Perhaps the answer is to allow for a 2-pronged class feature approach. Decrease the total amount in the Evolution pool across the board and add a new column on the class table which allows you to pick either add to your evolution pool or improve your daily summons.
Perhaps the answer is to allow for a 2-pronged class feature approach. Decrease the total amount in the Evolution pool across the board and add a new column on the class table which allows you to pick either add to your evolution pool or improve your daily summons.
I think you're missing the point of Jason's last post. He isn't looking for "the answer" or design input from the masses. He wants us to play the class (updates included) and post feedback based on how the playtesting goes. However if you meant for the post to be a general change to the class that you want to use, I would respectfully suggest that it go to a different thread.
|
1. Eidolon cannot wear armor.
My player saw no reason why, when her bipedal eidolon is summoned, that she couldn't just saddle it with a suit of plate mail and tighten the straps to make it fit. Sure, he's not proficient, but he could wear it.
2. Eidolon can't take magic items home.
Going back to the Greek concept of the word and an Astral Shadow, I have told my player the Eidolon is a spirit shadow that a select few can actually bring to the Prime Material (or other planes). When it returns home, it becomes, as many things on the Astral Plane are, more of a thought and less of a material thing. Since the Astral Plane has VERY little actual matter, I thought it was a bad idea to introduce a crapload of substance to it through the Eidolon loophole. She made a good argument, but it doesn't seem a problem, especially since she bought a Bag of Holding just for this purpose.
3. Duration of the class ability.
Others have voiced this, and it's not the removal of the standard action that hurts (that works fine), it's the duration. There really doesn't seem to be a purpose to this class skill without some variation from the spell, and I've noticed such a big shift in enthusiasm from my player over this that I've house-ruled it back to keep her playing. While this may not help long-term testing, it's my experience.
|
Perhaps the answer is to allow for a 2-pronged class feature approach. Decrease the total amount in the Evolution pool across the board and add a new column on the class table which allows you to pick either add to your evolution pool or improve your daily summons.
You might be interested in this thread where we're talking about a similar idea.
SithHunter, Jason does also specifically say that he takes note of suggestions made on these boards. One of the things that distinguished Paizo from most other hobby companies is the amount of interaction with the community. It's not design by committee but its worth talking about different approaches. I think of it as a sort of representative democracy. The community can vote with their wallets. If the game ceases to appeal to me then so does Paizo products.
Right now, there's a pretty substantial gulf between what some people expect a Summoner to be and what it is. It's worthwhile perhaps for Jason to explore the option of a split progression (as noted in the thread I linked to, this is not an uncommon practice for other classes). If it makes Gamer X buy a product he wouldn't want otherwise at the cost of an extra page in the APG it seems to be a good deal for PAizo and for the community.
I think you're missing the point of Jason's last post. He isn't looking for "the answer" or design input from the masses. He wants us to play the class (updates included) and post feedback based on how the playtesting goes. However if you meant for the post to be a general change to the class that you want to use, I would respectfully suggest that it go to a different thread.
I don't think Jason's intention was to quash all brainstorming. If I were to try and develop this idea into a full concept, I would certainly start a new thread. I will look into the thread that Y.D. just posted, however and possibly join in that conversation.
I may have come off a little strong but only because I have a player who was VERY excited about his character and was talking about using the minutes-per-level summons to perform menial tasks like digging and such. He's the kind of person that likes that kind of thing more than the nova combat summon.
For now, I will be creating a level 1 spell that does just that (much like a similar Psionic power from way back) but I'd just as soon rather see it as a Summoner ability rather than make stuff up.
Perhaps the answer is to allow for a 2-pronged class feature approach. Decrease the total amount in the Evolution pool across the board and add a new column on the class table which allows you to pick either add to your evolution pool or improve your daily summons.You might be interested in this thread where we're talking about a similar idea.
SithHunter, Jason does also specifically say that he takes note of suggestions made on these boards. One of the things that distinguished Paizo from most other hobby companies is the amount of interaction with the community. It's not design by committee but its worth talking about different approaches. I think of it as a sort of representative democracy. The community can vote with their wallets. If the game ceases to appeal to me then so does Paizo products.
