

Gonna vote for catfolk. With fanservice-y picture if you could, please.

I'd just ignore it.

A feat tax is one thing, but a feat tax that does nothing is just rediculous.

It's like making a feat that allows you to apply your Dexterity bonus to damage on crossbows, but requires you to take Prone Shooter to qualify for it.

Not even, you at least gain some benefit from Prone Shooter, even if you might not ever use it. Ability Focus (Constrict) literally gives you no benefit.

This is sort of like my world. The history is kinda long, but TL;DR of it is: Magic once existed, empire conquers most of the known world, daemons invade the world, magic is banished from the world to get rid of said daemons. Modern technology develops over 2000 years, then nuclear war breaks out, which breaks the seal on magic. A god sacrifices himself to prevent the daemons from invading ever again. Fast forward a few centuries, large parts of the world are nuclear hellholes, and the gods have essentially banned technology from developing past a certain point, since they realized that nukes could kill gods.

Anyway, if you want, I could send you a list I compiled. The list is of monsters from the three bestiaries that look like they'd appear in a Fallout-like setting.

I think it's fine as a feat.

Are you planning to let the ranger choose it as one of his combat style feats, or does he have to take it as a regular feat? Also, what happens if the player decides he doesn't really want it? Does he charge a lot?

Dunno if he charges a lot, we haven't played yet. Considering that he wants to play a skirmisher-type character, he'll probably like it.

Also, I suppose it could be a combat style feat, but considering that he's taking TWF at first level and Double Slice is a pretty good feat, I dunno if he'll even take it as a bonus feat.

Should clarify: the effect seems totally fine to me. I agree with Detect Magic that it's a bit underwhelming for a feat. Then again, I'm of the opinion that TWF as a standard action (1 hit with each weapon, as "Doublestrike") should be the standard game mechanic, and that the TWF feat should include iteratives (instead of being a feat tree). So maybe I'm too eager to give things to players!

I agree with this. I'm thinking of houseruling the TWF standard action bit, along with a few other things to make melee combat better.

For example, making Combat Expertise and all subsequent feats only require 10 INT.

Two-Weapon Charge (Combat)
Prereqisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting
Whenever you charge, you may draw an additional weapon as part of the charge if your base attack bonus is at least +1. In addition, you may make a melee attack against a single target with both your main and off-hand weapons. Doing so incurs the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting.

I have someone playing a TWF ranger in an upcoming game, and I'm wondering if this feat is overpowering in some way. (He is new to the game, so he I don't expect him to break the game too much anyway)

Some official rules on this would be really nice, but I really think it's going to be up to GMs.

It really depends on if spells have visual effects in your game world. Personally, I prefer spells to be like the force in Star Wars: you only see what is absolutely necessary. If the jedi mind trick caused the jedi's eyes to glow and stuff, that guard would get REAL suspicious.

draco_nite wrote:

Book of Convincing

*Typo in the submission title.

*Just how many thaumaturgical geniuses lack debating skills anyway? Apparently those with 144,000 gp in their pockets to buy this thing?

*Then, we get the dreaded "...[a]t the GM's discretion..." line that's always fun to discover in an item's description. Only, it's not...

*And, they left off the Craft Wondrous Item feat entirely.

*Vote to Reject.

*Nonono, convin-icing is a type of magical icing

*Seriously, is this item really necessary? just pay your target 10,000 gp so they pretend to believe what you tell them

*Reject.

*Reject.

*Rejected.

This made me laugh. I calculated 144,000 gold from an item that could cast Charm Monster at will. I didn't put the Craft Wondrous Item feat because I forgot to.

Thank you for the feedback, and, if you read this reply, thank you for reading it. I'm definitely using this as a cursed item.

Hello,

This was my first entry into the RPG Superstar contest.

Any feedback for future submissions would be appreciated.

Shane

** spoiler omitted **

I think this would fall into several of the auto-reject categories, the one that comes to my mind is "makes adventuring safe."

Also, one issue I have is this: what prevents a skilled thief from just stealing everything from the Janni?

Book of Convincing
Aura moderate enchantment; CL 9th
Slot --; Price 144,000 gp; Weight 3 lbs.
Description
This unremarkable-looking book is a favorite of thaumaturgical geniuses who lack debating skills. If the book is blank, or its command word has not been spoken yet, it has no effect and anybody may write in it. Once its command word is spoken, anything further written in the book is magically erased like the erase spell. Speaking the command word a second time does nothing; once activated, there is no way to stop the erase effect.

Anyone who reads the book must make a DC 16 Will save. Those who fail the save believe anything written in the book to be true, and their opinions on anything written about in the book change to match the book's opinions. At the GM's discretion, this may change a character's alignment. Once convinced by the book, nothing can make the reader doubt what the read in the book, but a successful break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell removes this effect.
Construction
Requirements charm person, erase; Cost 72,000 GP

Yeah, I know I forgot to put Craft Wondrous Item. If that was the sole reason I didn't get into the top 32, I will cry myself to sleep tonight.
EDIT: I just thought that it could be used as a slow-acting save or die item. Write in the book that the reader should kill themselves and they die.

What if you use it on a shadow? Or a greater shadow? Does it attack itself?

Can I rage incoherently if my item didn't make the cut because of a really dumb mistake that I made?
EDIT: Also, Y U REVEAL WHEN MY CLASS START?

But that's my point. We have laptops that can handle PDFs, sure. And some of the pricey ones might even handle them to my satisfaction.

I have one of those Asus'.

Theres lag turning pages with one PDF open, and its barely responsive with 4 pdfs open. And thats all with a regular monitor, which is crap if you want to be able to read and display 2 pages simultaneously.

