"I think" without playtest data does not help much, really.
Too bad the "I thinks" got the changes implemented in the first place.
It would be nice when expectations are applied fairly and evenly.
Sigh, It would be nice if folks read where he says it is not a permanent change on the SLA, but a playtest balancing factor.
You might want to ask before you assume people are commenting without having playtested. I have a summoner in my game. Frankly, I think the extra time, one at a time, would have worked fine. So far, the current version (being playtested) isn't overpowered, but it's also not as useful either.
What I've been doing is keeping track of when the player summons using his SLA, and then seeing if it would have mattered either A) One at a time and being minutes, or B) Not being 1 at a time but still rounds, or C) Not being 1 at a time and being minutes. C would have been, routinely, overpowered if exercised. B however, was not, and would have opened up additional non-combat abilities to the summoner.
"I think" without playtest data does not help much, really.Too bad the "I thinks" got the changes implemented in the first place.
It would be nice when expectations are applied fairly and evenly.
These "changes", as you call them, are not official changes to the final class, as has been explained in this thread about a dozen times, including by Jason himself. They're temporary "OK, we have enough data about these, now test something else" changes. They're only being made to clear the signal-to-noise ratio. You're acting the martyr, when nothing has been slain.
These "changes", as you call them, are not official changes to the final class, as has been explained in this thread about a dozen times, including by Jason himself. They're temporary "OK, we have enough data about these, now test something else" changes. They're only being made to clear the signal-to-noise ratio. You're acting the martyr, when nothing has been slain."I think" without playtest data does not help much, really.Too bad the "I thinks" got the changes implemented in the first place.
It would be nice when expectations are applied fairly and evenly.
And?
I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Seeker whined about people posting their thoughts about the changes because they had no playtest data to back them up, when people posting their thoughts without any playtest data to back it up had the changes made.
It doesn't matter if they are permanent or not.
And if posting the truth of the situation makes me a martyr, it makes it sound like the truth is slain.
Could a four legged eidelon choose a slam for his rear legs. The slam says you have to have the limbs evolution once per slam. Rather than replacing the claws on his front legs, adding the slam to the back legs? This would represent an eidelon with claws who could also do a 'mule kick' attack. As far as I can see, it would be legal, but would like a clarification.An Eidolon could probably mule-kick somebody as a Slam Attack, but the mule-kick should only hit enemies standing BEHIND the Eidolon.Well, yes, but, there is no facing in PF (just as there wasn't in 3.5). The reasoning is that the combat turn is 6 seconds, so you could claw, claw, bite, spin and kick all in 6 seconds (not unreasonable).
The only reason I asked was that the slam description, as pointed out above, says limbs in one place and limbs (arms) in another. And, a slam as a 'mule kick' certainly seems reasonable.
True, but a mule kick would be perfect against enemies that flank you.
Bite the enemy in front of you then mule kick the enemy behind you.It's a fun mental image.
And?
I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Your contention is that non-playtesters got the class changed. This is false. The class isn't changed; the playtest conditions are.
Your contention is that non-playtesters got the class changed. This is false. The class isn't changed; the playtest conditions are.And?
I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Really?
Point me to where I even hinted that the class was changed.
You know, back up your statement.
These "changes", as you call them, are not official changes to the final class, as has been explained in this thread about a dozen times, including by Jason himself. They're temporary "OK, we have enough data about these, now test something else" changes. They're only being made to clear the signal-to-noise ratio. You're acting the martyr, when nothing has been slain.I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
And if posting the truth of the situation makes me a martyr, it makes it sound like the truth is slain.
Ok, boys, simmer down.
No need to get feisty.\Now shake hands and play nice!
Well, yes, but, there is no facing in PF (just as there wasn't in 3.5). The reasoning is that the combat turn is 6 seconds, so you could claw, claw, bite, spin and kick all in 6 seconds (not unreasonable).The only reason I asked was that the slam description, as pointed out above, says limbs in one place and limbs (arms) in another. And, a slam as a 'mule kick' certainly seems reasonable.
True, but a mule kick would be perfect against enemies that flank you.
Bite the enemy in front of you then mule kick the enemy behind you.
It's a fun mental image.
Oh, absolutely, and I would expect it to play out like that often. :) Nothing in the rules say you can't attack multiple people in range (just the -2 penalty for changing targets).
You know, back up your statement.