Right now, there's a pretty substantial gulf between what some people expect a Summoner to be and what it is. It's worthwhile perhaps for Jason to explore the option of a split progression (as noted in the thread I linked to, this is not an uncommon practice for other classes). If it makes Gamer X buy a product he wouldn't want otherwise at the cost of an extra page in the APG it seems to be a good deal for PAizo and for the community.
In my opinion, it seems as though Jason has set this particular thread aside for feedback via playtesting. That said, I'm also very interested in how Summoners (updates included) are doing in other groups. I just don't think I should have to wade through dozens of posts asking for, suggesting, or even outright *demanding* immediate changes because they don't like the changes that the Lead Designer has made (to an *experimental* class!!). If you don't like it, play something else. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Seems rather simple to me.
As for discussing different approaches (like split progression), you posted a link where those discussions are taking place. If someone is interested in posting about it, I feel they should post it there.
At any rate, I'm not looking to argue, simply express my opinion (and frustration) at the lack of playtesting feedback I've seen here so far.
In my opinion, it seems as though Jason has set this particular thread aside for feedback via playtesting. That said, I'm also very interested in how Summoners (updates included) are doing in other groups. I just don't think I should have to wade through dozens of posts asking for, suggesting, or even outright *demanding* immediate changes because they don't like the changes that the Lead Designer has made (to an *experimental* class!!). If you don't like it, play something else. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Seems rather simple to me.
I'm sure Jason will be thrilled that he has made you happy, but lost other sales. I'll be sure to tell him when I cancel my subscription before the AGP that SithHunter told me to do so.
:)
As for discussing different approaches (like split progression), you posted a link where those discussions are taking place. If someone is interested in posting about it, I feel they should post it there.At any rate, I'm not looking to argue, simply express my opinion (and frustration) at the lack of playtesting feedback I've seen here so far.
If I might suggest, you might want, instead of reading through this thread, look for threats that have 'PLAYTEST' in the title. So far it seems that everyone who is providing playtest feedback is doing so in a unique thread. I myself did so for my playtest feedback for both summoner and oracle.
Frankly, I think having palytests in different threads is much better anyway, each one will generate X comments, and mixing those comments can get confusing, since a comment on playtest A might also apply to B but in a confusing or contradictory way.
Reread the original update on the Summoner, scanned the hundreds of posts, many of which don't cover the updates.
If the Eidolon in question is using MUNDANE, NON-MAGICAL equipment that the Summoner has paid for, aka a saddle for a quad or a weapon for a biped with hands, does the equipment go back to the ether with the Eidolon when sent back due to death or banishment, or does it fall to the ground like magical equipment.
Judging by the phrasing Jason used, I would assume it stays with the Eidolon, since he specified magic items.
"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."
Reread the original update on the Summoner, scanned the hundreds of posts, many of which don't cover the updates.
If the Eidolon in question is using MUNDANE, NON-MAGICAL equipment that the Summoner has paid for, aka a saddle for a quad or a weapon for a biped with hands, does the equipment go back to the ether with the Eidolon when sent back due to death or banishment, or does it fall to the ground like magical equipment.
Judging by the phrasing Jason used, I would assume it stays with the Eidolon, since he specified magic items.
"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."
I'm reading that as any equipment, personally.
On the other hand, there is nothing saying your Eidelon can't be created having mundane equipment as part of him. A military saddle, for example, as part of his form. Or his armor configured as full plate, or cheesecake chainmail (if you have a female eidelon, although to be PC I suppose a male eidelon could wear cheesecake armor, but that's just wrong on so many levels).
I'm also of the opinion that you could, honestly, define his 'claw' as a pair of swords he holsters when it's not in use.
I'm sure Jason will be thrilled that he has made you happy, but lost other sales. I'll be sure to tell him when I cancel my subscription before the AGP that SithHunter told me to do so.
:)
*shrug* Cancel away.
If I might suggest, you might want, instead of reading through this thread, look for threats that have 'PLAYTEST' in the title. So far it seems that everyone who is providing playtest feedback is doing so in a unique thread. I myself did so for my playtest feedback for both summoner and oracle.
Now *that* is an excellent suggestion. I look forward to reading these threads. Thank you. :)
Now *that* is an excellent suggestion. I look forward to reading these threads. Thank you. :)
De Nada.