Basically I want something like an iPad, that has 2 screens, can read all manner of PDFs, has either alot more space, or supports expansion, and doesnt lag when flipping through pdfs.

If I was to try to do it with what's available now, I'd need like, 4 of them, or more, and I'd still be irritated by how slow it is, and the inability to display two pages at once at a reasonable page size. Currently, I dont consider them to be worth the effort.

There are some 2-screen tablets in the works, I've seen demos. Haven't seen a working model yet though.

I imagine it will be a few years before I see a device that I'd actually consider good enough to replace bringing multiple RPG Books.

The iPad can't display all the images in alot of PDFs. Apparently its picky about which image formats it can handle in a pdf, and having seen them used, the lag is painful.

The Acers you mention: They do a crappy job running multiple programs at once, and are too slow for multiple PDFs. Additionally, more page turning because of the inability to do 2up with a decent size for each page.

At the moment I'm stuck with a laptop. It's a decent laptop. Cost 1100.
The screen is too small to do 2up, and its still too much of a pain switching between multiple pdfs, and sometimes it takes a like 2 seconds to turn a page. And this thing is only a couple months old.

At the moment my laptop isn't sufficient to replace my books. I find I bring a laptop for books I dont need to refer to very often, and bring actual books for anything I do.

That's why I say itll be a while before I see a device worth actually replacing my books. If most full-blown laptops dont...

Have you tried Foxit instead of the craptastical Adobe reader?

I never fully fleshed out this idea, but one that I rejected was an amulet that augmented a druid's wild shape to increase their size and give them the ability to grab and swallow whole.

Unfortunately, this was A. getting too close to the word count for comfort and B. too similar to an item submitted in 2009.

I've never done this, but the way I'd do it is allow monsters to gestalt a PC class with their racial HD. Of course, most would be grabbing levels in Barbarian, Fighter, or possibly Ranger, but a Balor Wizard/Outsider would be a truly fearsome opponent.

Also, this way would require the most math.

Extra Hero Points (2 RP)
The race starts play with an extra hero point. Only available in campaigns using hero points.

A) Want to add my vote in for a Powerful Build option. They're already putting Large in, I'd like something that is a half-step between sizes.

B) Small Stature : Your race is smaller than normal for your size category. You are treated as one size smaller whenever it is beneficial for you. For example, when determining what spaces you can fit or squeeze into, when purchasing equipment (note that if you reduce the cost of weapons, they do damage as if the smaller size category!), and when determining size bonuses to stealth. 1 or 2 pts.

I'd like to add a vote for this, although I'd say that you don't HAVE to choose weapons of a smaller size category, since powerful build races don't HAVE to choose weapons of a larger size category.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

advanced strength is an Advanced Ability. thus not available to standard races. and it's not so much the amount of points spent that matter but how well the abilities synergize.

Wrong.

Actually, he's absolutely right. Page 8.

Ability Score Bonuses

The following racial abilities add to the base ability score
modifiers chosen in the ability score modifiers trait.
Advanced Abilities
Advanced Charisma (4 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: ...

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

What's the chance that we'll see a second playtest document that is built upon the altered premises, if you do take that road?

All we really need to do is alter some "offending" point costs, and not treat all the core races as 10 points, If the dwarf comes out as 11 (but is still considered a standard race) and the halfling comes out as 7, then the basics of the system will not necessarily change, only a few of the ability points.

If we do a second playtest, the major change you will see is some point tweaking.

Could you add to your list of change considerations unlinking racial abilities? I think it makes for a much more fun and varied toolbox if you don't have to be type-dwarf to pick up Hardy, for example.

I second this motion. This is just as important, in my opinion.

I'd say "GM tool." Whichever way that leans.

Also, we're forgetting the point that even 4 int xenophobes can drop one point in Linguistics to speak with the rest of the party.

This is amazing. I don't think I've ever seen such a unanimous agreement on one thing by the members of this board.

Please, Paizo, we want this to be good. We know you want this to be good. For the love of the game and its players, don't let your ego get in the way of something good.

Seriously. Your customers want an objectively-priced race-building system, isn't the fact that your customers want it enough reason?

draco_nite wrote:

So, rather than having CR adjustments for each race tier, why not allow different point buy totals for different tiers? (In campaigns that allow point buy, that is.)

e.g.
10 RP - Campaign's standard value
20 RP - Campaign's standard value -5
30 RP - Campaign's standard value -10
40 RP - Campaign's standard value -15

with a minimum of 10 points.

So, a High Fantasy campaign (20 points) would allow Standard (10 RP) races to have 20 points of ability scores, while Advanced (20 RP) races could have 15 points of ability scores, and Monstrous (30 RP) races could have 10 points of ability scores.

I see where you are going but lets add the last line of race tier into that 40RP still gets 10 points of scores. So I might as well play a 40 RP over the 30 every time.

I think where Umbral Reaver is going might be a better tack.

By "minimum of 10," I mean that you can't play a race with more RP than one that would allow 10 points.

So, in a 20 point campaign, you could not play a 40 point race, since that would be a point buy of 5 points. Basically, 10 RP is worth 5 points under my system.

I like Umbral Reaver's idea as well, which is more balanced would probably come down to a bunch of number crunching that I'd rather not do.

Why are they Outsiders? Being descended from a god doesn't automatically make you an outsider. Minotaurs are (in some settings, at least) born of a divine curse, yet they're Monstrous Humanoids.

Why does Hoofed cost 1 RP when its main effect is to make a whole lot of magic items useless to me?

I am trying to make my anthro-equines and this foot segregation is really confusing me.