Oh, that's right, I forgot; you're the third biggest troll on these boards. Sorry, I'll leave you to your bridge now.
You know, back up your statement.Oh, that's right, I forgot; you're the third biggest troll on these boards. Sorry, I'll leave you to your bridge now.
:-D
(just the -2 penalty for changing targets).
It's likely I've just missed something somewhere, but where is this rule exactly?
(just the -2 penalty for changing targets).It's likely I've just missed something somewhere, but where is this rule exactly?
Hmm, not sure, honestly. It may be that this is a house rule I've had for so long I've forgotten it was a house rule. I can try to find it in the core rules later when I'm off work, if someone doesn't pop up with a 'Oh, that's on page blah blah in blah blah'. :)
|
Hmm, not sure, honestly. It may be that this is a house rule I've had for so long I've forgotten it was a house rule. I can try to find it in the core rules later when I'm off work, if someone doesn't pop up with a 'Oh, that's on page blah blah in blah blah'. :)
I think that might be a house rule.
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
Emphasis mine.
(just the -2 penalty for changing targets).It's likely I've just missed something somewhere, but where is this rule exactly?
Shadowrun :)
Can someone please clarify some things for me?
Question one: How long can the eidolon remain once the summoner summons it? The playtest version implies a one minute casting time only once per day, but no duration that I notice (which I may simply be overlooking), and feedback on the forums seems to indicate that that may have been changed to make the eidolon more like a familiar/paladin's mount/animal companion (probably closer to the mount) in that it remains once the bond has been forged until dismissed by the summoner. In which case, if dismissed by the summoner, does the summoner have to wait 24 hours to summon it again, or can it be summoned back immediately as a standard action? If the eidolon is slain, how long before the summoner can summon it again?
Question two:: How often can the summoner change the form of his eidolon? Can he change it every time he summons it? Or does the eidolon remain locked in its current form until the summoner advances a level? Please note I'm referring to base form here, and not augmented by evolution points.
Question three: Is the summoner still limited to light weapons only? Someone mentioned that was changed to all light and martial weapons, but I don't know if that was true or only wishful thinking. I plan on using a summoner in my upcoming session (goblin shaman) and want to know if he can use a particular weapon.
Jason, sorry if you went over this already, but I've been trying to follow up on playtest updates and there's just so much to weed through that I keep missing them.
Question one: As long as you want or intill slain. You can summon it once per day, but it can stay 7 weeks if ya want, dismiss it and use that 1/day summons to call it right back. If killed you must wait 24 hours before you can bring it back
Question two: The prime form as far as I know can not be changed,you my change your points each time you can a new level, but my not change base form
Question three: Yep light weapons only. You may still use a feat to learn a weapon you want other then simple however
Hope that helps.
Question one: How long can the eidolon remain once the summoner summons it? The playtest version implies a one minute casting time only once per day, but no duration that I notice (which I may simply be overlooking), and feedback on the forums seems to indicate that that may have been changed to make the eidolon more like a familiar/paladin's mount/animal companion (probably closer to the mount) in that it remains once the bond has been forged until dismissed by the summoner. In which case, if dismissed by the summoner, does the summoner have to wait 24 hours to summon it again, or can it be summoned back immediately as a standard action? If the eidolon is slain, how long before the summoner can summon it again?
Currently, the Eidolon remains until dismissed or destroyed.
I believe the Summoner has to wait until the next day to summon a dismissed/destroyed Eidolon, but I am not certain on that one.Question two:: How often can the summoner change the form of his eidolon? Can he change it every time he summons it? Or does the eidolon remain locked in its current form until the summoner advances a level? Please note I'm referring to base form here, and not augmented by evolution points.
The base form can not be changed once it is selected. (At least currently.)
Question three: Is the summoner still limited to light weapons only? Someone mentioned that was changed to all light and martial weapons, but I don't know if that was true or only wishful thinking. I plan on using a summoner in my upcoming session (goblin shaman) and want to know if he can use a particular weapon.
Just Simple weapons for the Summoner.
Shadowrun :)(just the -2 penalty for changing targets).It's likely I've just missed something somewhere, but where is this rule exactly?
Actually, that's probably it. I've run Shadowrun much longer than I ran D&D.
- At 10th, the melee were disgruntled, and the others were amazed at the power of the class. You cannot, as some claim "solo entire encounters", but you come close, and your addition to a party almost doubles the foes your enemies have to face. The barbarian, especially, said he though the eidolon was too good. That might have been because he was stuck with two attacks and the eidolon already had four.