I'll definitely be adding a new thread to report the playtesting we do next Friday. Said player can't make it this week.
2. This is not design by committee. Piling on with "+1" posts will get you no where. In the past, I have used ideas that were only brought up once by a single poster... and ignored those posted by dozens. I am trying to do what is in the best interest of the game here and sometimes that means going against the grain or picking out small gems. If it is posted once.. I have seen it. Feel free to move along.
I agree that this is not "design by committee" but I'm not sure it's wise to silence people's opinions.
While this may not be the type of feedback you're looking for, at least it gives you an idea about what people want.
Many companies would pay big bucks to get that type of direct feedback from consumers.
If I'm not mistaken, business is all about selling products that people want, right? So if people are telling you what they want...why tell them to stop?
When people post "+1", they're showing their enthusiasm and support for creative ideas.
By now, I'm sure you're an expert at sorting out the helpful posts from the less-than-helpful posts, but I think it's a mistake to consider public opinion as worthless. The old "+1" might not be useful, but it's certainly not useless.
My 2 cp.
2. This is not design by committee. Piling on with "+1" posts will get you no where. In the past, I have used ideas that were only brought up once by a single poster... and ignored those posted by dozens. I am trying to do what is in the best interest of the game here and sometimes that means going against the grain or picking out small gems. If it is posted once.. I have seen it. Feel free to move along.I agree that this is not "design by committee" but I'm not sure it's wise to silence people's opinions.
400 posts later I think he's gotten a good sample of people's opinions. Another 400 posts on the subject isn't accomplishing anything. That doesn't mean he's ignoring those opinions but he's more interested right now in seeing how the classes work in playtests based on what's on the table.
400 posts later I think he's gotten a good sample of people's opinions. Another 400 posts on the subject isn't accomplishing anything. That doesn't mean he's ignoring those opinions but he's more interested right now in seeing how the classes work in playtests based on what's on the table.2. This is not design by committee. Piling on with "+1" posts will get you no where. In the past, I have used ideas that were only brought up once by a single poster... and ignored those posted by dozens. I am trying to do what is in the best interest of the game here and sometimes that means going against the grain or picking out small gems. If it is posted once.. I have seen it. Feel free to move along.I agree that this is not "design by committee" but I'm not sure it's wise to silence people's opinions.
Some of us have been playtesting, and reporting those testings, in other threads. However, having playtested them, some of us have opinions based on that playtesting, and wish to express them in something other than the playtesting thread we posted.
Apparently though, those opinions, formed and based on the playtesting, are not wanted, just the actual reports. So I shall, as desired, not post any conclusions I have come to based on that feedback.
However, that doesn't mean it's not an informed opinion, or that I think it's a good idea to tell people to keep their opinions to themselves when you are soliciting feedback. It sort of defeats the purpose, but since that is what is wanted, I will follow the requested policy. Just wanted to point out that your position, and I believe Jason's position, is sort of based on telling the people that are supposed to playtest the classes to stop posting anything except reports. At least, that is the the way it has come off.
Director of Games
|
Hey there folks,
Quick clarification.
I am fine with folks discussing the changes in this thread, I am just trying to manage expectations. Folks should not expect swift changes here, and more posts will not change that. Discuss, by all means, just understand where we are going.
That is all for now. The alchemist and the inquisitor are almost done.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That is all for now. The alchemist and the inquisitor are almost done.
I can't wait to see them. These final two classes sound very exciting!
With all the fuss the Summoner has caused, the Alchemist and Inquisitor will be a breath of fresh air.
That is all for now. The alchemist and the inquisitor are almost done.I can't wait to see them. These final two classes sound very exciting!
With all the fuss the Summoner has caused, the Alchemist and Inquisitor will be a breath of fresh air.
LOL,
I doubt it. I'm expecting the alchemist to cause as many posts about 'OMG THAT IS BROKEN' than the summoner did. It's kind of the same thing, from the description, just one is directed at the pet and the other is directed at the PC.