DM fiat your boots to horseshoes. You re-fit those boots of teleportation to horseshoes of teleportation.

i doubt its an error but why are both small and medium races classified as 0 points. Surly small should be -1 if medium is 0. It is a disadvantage after all.

Trading weapon damage, CMB, and CMD for bonuses to AC, attack rolls, and stealth rolls is great if you're a rogue or a spellcaster.

Another vote here for divorcing a lot of stuff from pre-reqs bound to creature or racial subtypes.

I can see elemental vulnerabilities being fitting to plenty of creatures that aren't outsiders for one example.

Or to non-standard creatures.

Languages are pretty terribly priced, too.

Honestly, languages shouldn't even be priced at all. My group (and I'm sure others) just flat-out ignores bonus language restrictions.

draco_nite wrote:

I think you can even afford to lose creature type.

Well, you have to have at least something for creature type, because it's a necessary game mechanic (favored enemy, bane weapons, hold person/monster, etc).

Oh, never mind, I thought you were talking about racial traits having requirements based on creature type.

Coldbloodedness. For realistic reptilian races.

As Golden-Esque said, no more packages, outside of creature type. Nothing should be labeled "elf" or "dwarf" or whatever. Abilities should just be generic abilities that you can give to any race. Only the points should matter, and everything should be bought individually (2 cantrips 1/day each costs this, a +2 bonus versus whatever costs this, etc).

A functional racial creation system has to be 100% generalized or you're not actually creating new races.

I think you can even afford to lose creature type.

I was looking at the Toxic ability, and it mentions using toxic saliva to coat your weapon in poison. Now I'm wondering, if a race has the ability to produce toxins in its mouth and the ability to bite people, would/should it be able to poison people with its bite, even if it's a limited number of times per day as mentioned in the description?

I'm not sure if you can apply poison to natural attacks, but it's be kinda weird if the two abilities didn't mix in some way.

Even if Jason says that it would make the game completely unplayable, I'd still allow it. Since Toxic doesn't distinguish between natural and manmade weapons, I assume that it would let you envenom your natural weapons.

Also, a bit off-topic, but something funny I noticed with how the Toxic racial ability is written.

A number of times per day equal to your Constitution

modifier (minimum 1/day), you can envenom a weapon
that you wield with your toxic saliva or blood (using blood
requires you to be injured when you use this ability).

In other words, this could be misinterpreted that you can envenom a weapon that you use your toxic saliva or blood to wield.

So, rather than having CR adjustments for each race tier, why not allow different point buy totals for different tiers? (In campaigns that allow point buy, that is.)

e.g.
10 RP - Campaign's standard value
20 RP - Campaign's standard value -5
30 RP - Campaign's standard value -10
40 RP - Campaign's standard value -15

with a minimum of 10 points.

So, a High Fantasy campaign (20 points) would allow Standard (10 RP) races to have 20 points of ability scores, while Advanced (20 RP) races could have 15 points of ability scores, and Monstrous (30 RP) races could have 10 points of ability scores.

I think it's supposed to go in this thread.

Is this thread to show how the system can be used to make a minmaxed race specialised in excelling at a single class above all others?

I think that's fairly well known already. Some amount of GM and player rationality and reasonability is expected when reviewing a race for use in their game, even if the points add up nicely. In some cases, a higher cost race may be okay because their abilities do not synergise or force them into a single role better than any other race. In others, it may be justifiable for a race to add up to less than ten because its abilities stack in powerful ways.

Changeling (Like, REAL changelings, not those half-hag things you call changelings, Paizo.)
Born from the union of a doppelganger and a human, these shapechangers take after their doppelganger parent more often than not.
Type: Humanoid (Shapechanger) 0 RP
Size: Medium 0 RP
Speed: Normal 0 RP
Ability Scores: Human Heritage Mod 0 RP
Language: Linguist 2 RP
Racial Abilities
Change Shape 6 RP
Gift of Tongues 2 RP
Total 10 RP

Emim
Created by a forgotten god to fight the horrors of the far realm, these dim-witted giants are unmatched in brute force.
Type: Humanoid (Giant) 0 RP
Size: Large 7 RP
Speed: Normal 0 RP
Ability Scores: Greater Weakness (+2 Str, -2 Cha, -4 Int) -3 RP
Language: Standard 1 RP
Racial Abilities
Fearless 1 RP
Hatred (Abberations) 1 RP
Relentless 1 RP
Stubborn 1 RP
Weapon Familiarity (Flail, Heavy Flail) 1 RP
Total 10 RP

Breath Weapon (4 RP)
Gain a 30' cone/60' line breath weapon usable 1/day that deals 1d6 energy damage (chosen at character creation) per 2 hit dice possessed (Minimum 1). Save DC = 10 + 1/2 hit dice + Con modifier. Additional uses per day can be bought at 2 RP per use.

Smite (2 RP)
As paladin's Smite Evil, but 1/day, lasts for only one attack, adds total hit dice to damage, and alignment smitten is chosen at character creation.

Also, a version of Claws that can be used by standard races.

Personal Judgments:

Linguist Array (2) vs Standard Array (1)--These have very little effect on any race except an Int-caster. Honestly getting a racial bonus language is more useful than what's on the bonus list, and some races with the 'Linguist Array' can wind up losing to a 'Standard Array' race on that one (Taldan and Chelish humans, particularly, if you play Golarion). Xenophobic is missing out on a language and may not share a common tongue, so that might be worth a point less, though honestly it still seems like very little price to pay to save a point.

I'm kind of pissed that they made languages cost racial points at all. My group has pretty much ignored the language limits by race for as long as I can remember.