Your Barbarian player is somewhat correct. The slam evolution is limited to one per pair of limbs. Unless your Eidolon had eight arms, it should have only had two slams. That would have evened out the power curve of your Eidolon a bit.
Your Barbarian player is somewhat correct. The slam evolution is limited to one per pair of limbs. Unless your Eidolon had eight arms, it should have only had two slams. That would have evened out the poer curve of your Eidolon a bit.
It is possible to have 4 slam attacks at level ten, even with Large and the Improved Damage Evolution. 6 points for 3 additional sets of arms, plus 4 points for 4 slams leaves 4 points left over at that level, which just covers Large and Improved Damage. So if all of the evo points were devoted to doing that, it was quite possible. (I did the math as soon as I read the post.)
I'm sorry, where do you see that? In the pdf it says it replaces the clawS (notice the s) evolution with the slam one. And it would be very silly to have one arm deliver a slam and the other remain a claw. If you are right, then the text would need to be rewritten to emphasize what you just said. As it stands, it is much too ambiguous.
I agree it is ambiguous, but the last line of the evolution is where it is written.
"This evolution can be selected more than once, but the eidolon must possess an equal number of the limbs evolution."
So you get one slam evolution per pair of limbs. And when replacing claws, you would lose both for one slam.
I'm not saying it makes sense, but that is how it was written.
I'm sorry, where do you see that? In the pdf it says it replaces the clawS (notice the s) evolution with the slam one. And it would be very silly to have one arm deliver a slam and the other remain a claw. If you are right, then the text would need to be rewritten to emphasize what you just said. As it stands, it is much too ambiguous.
Slam specifically states that it grants a slam attack. As in singular. Claws are the only weapon that grant a pair of attacks, and the only one evolution that calls out that it grants two attacks. It also states that the slam attack (singular again) replaces the biped's free claws. A slam seems to be considered a 2-armed smash, not just a punch to the face, hence why it removes the pair of claws. You use both arms for the attack, not just one.
That said, I believe the damage on that eidolon's slams should've been 3d8, not 4d6. The Improved Damage evolution specifically says it ups the damage die type, which is different from making it do damage as if it was one size larger. So it should've done 3d6 (from Improved Natural Attack), with Improved Damage upping it to 3d8.
I'm sorry, that does not make a lot of sense. Unless I am missing something, you are trading 2 1d4 claws attack with regular strength bonus, for one 1d8 slam attack with 1 1/2 Strength bonus (and here I am actually interpretating... I found no mention of it being a "2-handed attack", and as such warranting the usual 1 1/2 damage bonus). Besides, in the slam description it is said the eidolon can -and not must- replace the claws with the slam. So you could also interpret the slam to be an additional primary attack, on top of the two claws.
Sorry, it specifically says 'One Limbs evolution per slam'. Limbs evolution gives two legs or two arms. Therefore, you have to have one set of limbs per slam, and they must be arms (currently).
The two arms a biped gets for free is considered a limbs evolution, so you can use slam with them, but, not if you have already used another evolution with them. That's why it states you can replace the claws. It's not 'you can if you want' it's 'you can if you want to use this evolution with the arms'.
So, four arms = two slams.
|
|
Question one: How long can the eidolon remain once the summoner summons it? The playtest version implies a one minute casting time only once per day, but no duration that I notice (which I may simply be overlooking), and feedback on the forums seems to indicate that that may have been changed to make the eidolon more like a familiar/paladin's mount/animal companion (probably closer to the mount) in that it remains once the bond has been forged until dismissed by the summoner. In which case, if dismissed by the summoner, does the summoner have to wait 24 hours to summon it again, or can it be summoned back immediately as a standard action? If the eidolon is slain, how long before the summoner can summon it again?Currently, the Eidolon remains until dismissed or destroyed.
I believe the Summoner has to wait until the next day to summon a dismissed/destroyed Eidolon, but I am not certain on that one.
Destroyed Eidolons need a full day. Dismissed ones can be summoned back using the one minute ritual the same day. You can still however, only summon back an Eidolon once per day, regardless of its banishment method. (Be it by Dismissal, Banishment, you electing to dismiss it, or hit point damage. These are the only known ways to remove an Eidolon for now.)