@mdt - You are looking at my post out of context. That's got nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I have a slight suggestion. Why not just take away the ability for the Eidolon to equip equipment (mundane and magical) and just give it equivalent Evolutions that mimic equipment. Like someone suggested above, who's to say what the claws look like (they could be weapons for all we know). My suggestion is much like the claws, have an Evo that basically has the Eidolon creating 'weapons' with its form. Essentially pay a point or two to have a d6 'weapon', then spend more points to upgrade the damage value (much like you have for natural attacks). You can easily define the 'weapon' as looking similar to a weapon (like a mace or a longsword). Or take it a step further and just allow for a Weapon Evo that gives the Eidolon the ability to create and use a weapon that is similar in all aspect to a functioning weapon (meaning you can take a 'Greatsword' Evo and your Eidolon creates and uses a Greatsword, dealing the usual 2d6 (for medium) with a 19-20 crit range.
Same thing with armor. The Eidolon has the Natural Armor evo that even suggests the armor can look like anything. So why not just have the Eidolon form whatever it needs for armor with this Evo?
As for magical rings/amulets/boots/etc that boost abilities/skills/etc, why not pay for Evos that emulate this, maybe have a level minimum? Perhaps spend a 2-3 points that allow you to have Ring of Protection +2 (giving Deflection bonus to AC) or a Cloak of Resistance +2 (which gives an Enhancement bonus to your saves).
I think these suggestions could probably be worked on a bit, but it would atleast solve the issue with players equipping their Eidolon with the best equipment they can to uber it out, and also prevent it from being abused a Cursed Item holder/detector/etc. Hell, I'd pretty much say magic items and Eidolons just don't work together very well. Sorta BS, but prevents abuse.
And 2cents for the SLA...I think it should be limited to only one summon creature per use, but should atleast be a Standard Action with the 1 min/lvl duration. Helps tremendously at 1-3rd level, but once you get past 4th, yeah it does start to be a bit abusive. The Standard Action atleast gives a low level Summoner some damage dealing, since they have NO damaging dealing spells other than Acid Splash at low levels. They produce damage (via spells) with Summon Monster. Just my opinion.
Here's my suggestion:
Give the Eidolon machine guns...
...or the ability to shoot lasers from its eyes.
Here's my suggestion:
Give the Eidolon machine guns...
...or the ability to shoot lasers from its eyes.
While I'm assuming that is in jest, I honestly would like to see some ranged attack evolutions.
While I'm assuming that is in jest, I honestly would like to see some ranged attack evolutions.Here's my suggestion:
Give the Eidolon machine guns...
...or the ability to shoot lasers from its eyes.
Like a Manticore's tail spikes?
Like a Manticore's tail spikes?While I'm assuming that is in jest, I honestly would like to see some ranged attack evolutions.Here's my suggestion:
Give the Eidolon machine guns...
...or the ability to shoot lasers from its eyes.
Exactly, or an energy bow, or an alternate type of breath weapon (basically firing out an ball or stream of energy (ala Godzilla movie monsters)).
Heck, I guess it could be lasers from it's eyes for that matter. Unlike most people who are using Poke/Digimon as their inspiration, I'm thinking more of Final Fantasy, and a Bahamut type summon who belches out a fireball would be great (obviously not very powerful, to balance it out, but it would work well for crowd control against low level vermin or swarms).
Like a Manticore's tail spikes?While I'm assuming that is in jest, I honestly would like to see some ranged attack evolutions.Here's my suggestion:
Give the Eidolon machine guns...
...or the ability to shoot lasers from its eyes.Exactly, or an energy bow, or an alternate type of breath weapon (basically firing out an ball or stream of energy (ala Godzilla movie monsters)).
Heck, I guess it could be lasers from it's eyes for that matter. Unlike most people who are using Poke/Digimon as their inspiration, I'm thinking more of Final Fantasy, and a Bahamut type summon who belches out a fireball would be great (obviously not very powerful, to balance it out, but it would work well for crowd control against low level vermin or swarms).
Or belches out insect swarms...
Or belches out insect swarms...
Yep, if they only last for the attack, that works as well. Lots of special effects for an attack.
Rules question for Jason.
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.
Here's my suggestion:
Give the Eidolon machine guns...
...or the ability to shoot lasers from its eyes.SLA Scorching Ray... From the eyes!
I haven't come up with a machine gun equivalent... Maybe Magic Missile?
Problem with SLA is it's 1/day. Not really very effective for an attack, honestly.
|
Here's my suggestion:
Give the Eidolon machine guns...