I was hoping for a slightly more GURPS-like approach, where there'd be a point value for just about ANYTHING you wanted to do. Instead, I get the already-made racial abilities cut-and-paste from the book with a point value attached. For example, why are energy resistances put into categories like Celestial and Shadow? Or Elf Immunities even put in there at all? Instead, make a 1 RP ability for immunity to sleep, and a 1 RP ability for +2 to saves against a school of magic.

Also, I plan on ignoring all of the non-categorical (Standard, Advanced, Monstrous) requirements for the racial abilities, don't bother putting those in IMO. Halfling Luck is just +1 to saves, even if you want to give it to an elf sub-race of your making. It should still cost the same.

EDIT: I think I'll go through this playtest and make list of things that should be separated from each other. For example, Slow shouldn't automatically allow medium races to ignore encumbrance.

I can't believe this hasn't been asked yet, but will there be an expanded list for Summon Monster/Summon Nature's Ally spells? Preferably with things from Bestiary 2?

draco_nite wrote:

I'm mostly hoping they'll come out with something official so that the people at PCGen will put them into groups. They won't do anything there unless there's official word on it.

There's no reason why you can't make your own dataset and .MOD all the weapons in the APG set to how you want them. :)

That's true, except for the fact that I don't know how. Trust me, I've tried making my own stuff in PCGen before, none of it works like it should.

I don't see anything official, but the groups are generally clear enough that most, if not all, of the APG weapons clearly fit into a certain group. Are there any specific weapons where you feel like the appropriate group is unclear?

I'm mostly hoping they'll come out with something official so that the people at PCGen will put them into groups. They won't do anything there unless there's official word on it.

Is there anything official on which APG weapons belong to which Fighter Weapon Training Groups?

draco_nite wrote:

I'd like to see a different planar cosmology, one that isn't Transition+Elemental+Alignment planes. If anything, I'd like to see a two-plane cosmology: a material world and a spirit world. (I'm basing this not on any knowledge of eastern religion, but on the MTG Kamigawa set novels.)

Also, I'd like to see Mikos, as either a PrC or an Oracle archetype.** spoiler omitted **

No touhous. >:|

:(

Joking aside, I really would like to see something like the miko represented in gaming. And whatever the hell the male equivalent would be.

I'd like to see a different planar cosmology, one that isn't Transition+Elemental+Alignment planes. If anything, I'd like to see a two-plane cosmology: a material world and a spirit world. (I'm basing this not on any knowledge of eastern religion, but on the MTG Kamigawa set novels.)

Also, I'd like to see Mikos, as either a PrC or an Oracle archetype.

If the synthesist becomes a class path, we should get a way to use our spell slot while in synthesis form. What about getting a special action allowing use to eat one of our spell slot for temporary hp? Then, there could be a feat allowing us to cast spell while in synthesis form.

Eidolon’s designed like animal companion.

Eidolon Trait: The summoner can spend 1 action to give the eidolon 2 actions or 2 actions to give the Eidolon 3 actions.

We should be able to divide freely 4 actions between the summoner and the eidolon IF both of them get at least 1 action.

BOOST EIDOLON CANTRIP 1 UNCOMMON CANTRIP EVOCATION SUMMONER. Cast [one-action] verbal. Range 100 feet; Targets your eidolon. Duration 1 round

You channel magical power into your eidolon through the link between you and your eidolon and boost the power of your eidolon’s attacks. You gain one of the following effects:

Add one 1d4 damage of the same type as its physical attacks and a +1 status bonus to hit.

3rd level: You may instead add 1d4 acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic damage to its physical attacks.

5th level: You may instead add force, positive, or negative damage to its physical attacks. If you worship a deity you may add an alignment component to its physical attacks that matches the alignment components of your deity.

7th: Increase the damage you can add to 2d4.

9th: You may make the eidolon’s physical attacks hit as silver, cold iron, or adamantine instead of adding damage to the physical attacks. You must possess at least a low-grade piece of the appropriate material as a material component to channel this power into the eidolon’s attacks.

So free weakness exploit, but less damage than current version. I don't like that. I want to be able to give elemental damage to my eidolon if it's appropriate for its type/concept, but the way you implemented it makes me feel like I'm forced to use whatever type is more effective depending on the situation, regardless of my concept. I don't want to use ice attacks on my fire elemental eidolon just because it's what's more appropriate for a specific encounter and because the power given by the flexibility of Boost Eidolon was accounted for in the power budget of the class.

Eidolons: 10 hit points per level with the summoner gaining 6 per level.

NO. The eidolon is not a second character. The eidolon + summoner are one character and shouldn't get more ressources than the other characters. That would eat way too much of the power budget of the class...

Str +3, Dex +3, Con +3, Int +0, Wis +3, Cha +2

Note: Higher mental stats fitting for a celestial being. Mental stats for the eidolon to do not hurt combat balance, while showing meaningful differences between a fairly mindless creature like an elemental and a highly intelligent creature like a celestial.

Again, no. The eidolon's stats are built the exact same way the stats for the other characters are built. Giving him more stats is risking to make it unbalanced. Just allowing us to allocate freely the stats of the eidolon would be enough.

Speed 30 feet, fly 30 feet

Movement: If movement is ok for an animal companion, it should be fine for an eidolon.

An eidolon is (or at least should be) nearly as much powerful as another character in term of fighting power while an AC is (or should be) way less powerful than that. Giving unlimited flight to the eidolon at level 1 would be game breaking (trivialize skill challenge and melee-only fight).

Charlesfire wrote:

Verzen wrote:

But that does get into a weird interaction...