Question two:: How often can the summoner change the form of his eidolon? Can he change it every time he summons it? Or does the eidolon remain locked in its current form until the summoner advances a level? Please note I'm referring to base form here, and not augmented by evolution points.The base form can not be changed once it is selected. (At least currently.)
This is correct.
Question three: Is the summoner still limited to light weapons only? Someone mentioned that was changed to all light and martial weapons, but I don't know if that was true or only wishful thinking. I plan on using a summoner in my upcoming session (goblin shaman) and want to know if he can use a particular weapon.Just Simple weapons for the Summoner.
Probably still the same. Haven't checked it yet.
Hey there all,
Any magic items possessed by the eidolon fall to the ground when the eidolon is sent back to its home plane, regardless of the reason. If this includes cursed items, the items immediately return to the eidolon when it is summoned again.
In addition to the above language, the following changes are made to the summoner.- Delete the sentence from the Summon Monster I class feature that reads: He can cast this spell as a...
Jason let me say I love all the work you're doing and I really like the Summoner concept. That said, the magic item work around here seems like a really poor fix. It opens up too many loopholes and questions in the mechanics such as what happens to cursed items that are dropped by the eidelon and subsequently worn by another character.
SUGGESTED FIX- have the items absorb into the eidelon OR drop onto the ground, Summoners choice. Any effect that FORCES the eidelon to return to it's home plane makes the magic items absorb into the eidelon when it departs. Thus making them unavailable to the Summoner until the eidelon is re-summoned.
SUGGESTION- give the summoner access to ALL summon spells including SUMMON NATURES ALLY. They should be the best, most diverse summoners, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for all your time and work Jason.
SUGGESTION- give the summoner access to ALL summon spells including SUMMON NATURES ALLY. They should be the best, most diverse summoners, in my humble opinion.Thanks for all your time and work Jason.
Actually, that's a pretty neat idea. I'd even say allow the SLA to be Summmon Monster X OR Summon Nature's Ally X, as desired, with each use, as well.
I may playtest this and see if it's overpowered.
Just thought I would add some more observations (that take into account the "one slam per pair of arms" thing):
- At first level, life is tough. The eidolon has a fairly low armor class. I rebuilt the eidolon of my level 1 character (now it has increased strength and a bite attack), and, well... with the claws being a secondary attack, and thus receiving only half the strength bonus for damage, you end up with a bite/claw/claw routine that is ok, but definitely not overpowered.
Claws are primary, that was corrected in another thread.
Nope. Look again at the Large evolution. Reach is not a part of the package.
- At sixth level, with access to the large evolution, the survivability of the eidolon improves greatly, since it gets range.
If I'm not mistaken, Large creatures have a natural reach of 10' instead of the normal 5'. Thus they'd get an increase in reach without having to spend for another Evo point.
If I'm not mistaken, Large creatures have a natural reach of 10' instead of the normal 5'. Thus they'd get an increase in reach without having to spend for another Evo point.Nope. Look again at the Large evolution. Reach is not a part of the package.
- At sixth level, with access to the large evolution, the survivability of the eidolon improves greatly, since it gets range.
Large (tall) creatures have a 10' reach. I would assume bipedal large creatures fall into this category. Large (long) creatures have a 5' reach. This would take quadrupeds in I would think. So, ogres have a 10' reach, while centaurs have a 5' reach even though both are large. Depends on the shape of the eidolon then as to it's reach as a large creature.
The shape of the Eidolon has nothing to do with its reach.
The Eidolon evolutions detail exactly what you get for large and huge shapes. Reach is not in either description. Therefore, they do not get reach.
Had they just said "large" or "huge" then they would. But they didn't. The description for each went on to detail exactly what you got for that evolution.
If you want reach for an attack mode then you need to purchase the appropriate Evolution for it.
-S
The shape of the Eidolon has nothing to do with its reach.
The Eidolon evolutions detail exactly what you get for large and huge shapes. Reach is not in either description. Therefore, they do not get reach.
Had they just said "large" or "huge" then they would. But they didn't. The description for each went on to detail exactly what you got for that evolution.
If you want reach for an attack mode then you need to purchase the appropriate Evolution for it.
-S
Either that, or they left reach off the large (etc.) evolutions and the reach evolution is for additional reach beyond what it should have based on size. It would be nice if the eidolon's size conformed to the size effects of other creatures rather than being an exception. The effects on characteristics would need to be detailed, ordinary effects of size, such as reach, might have been overlooked. Unless he's answered it already, the designers input might be good on this one as it certainly effects the evolution choices for an eidolon.
|
|
Well, if range is not part of the package, then the evolution is ridiculous. Huge even more so. All the other monsters have range, but your eidolon which is the size of a dragon does not? Makes sense...