...or the ability to shoot lasers from its eyes.SLA Scorching Ray... From the eyes!
I haven't come up with a machine gun equivalent... Maybe Magic Missile?
Burning Hands for a breath weapon! Magic Missle seems more like a shotgun burst than a machine gun to me...
|
|
Problem with SLA is it's 1/day. Not really very effective for an attack, honestly.Here's my suggestion:
Give the Eidolon machine guns...
...or the ability to shoot lasers from its eyes.SLA Scorching Ray... From the eyes!
I haven't come up with a machine gun equivalent... Maybe Magic Missile?
3/day if you spend an extra evolution point.
|
|
Another thought from 3.5 days as far as gameplay. The "thaumaturgist" didn't make it to the Pathfinder (at least not yet), and from prior experience the Summoner really appears to be an attempt to make a prestige class into a workable base class. Features that have been mentioned as desired, or are very similiar, include:
1. Long term ally (aka Eidolon). Tracking cohort xp was a pain.
2. Thaumaturgist got Augment Summoning Feat for free. What's a Summoner without better summons than the competition?
3. Contingent summons. We never used it because no one ever remembered to check the contingency, but the concept of a "quick" summons was liked (albeit 1/day by design).
4. Extended summons. All summons eventually had extend feat effect and could stack with Extend Feat. However, without the ability to communicate with animals, keeping the summoned monsters past combat (for complex purposes, like triggering traps), didn't work well as the animals just waited for an attack command.
Still, here's some feedback so far from my player, who is thinking she might just go back to her druid if she wants to summon things and have a "pet."
- Confusion over the look of the Eidolon. Does it change looks each level? Does it have a "face" in bipedal form? Is it realistic looking? Does she need to pick a monster from the bestiary for looks? Is it like a Lego(TM) monster where you attach a new piece each level or remove one?
- Would it be easier to take a mundane creature (with a type) and progress it to a subtype, like outsider (noting that some outsiders start out as another type)?
- She hated her pet "dying" after putting so much work into it. Having an Eidolon that goes "home" upon "death" helps.
- No one rolled up a true fighter type with the expectation the eidolon juggernaut would do it all. Without the armor training now, it won't. But I think the rationale is: who wants to compete with a creature that at 6th level has a 26 strength, d10 hit dice, wields magical weaponry, and flies?
- One trick pony. "Watch me pull an eidolon out of a hat." There is also some dismay at being a pack mule for the Eidolon's equipment if it has to go. We haven't had that problem yet, though.
A lot of excitement has went into creation, but it's beginning to fade. A customized druid just seems a lot better, and I'm worried my game will bog down into: "I can't open that door with a spell, but my Eidolon can break it down; I can't climb or magic that ruby off the enchanted pedastel, but my Eidolon can fly up there; I can't destroy that pack of goblins, but my Eidolon sure can; I'm horrible at spotting secret doors, but my Eidolon has a great Perception; I have AC 15 with my light armor and probably won't survive on the front lines of battle, but...." and you know what comes next.
We'll see.
Dennis i have not forgotten that the summoner actually summons his Eidolon. But with the current changes and my personal experience with summoners it seems that the actual class portion of the summoner is only there to justify the existence of the Eidolon. Such as Rene later posted as follows:
Maybe you are forgetting that the summoner summons his Eidolon? No other summoner even comes close to that sort of summoning power until they get their capstone abilities.
This is exactly what the class is intended to be... I've heard several of the Paizo staffers suggest exactly this.
Sean Reynolds at one point said the idea here was to bring the fun of building monsters into the players hands. I don't recall if it were Jason or James who said It's a class where players get to play the monster. From day one everything Paizo staffers have said about the class (other than the name itself) has suggested this.
As for Rene's comment, it might mean some players take it over the top and have their Eidolon running the show but it will also present the opportunity for some great roleplaying. I kind of think good players will
That seems exactly the point, Dennis.