"My Eidolon is a beast master Eidolon!. My pet controls a pet."

This could work for a fey Eidolon though. It would be pretty thematic.

Or a Eidolon that manifest a power armor eidolon (synthesis)...

LOL! I want my Eidolon wearing an Eidolon...

Wait... You could wear your eidolon who is also wearing an eidolon... Matryoshka doll summoner FTW!!!

But that does get into a weird interaction...

"My Eidolon is a beast master Eidolon!. My pet controls a pet."

This could work for a fey Eidolon though. It would be pretty thematic.

Or a Eidolon that manifest a power armor eidolon (synthesis-style)...

Dubious Scholar wrote:

I see that you have a particular view of what the game is that most of us do not share.

Uh no. A lot of people have stated they want more customization with their eidolon. Most agree with me.

This is just a partial truth. A lot of people have stated they want more customization, but not that much actually stated that they like your proposition.

Considering the sheer number of abuses of the synthesist archetype in PF1 I'm pretty okay with Synthesis being a thing that a character would do purely for the aesthetics of it, and not for any sort of mechanical efficiency.

And yet there's a good chunk of the summoner fan base that want to go all synthesist...

Honestly, the easiest change to synthesis is to allow the combined creature to cast conduit spells and self targeting spells from the summoner's spells known, using the summoner's slots.

And that any effect on the summoner migrates to the new combined creature.

That might not be enough. Having to spend 1 action / turn to compete in melee and not having a fourth action might make them not competitive option compared to martial classes. I would be more in favor of getting the bonus given by Boost Eidolon if you're merged with your eidolon (I assume synthesis would be a class path and not a feat).

No. What I want is this.

A martial character can, at level 1,
Select 1 Ancestry feat, can select 1 class feat, they get a skill feat (from their background)

An Eidolon can, at level 1,
---Select 1 Ancestry feat, can select 1 class feat, they get a skill feat (from their background)---(I'm not sure how to cross it out) Select 3 evolution feats instead.

So you get to play 2 full characters instead of one with split ressources. This doesn't seem balanced even considering you share actions between both characters since you'll be far more flexible than any other possible character build.

No. You haven't. You've refuted a strawman. That strawman is well and beaten by now. I think any more clobbering is a bit overkill.

It's not because you refuse to hear others people's arguments that it means other people didn't give you valid arguments...

I'd even be willing to lower the actual power of the BASE Eidolon in order to give them power space to add in those customizable options.

Then most of these options would be spent to get back that power loss unless you don't care about having a weak eidolon...

The part that they can't cover literally every single concept.

Pathfinder 2E is a finite game with finite options. It's a design choice the dev have made. If you don't like that, go play GURPS...

Why can't we just have an evolution that states, "Choose a creature type. Your Eidolon becomes that type" ?.

That could be a feat (with maybe some added benefits)...

Quote:

It was overly complicated, subject to gameism, exploitation and overoptimization, and doesnt fit with the already existing paradigm for class customization in PF2E for class customization via feats.

That is criticizing the implementation. Not the base system itself.

The thing is, I don't think your implementation really solve the problem of "this is too complex for newbies" and introduce something powerful that some build won't really need. Getting only a few choice from a limited list at level 1 and having a few feats to expend both your options and the list from which you can pick looks to me like a better implementation of what you're suggesting.

The lack of sidegrade/interesting combat options might be related to the fact that we don't have access to all feats in the playtest...

I like the synthesis feat because it makes synthesis summoning optional. The feat doesn't need to be published as-is, it can be buffed or changed to fit the needs of the fantasy. If players are dead-set on synthesis manifesting being the only option for a dedicated synthesis summoner, then maybe the whole thing should be cut from the base class and made a class archetype, either in this book or a later one.

Like I said in another thread, standard vs synthesis vs master could be class paths and it doesn't mean there won't be a feat to get a lesser version of the paths you haven't picked at level 1...

... it's not complex at all. It's exactly like the familiar abilities except you get more of them over time.

"pick two from this level 1 list" isn't complicated at all. Not any more than "pick two spells from this level 1 list" is complicated. If a new player can pick up a wizard and play a wizard without being confused (hell, if wizards are in PF at all, it sets the precedence that how they work must not be too complicated)...

I disagree with this. Getting to pick a few familiar-like abilities at level 1, then having feats that gives more of them and/or give more options seems way simpler and doesn't eat the power budget of the class for something that is useless for some build (ie master summoner build). That would allow us to still have feats for some really strong evolutions.

Here's a few example of basics evolutions:
Darkvision
Melee attack (1d8)
Range attack (1d6)
Fast eidolon
Your eidolon's speed increase to 30ft.
Luminescent eidolon
Your eidolon shine bright light in a 20-foot radius (and dim light for the next 20 feet).

And here's a few example of feats:
Plentiful evolutions
Your eidolon gets two more basic evolutions.
Special : you may select this feat multiple times.

Mutating eidolon
Your eidolon gets one more basic evolutions. After you refocus, you may change the basic evolution given by this feat for another one.

Dragon evolutions
Your eidolon gets one more basic evolutions and can now select basic evolutions from this list : [insert here a few thematic basic evolutions]

Here is an example of what I mean.

Assume there is NOT a specific package that you pick. Evolutions are all you get. So we are assuming we get rid of Angel, Dragon, etc.

Evolutions
Each Eidolon is unique in its own manifestion and they gain powers to compensate their differences. At level 1, the Eidolon starts with 2 evolutions. They follow the evolution progression chart on page XX.
Evolution level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 - - - - - - - -
2 3 -
3 3 2
4 3 3
5 3 3 2
6 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 2
8 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3
10
11
12
(Essentially the wizard spell progression but instead, evolutions)

Evolutions can only ever be picked once. They do not stack with themselves.