Edit: If the eidolon is an exception to a LOT of rules that usually apply to all creatures, I think its description would benefit from an introductory paragraph that clarifies it, ala "The eidolon is not subject to normal creature rules. Large eidolons do not have range unless they purchase it, etc..."
1. Reach, not range.
2. Monsters may have reach. Not all do.
3. Eidolons may have reach. Not all will.
4. Nothing mentioned above applies to all creatures.
5. If all the important material needs to be in an introductory paragraph, then there will only be one paragraph.
Edit: If the eidolon is an exception to a LOT of rules that usually apply to all creatures, I think its description would benefit from an introductory paragraph that clarifies it, ala "The eidolon is not subject to normal creature rules. Large eidolons do not have range unless they purchase it, etc..."
(Un)fortunately, Pathfinder has pretty much been created with the philosophy of "if it isn't implicitly stated, it doesn't apply," which is why many people are assuming the size evolutions do not come with reach.
(It is accepted that might be an oversight, but until there is some confirmation there isn't anything else to go on.)
I wish I could remember the thread it was in... But a question came up like this. A "creature" was of <some type> without a feature of <some type>, and when questioned about it the response was "those features are what a typical sample receives, not every one of that type. If it isn't stated, then the creature doesn't get it."
(I think it involved the half-orc.... Maybe half-elf. But I think it was the half-orc and light sensitivity.)
Personally? I think the size abilities are what's making the Eidolon so powerful.
I mean, look at large. Sure, it's out of the Bestiary, but that doesn't make it balanced. The Giant Template is a +1 CR adjustment, and that's a +4 bonus to Str and Con with one higher armor bonus.
In order to demonstrate my point, let's advance the common housecat to the size of a large Eidolon using the same adjustments it gets (as opposed to the recommended "repeat ad infinitum" just to see what happens).
Big Kitty
Str 19 Con 14 Dex 9(!) Int 2 Wis 12 Cha 7
hp 8 (1d8+2 +3 toughness)
AC 10 = 10 -1 size -1 dex +2 nat armor
Space 10 ft reach 10 ft
BAB: 0
Attacks: 2 claws +3 (1d6+4) Bite +3 (1d8+4)
Feats: Toughness (so kitty doesn't have abysmally low hp)
Now, the large size adjustment suggests that it should be a +1 CR. Advancing size is un-CRed, so we'll have to guess. Aside from kitty's bad hp, and AC (Typical symptoms of "1 hd" syndrome), It reminds me of a certain creature.
The Goblin Dog.
1 hp difference, same feat, 3 less AC, but kitty has three attacks and one better to hit. Should it hit with two of them, well, that raises its damage per round close to that of a "typical" CR 3. Admittedly, it goes down to a stiff breeze, but kitty is definitely a CR 1. With just three size adjustments. Admittedly, her damage is kind of high. Should we reduce her STR by 4? Well that takes her to-hit down to +1, and her damage down to +2, which is pretty reasonable considering the number of attacks kitty gets.
I'd guess that with a slight adjustment so kitty's dex doesn't rot at the bottom of her stat pile, she'd be a good CR 1.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, we arrive at my point.
The Summoner summons creatures, does he not? And these creatures follow the CR system, do they not? Why should the Eidolon not be compared to such a system as well? He is a monster, most certainly, and he is summoned. However, when it comes to making him bigger or smaller, he frequently dances outside of his CR. Especially with multiple attacks, any monster, like miss kitty, can find themselves capable of dealing the damage of monsters much higher on the scale then they are. By removing four points of strength, the problem is resolved for low levels. Higher levels will require more number-crunching, of course.