For players who don't like this approach - Don't play an Eidolon Master/ Summoner.
|
if I was looking for a "play the monster class" I would personally prefer for the "evolutions" to be able to cast/summoned onto my character which I think would be a cool class to play - I would get rid of the eidolon, increase the skill points for the summoner, maybe tone down some evolutions & keep spell list. I would also only allow evolutions to be summoned once per day as the eidolon currently sits although maybe allow some evo pts to be kept spare (max 1/2) and summoned with a 1 round cast time
eg. sometime during day your party gets attacked you have 3 pts left over from the beginning of the days evolution summoning so you decide to make yourself large using the 3 pts - now your pts are used up & you are a large creature till the next day when you summon your evos - bit like cleric praying for spells from his god at beginning of day a summoner summons his evolutions at the beginning of each day
I know someone or some people have not liked the idea of the eidolon being summoned back the next day with full hp after it returns to home plane so this would get rid of that problem too since if the character dies hes dead.
this would make a very versatile character where you could play the monster & change day to day from combat orientated to roleplay orientated or bit of both while still allowing the fighter to be the tank
has anyone come up with this idea before ? how does it sound to everyone ?
|
|
I have not read anything on the alchemist so I cant comment
I personally like the summoner as is with just the Summon SLA of one at a time
I have had lots of fun by spending my time building different eidolons & none of them power gamer - I made an Alien, a ninja based one and a guardian (defence) based one - none I een considered putting armour on but think I could could without making it obscene nor have I used magic items mainly cause I have not bothered opening my book to do so
I would rather one change though from all my building is drop the skill points on the Eidolon by 2 & giving them to the summoner making it 4 total since my summoner is lacking severely in skill points but my eidolon is more a skill monkey
This is exactly what the class is intended to be... I've heard several of the Paizo staffers suggest exactly this.Sean Reynolds at one point said the idea here was to bring the fun of building monsters into the players hands. I don't recall if it were Jason or James who said It's a class where players get to play the monster. From day one everything Paizo staffers have said about the class (other than the name itself) has suggested this.
I have missed that, I've tried to keep up only read about 250-300 of the posts on these boards but apparently i have missed that. I did read the entire summoner .pdf file and failed to see that portion of the description. If that is the intention i apologize for my ignorance on it. Please don't think of my protest on the SLA changes as any ungratefulness towards the design of the build.
When i first read it i absolutely fell in love with it, I thought it was the coolest idea for a summoner yet and was very excited to play it. The scenarios i role played it through in my own tests were awesome. But changing the SLA stopped me from even bothering to play test it as it took my personal center focus of summoner away and left me, as well as many others from what i've seen, with a class i cannot call "summoner."
I blame the name of the class.
Rules question for Jason.
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.
The slam description says:
"The eidolon must have the limbs (arms) evolution to take thisevolution."
Thus implying it only works on arms even though the final line says just limbs.
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.
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.
Personally, I believe both changes were overkills.
The armor problem could easily be solved by increasing the Evo point buy instead of just nixing it.
The time that the summons last could be solved by lessening the amount of summons.
With both of these decreases you will almost always be better served playing a druid over a summoner as it has better summons and a better ally.
I think one thing that definitely needs to be considered and always thoguht about is this:
Why would I want to play this class over a druid? What makes it special? Are the pets of equal strength and survivability? Does a Summoner summon better then a druid as the name suggests?
At this point my answer to each of those questions is not positive.
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.
"I think" without playtest data does not help much, really. Play them as they are now, then give feed back. From what he has said, something will change back, but he wants data on how it plays. The he'll have a better ideal of just what needs to be moved back, be it casting time, duration of limits without the data it's just a guessing game
So play it, then point out what was the issue. Was it the limit? did the duration cause an issue? was it the normal casting time? Really we can say "I think" all day but sometimes what you think is the issue, is really something else when the game hits the table
anyhow , just a thought
Personally, I believe both changes were overkills.
The armor problem could easily be solved by increasing the Evo point buy instead of just nixing it.
The time that the summons last could be solved by lessening the amount of summons.
With both of these decreases you will almost always be better served playing a druid over a summoner as it has better summons and a better ally.
Personally I would rather see that the two don't stack so as a player you have a choice. "Natural" Armor or "Normal" Armor.
Otherwise the danger is penalising people with odd builds, actually make that slightly different from the norm builds, just because someone might go OTT on AC.Put it this way why should my rather elegant starfish monster build be penalized because someone might powergame/munchkinise/optimise their bipedal Eidolon's AC? Why should that player be forced to spend extra Evolution points because that build doesn't/can't wear armor?