Level 1 evolutions
Armored
The Eidolon has tougher scales, is wearing armor, or some other form of protection. Your Eidolon gains +1 status bonus to AC.

Water Resilience
Your Eidolon is capable of swimming in water. It gains a swim speed of 20 feet. They can breath twice as long while under water.

Resistance
Choose a resistance. This resistance can be to physical or energy damage. (Bludgeoning, slashing, piercing, acid, fire, cold, etc) Your Eidolon gains resistance equal to half your level in that element. (This is to simulate if I want a ice dragon, I can get resistant cold right from the get go.)

Breath Weapon
Your Eidolon gains a breath weapon that deals 1d4 dmg and increases by 1d4 additional damage every other level. 1d4 cooldown. (Kobolds get this at level 1. The dragon gets this. Precedence is set)

Enrage
The Eidolon gains the rage action.

Manifest Trait
The Eidolon gains the traits of a single monster type. Can only be chosen at level 1. This will allow me to create a construct, or an undead, or a fey and gain the traits associated with them, both strengths and weaknesses.

Elemental Attacks
Your Eidolons attacks become the element of your choice. (Acid, Fire, Ice etc)

(These are all fairly not on par with what a level 1 would be able to get power wise AND they add a bit of Eidolon...

Way too complex for a class that tends to appeal to new players. I'm more in favor of familiar-style minor abilities.

Charlesfire wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Mark - If you decide to make Synthesis a base line option (which so many of us desire), perhaps make a level 4 feat that ONLY synthesis can get that allows us to manifest our Eidolon outside of our body for 1 minute.

The Summoner loses all effects of the Eidolon and the combined might of the two of them, but the Eidolon manifests outside of the summoners body to act for a limited time.

Just a cool feat idea. This approach would make synthesis the default, but offer options if a situation required that the two separate. (Like if I am locked in prison, I can manifest him on the other side of the bars and command him to get the keys to the cell) Thematically that just sounds awesome in my head.

There could be a "class path but more limited" feat for each class path. Like a summon monster with a frequency of one per day for the "master summoner" path, a time limited (or no summoner's ability like it is currently) synthesis for the synthesis path and a time limited standard eidolon for the standard eidolon path. This would allow to mix and match some iconic abilities of the summoner without overstepping on the toes of each class path.

Uh no. That would completely destroy any of the class fantasy for me. It needs to be built in as options. Imagine rogue being like, "You can only be a thief for a minute 1/day." or "You can only be a mastermind 1/day"

Those options help DEFINE who you are and what path you're going down.

I see I mis-explained my idea again XD

Charlesfire wrote:

And it also has been stated why this isn't a satisfying solution. Let's take the synthesis summoner for example :

It currently cost you a level 1 feat and isn't a good/viable combat option among other things. To make it a great combat option, it would require a few feats at least. This means that if you want to play a synthesis summoner and you don't really care about the standard eidolon, then you're forced to either play a gimped character or in a way you don't want to play and later on, you get a viable character, but with a gimped feat progression (because of feat taxes) and a bunch of abilities that you won't use at all...

If you don't care about the standard eidolon, why are you playing a summoner? Summoners are [...] not the "turns into a dragon/angel/ghost/beast" class.

This is literally what's a synthesist was in 1E. With the synthesis feat, the dev are giving us the expectation that this playstyle should still be possible, but it isn't. It's exactly like the mutagenist alchemist (although the mutagenist was way worst).

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yeah, Wizards get both a Thesis and a School. I think Summoners getting both an Eidolon Type and a Class Path is entirely reasonable.

Apples to oranges. Sorcerers don't get an option to completely change how their bloodline spells manifest, nor do oracles get the option to significantly alter the way curses work. Not all class options are equally impactful; just because one class gets two lower-impact options doesn't mean all classes are entitled to two options.

Many classes get a class path AND a level 1 feat, so giving the summoner an eidolon type and a class path wouldn't be that different. I used the wizard as a comparison since it's the easiest one to do, Arcane School being a theme option like the eidolon type and Arcane Thesis being more a "how you do your thing" option like the standard vs synthesis is.

Temperans wrote:

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.

And it also has been stated why this isn't a satisfying solution. Let's take the synthesis summoner for example :

Do archetypes taken by the summoner apply to the eidolon? Or perhaps you could pick to which of you the archetype benefits apply?

I want to have my angel Lay on Hands, and a dragon with Panache.

This is something that should be possible with a synthesis build, but it's not the case actually...

Temperans wrote:

I would not call what they are currently giving Eidolons. At best they are weak Phantoms.

Baby Eidolons are still Eidolons. ;)

Squiggit wrote:

Astrael wrote:

They are not summoners. As someone said before elsewhere, they are Eidolon Masters.

The eidolons they... summon, you mean?

They don't summon them [they do not gain the summoned trait]: they manifest they. Close but no cigar for you. ;)

So it should be named the manifester...

Charlesfire wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Constitution also does a lot less for them than for PCs, as does Intelligence, which makes it weird they increase those in the same manner as PCs and at the same cost to their other stats (since Con doesn't give HP, and Int doesn't grant Skills). Really, them increasing stats like PCs is weird and has weird knock-on effects, and something more like how an animal companion raises Ability scores might be good in that respect.

Letting them use these stats for some of their abilities instead of the spell casting DC of the summoner could fix this.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

They wouldn't need a huge number (two at 1st level would be plenty, and maybe more as you level)

Or maybe via a feat?