"Oh, but Storm King, oh mighty Regent of howling wind and crashing thunder," you might reply, if you were the sort that worships me in all my pristine majesty, "What about her hit points? Unmodified by toughness they are but five in number, and her AC small enough that a halfling wizard might waste her with but a single magic missile. That is hardly a CR 1." And, amazingly, though I'd smile most smugly (probably even more smugly than you thought I could), I would reply:
"Yeah, pretty much. But, the summoner has that neat linked HP thing," Struggling to find the words a bit and my majesty significantly less pristine than I had claimed it to be in the last paragraph. "And should the Eidolon take a nasty crit, mister theoretically nowhere near any sort of harm Summoner can take it instead, even if he goes to negatives as a result, increasing it's 2 HD hp by around the summoner's own. This raises the CR by about 1, maybe less if you've got some kind of wimpy elven summoner on your hands. Should you knock it out, you're lucky. Otherwise it can stay in melee and annihilate you next round, despite a successful crit. And if you're high enough level you can combine your hp with its in a similar manner, making you more powerful. In essence, your character has around double the 'normal' hp. So, the balance hedges both ways."
My problem with this lies in that +8 strength for large. It not only guarantees a hit at the level it's offered, it makes even standard damage builds ridiculous. Ridiculous off of my crowned, angry head. Compare a standard damage dealing Eidolon build with any monster in the monster manual. The damage is almost always off by a CR. And since HP isn't a problem and large size has few drawbacks besides, well, being big? Damage goes even higher. At present, it's like the summoner having an always present summon that's of a level higher than him and can eat things of its summoner's level for lunch in most cases with that, frankly, abusive strength score it's lugging around.
I'm not saying that kitty is a great example of "Strength gone bad", but it is one, at the very least, of how nasty that +8 strength from large size can get. Considering the Eidolon is hardly all the summoner gets, I'd think it fair to allow a playtest or several builds with a +4 to strength (Especially at high levels where the eidolon might fall behind with this proposed adjustment) for the large size evolution.
Look, it another "If the Eidolon has this" post!
Not every Eidolon is going to go to large, and after the boredom of "My Eidolon attacks, oh look I rolled a 2 and hit" sets in, people will be going for more challenging(and fun) Eidolons.
For example, look at...
Ryuu and then look at...
Ryuu and then look at...Look, it another "If the Eidolon has this" post!
Not every Eidolon is going to go to large, and after the boredom of "My Eidolon attacks, oh look I rolled a 2 and hit" sets in, people will be going for more challenging(and fun) Eidolons.
For example, look at...
Arachne.
I realize these are specific builds I made for PbPs, and thus I am bias, but after making one Large and one Huge Eidolon, I realized they did not appeal to me. The prospect of having them fighting was just boring.
Exactly my point. The Eidolon does a ton of damage right now for that build sans buffs, magic items etc. It would be more interesting and fun if it was less powerful physically, just a bit.
So, basically, you are claiming that large is not a problem because people won't select the option? I'm sorry, but that is an incorrect assumption. What's fun for the goose isn't fun for the gander. In order to prevent the math from sapping the fun out of having a fairly powerful fighting companion (especially considering the huge slew of attack options) I believe certain measures should be taken in the eidolon's growing years to avoid some very scary results. Like out-damaging a high-end barbarian with a high-end eidolon sans buffs.
Just because something is broken there's no reason to play around it and do something else. This is still forming, and we can fix this to play better than it is currently.
|
Exactly my point. The Eidolon does a ton of damage right now for that build sans buffs, magic items etc. It would be more interesting and fun if it was less powerful physically, just a bit.
So, basically, you are claiming that large is not a problem because people won't select the option? I'm sorry, but that is an incorrect assumption. What's fun for the goose isn't fun for the gander. In order to prevent the math from sapping the fun out of having a fairly powerful fighting companion (especially considering the huge slew of attack options) I believe certain measures should be taken in the eidolon's growing years to avoid some very scary results. Like out-damaging a high-end barbarian with a high-end eidolon sans buffs.
I'm not saying someone wion't pick it. Large Eidolons make for great mounts(except bipeds, I cannot see a human riding into combat on the shoulders of his Shiva Eidolon anymore than I can see gnome riding a half-orc into battle. It's just silly). There is of course, the usual limitation of 10-by-10 dungeon corridors, which mean Large Eidolons are at a disadvantage.
Just because something is broken there's no reason to play around it and do something else. This is still forming, and we can fix this to play better than it is currently.
Just because someone thinks it is broken doesn't mean it is.
"Oh no, the Summoner's Eidolon gets more attacks than the Fighter!"
"So does the Monk and the TWF Ranger."
"But the Eidolonn can do more damage!"
"So? It has a lower AC because you spent all it's Evo points on offense, and the monk, ranger, fighters, barbarians, and paladins can do more with their attacks then damage."
"Oh. Nevermind."