I'd honestly rather have it built into the Eidolon. We get so few feats as they are, feat choices need to be thoughtful.

Hum. I think there is a misunderstanding here. I wanted to suggest 2~3 free at level 1 and extra as a feat... My bad...

Constitution also does a lot less for them than for PCs, as does Intelligence, which makes it weird they increase those in the same manner as PCs and at the same cost to their other stats (since Con doesn't give HP, and Int doesn't grant Skills). Really, them increasing stats like PCs is weird and has weird knock-on effects, and something more like how an animal companion raises Ability scores might be good in that respect.

Letting them use these stats for some of their abilities instead of the spell casting DC of the summoner could fix this.

They wouldn't need a huge number (two at 1st level would be plenty, and maybe more as you level)

Or maybe via a feat?

Verzen wrote:

ALL the Eidolons will be homogenized. Unique Eidolons are essentially a thing of the past when leaving it as is from a mechanical view.

Yes, all exactly the same except for the fact that each is unique as its being customized and described by a unique human being - chosen from a list of different and unique base forms - and customized through a unique choice of evolution feats across the characters career, and the choice of abilities offered by Evolution Surge. And also, you know, unique skill selections made by every summoner.

All exactly the same, except for all of those ways each one is totally different.

The base forms offered aren't actually reasonably similar, as each offers different signature abilities while leveling that provide SIGNIFICANTLY different benefits and actions...

I kinda agree with you, but I think there could be more variation for the senses, attacks, ability scores and speeds. Why I can't make a ranged eidolon at level 1? Why all eidolons have dark vision? Why the beast eidolon has 12 wis, 10 cha and charisma-based abilities?

I think we should get some variation on these things.

Arachnofiend wrote:

The consensus on the synthesist is that it sucks because it's a downgrade in combat and only makes sense for out of combat utility and movement. I don't agree with the OP's assertion but saying that the synethsist fixes his concerns is kinda laughable.

Okay then, second answer: Run Synthesist until you get Transpose. Retrain Synthesist out. When combat starts, swap places with your Eidolon 100 feet away. Boom, done.

This isn't supposed to be how a synthesist works.

Not sure if its been brought up as a suggestion in-thread yet (lot of text) but would the option of like a Level 8+ feat that just auto-applied either Boost Eidolon or Reinforce Eidolon (assuming you have it) fix the problems people think exists here with balance? At that point you've burned 2 feats sure but now your Synthesist is functioning at roughly the same level as a normally manifested Eidolon and you can just pretend you're a magical vigilante with a Combat form and a Social form.

No. That means we'll have to wait until level 8+ to be an effective synthesist. The thing is, synthesis shouldn't be about getting more option/flexibility. It should be about fighting differently. Synthesist should be a battle option, not a flexibility one.

Comparing the eidolon with an animal companion is foolish. The eidolon is like at least 70% of the power budget of the class.

On another note, do you know if we can keep our eidolon out when sleeping? Manifest Eidolon has the concentrate trait but I don't know if it applies as long as you have your eidolon manifested.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Fast Healing: Yeah, that sounds good, definitely should be a Feat for that.

Are we really okay with giving PCs fast healing? I'm not immediately aware of any such thing in the game at the moment... although I admit I might be missing something.

Outside of combat, healing is pretty much free anyway. And if it's too strong, it could get limited use, require action, be fueled by focus points, etc...

I think your first quote refers to number of actions, not actual actions that can be selected. There are plenty of actions that can be performed by the summoner and not the eidolon and vice versa, either permanently or temporarily.

That's probably the right interpretation, but it needs to be more clearly stated in the description.

If there were feats up the chain that empowered your Synthesized form

I don't think it should. You're already trading 1 action per turn or more considering Tandem actions. That alone is a really big drawback. Adding feats to make it better would just be tax feats in the end. Just let the summoner choose at creation if they want to be a synthesis or a standard summoner. People expect to be able to play a full synthesis melee summoner exactly like they were expecting to be able to play a full melee mutagenist.

I personally feel that this current version of Synthesis makes the character weaker but I will playtest it.

Just keep in mind that synthesis should probably be used sparingly in it's current form because the only thing you're slightly better at is defense. You're loosing even on action economy and versatility.

The eidolon :

If you or your eidolon is affected by anything that

would change a creature’s actions, it affects your shared
actions.

The prone condition :

You’re lying on the ground. You are flat-footed and take a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls. The only move actions you can use while you’re prone are Crawl and Stand. Standing up ends the prone condition. You can Take Cover while prone to hunker down and gain cover against ranged attacks, even if you don’t have an object to get behind, gaining a +4 circumstance bonus to AC against ranged attacks (but you remain flat-footed).

Does that mean that if the eidolon is prone, the only move actions the summoner can take are Crawl and Stand unless he makes his eidolon stand up?

I really don't see Synthesis as a primary combat option so much as a tool for utility or intrigue. In that vein, as well as being a fair bit more defensive than having one squishy mage body to worry about, it's a useful, potentially very useful tool in the toolbox. Which is, to be fair, what a first-level feat is meant to be.

And this is why it shouldn't be a feat in the first place. People from 1E expect the synthesis to be a fighting option. It's the exact same problem as the mutagenist.

Justpassingthrough wrote:

I see a simpler solution, just allow them access to all of there abilities, feats, and features while in synthesis mode (with the exception of tandem abilities), but have them use there eidolon's ability scores in place of their own.

Sure you can still cast spells and take other actions, but with your lower mental ability scores those spells are going to be pretty useless for affecting anything other than yourself and your allies.

This largely solves every issue that has been presented so far and is far from overpowering. Loosing out on tendem abilities looks like a serious nerf to the summoners capabilities, so a regular summoner is still better in almost every situation.

Honestly, the best solution I can see is to use the above changes, and then have a high-level feat which makes it so that you can choose to use your own ability scores or your eidolon's when you summon it. That way, you cannot be competent in melee and magic at the same time, but can still ultimately match the relative versatility of the base summoner and play as a monster to boot.

On the surface, this seems pretty reasonable. Because at least you could still use reactions and skill feats you pick up. But I do worry it might be too much. So hard to tell..

It gives you melee-level protection at the cost of a good chunk of your ability to cast spell and a good part of your action economy. Even for a 1st level feat it doesn't seems that powerful and this version would actually work for someone who just want to play the eidolon...

I see a simpler solution, just allow them access to all of there abilities, feats, and features while in synthesis mode (with the exception of tandem abilities), but have them use there eidolon's ability scores in place of their own.

Sure you can still cast spells and take other actions, but with your lower mental ability scores those spells are going to be pretty useless for affecting anything other than yourself and your allies.

This largely solves every issue that has been presented so far and is far from overpowering. Loosing out on tendem abilities looks like a serious nerf to the summoners capabilities, so a regular summoner is still better in almost every situation.

Honestly, the best solution I can see is to use the above changes, and then have a high-level feat which makes it so that you can choose to use your own ability scores or your eidolon's when you summon it. That way, you cannot be competent in melee and magic at the same time, but can still ultimately match the relative versatility of the base summoner and play as a monster to boot.

I think I actually like that...

AMAZINGLY ITS BALANCED

I think synthesis still needs some work tho. It has the same problem the mutagenist had : it's not what people expect from that option. Currently, you loose spellcasting and get a weaker merged eidolon. Sure, you aren't forced to actually be merged when fighting, but some people don't care about that. They just want to play the monster and they expect the synthesis to be just that, which it isn't.

At least personally, I'd be very happy to get an class archetype that only allows Synthesis summoning, and in return removes some of the limitations on it.

That should be the default. You should have to choose at 1st level if you want an independent eidolon or a synthesis eidolon and, via a feat, you should be able to use the other option...

QuidEst wrote:

I am ignoring a big chunk of the advantage of this feat.

Which is?

Genuinely I can't tell.

Reading the feat a couple times it... deprives you of your action economy advantage and makes it so you can't cast spells or perform any actions that rely on you (so goodbye picking up new activities from feats and archetypes).

And in return you... ???

Save actions on moving if a battle happens in a very large space? except maybe not since you don't get tandem actions anymore

I've read this feat over and over trying to figure out what cool power it has but it legitimately seems like it does almost nothing except take away a bunch of actions.

Eidolon have better defense. The synthesis option allows the summoner to be less vunerable.

"If A, Then B" does *not* mean "If Not A, then Not B".

Yes, but biohack just says "You can deliver any biohack you create with any attack from an injection weapon".

MaxAstro wrote:

I'm not sure one class path needing errata extrapolates to "Paizo dropped the ball on this entire class".

In fairness, the rest of the Class has some legitimate issues as well. But yeah, 'dropped the ball' seems an exaggeration.

I think they were running out of time.

The alchemist really needed one extra version before official release. I mean, even excluding missing/non working class/path features, most class features are way more useful to one class path (bomber) than to the others. This shows that the class has design problems...

Double sword.

Some idea for monstrous races :

• Dragon (obviously)
• Worg
• Centaur

I would really like to see some non-humanoid monstrous race (dragon?).

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

I foresee a lot of broken hearts when the Summoner makes a reappearance, second only to the Shifter. This time, though, it will be deliberate malice rather than incompetence.

Broken hearts? How so? In that the Eidolon will be no way near as powerful as hoped ?

Yes. Plenty of Summoner fans were already mad about the unchained eidolon. It's not going to get better. Quite the opposite.

Pardon me as I play a small song on the saddest violin for them if this comes to pass. They can join the wizards in the "my class no longer invalidates x and that's a bad thing" room.

100% this. I have zero sympathy for the rage at the lost of completely broken / overpowered class features and abilities

I think you missed the point. Many players preferred the classic Summoner over the Unchained Summoner because it was way more customizable and because the Unchained one was missing many fun options. Sure the Summoner was broken, but their was other option to fix it.

In 2E, it will be way more easier to make it less op. It could even be made without spell casting (barring some focus spells like "heal eidolon".

I agree the Summoner at least at this point is too volatile to release. It either beats all companion based classes and/or summon spells or its nerfed into the ground and potentially worse than even the base Shifter.

It should beats all companion classes since none is all about companion. It shouldn't have a really strong eidolon and full spell casting at the same time though. Some focus spells options would be enough.

Seeing more for alchemist is exciting. If they make some really good alchemical items and maybe a few strong alchemist class feats I think the class might be exciting, right now it is missing a bit too much IMO.

I agree that the alchemist needs more alchemical tools and more alchemical items wouldn't hurt, but I think that won't resolve all the problems that the alchemist have (I'm looking at you, 1st level mutagenist!).

I'll ask them to do a mutagenist. I want to see how the alchemist will perform without Research Field features...

Some ideas :

• 1. A build-your-spell class that use a system like word of power or like the kineticist, but more focused on customizing their "spells".
• 2. A cartomancer class with a deck-building system.
• 3. A become-a-monster class like the 1E Synthesist summoner.
• 4. A tinker class that can make special magic items and a customized mechanical servant.
• 5. A monster trainer class ("To catch them is my real test, To train them is my cause").