This might be a bit of a Repetition Exercise. However, I'll beg it to be more than that.
I'll try to be objective about this.
All over this board I find myself looking at notes that the Eidolon is
1. A rather powerful (I refuse to say overpowered, I'm sure Eidolons CAN be made in a "just" powerful, but in no way unbalanced way even as the rules are.
2. Clearly the main feature of the Summoner, possible over-shadowing the Summoner. Whether desirable or not I would (Warning: Personal Opinion) consider it sad to play pet more than the character.
Purpose of Thread:
Instead of filing up agrees, points about how and diasgrees, I'm interested in constructive ideas concerning this. So basically, what I would like to see is not "You're wrong". I wouldn't mind a well reasoned "You're wrong, because...". However what I'm really interested in is "I agree, because... here's what I think might be done about ..."
Issues:
1. Is there possibilities for or maybe even inbuilt tendencies towards extreme power in the current Eidolon rules?
2. Clarifying which points of the Eidolon rules might open for/lead to mentioned possibility for high-poweredness.
3. How can each point best be dealt with? (Here multiple opinion is wanted way too badly) - This is the point were we try to tell the Paizo staff what we would like to see the Eidolon do. This is the point where we give them opur ideas to play with for the final product.
4. (Personal Interest Question) Would it be more interesting for the Summoner to have a severely (not removed, at all) Eidolon (still customizable, less power in the customization though) and more summons (maybe more powerful or long-termed)?
5. Is the Eidolon over-shadowing the Summoner as it is? Is this good or bad, and why so? (Opinions expcted and accepted, as usually for me I hope everyone will show that accept)
6. Slight detached from main subject: How can the Summoner seem more apparent in comparison to the Eidolon? Rules, flavor and other abilities in focus?
7. Slightly detached again: Is the Summoner perhaps a bit too much of a "Buffing" class? (Point here being: would more summoning ability, less ability to buff the Eidolon (not removing it, but leaving it more to other classes) be preferable) The why of it matters more than the Yes/No.
8. This is once again detached from the main theme: What do you see the Summoner as and how do you feel it could best be reflected in the rules? (Mainly because I'm interested in what people imagine when the hear about a "Summoner" as a class.)
So, I ask too many questions, most of them open for discussion. I look forward to a constructive discussion of the summoner/eidolon and evt. problems abot them.
I have actually playtested two different Summoners now but more on that later.
1. Yes. I have seen this already with the sample builds however that is kind of expected of this class.
2. This has already been done by Jason. The limit to one SM at a time was nescessary but the other nerfs on SM were OTT.
3. The Evolutions need to be looked at again especially the +2 to Natural Armor. The dumping of the Armor Prof was in away good thing for biped builds with Nat. Armor as it made them too good. However a compromise should be made that bipeds can get Armor Prof *or* Nat. Armor.
4. The Eidolon is the class! That is the problem when nerfing the Summoner.
5. Yes it is overshadowing the actual Summoner but the class is designed that way. Personally I really don't like it. When people started talking about Pokemon I started crying blood.
6. No thoughts.
7. Buffy the Summoner about sums it up.
8. I can't offer much on this. I think they have done a good job with the class within the rules. However a summoner to me is more like a specialist Conjurer.
Personal Thoughts: I started thinking that this was going to be a brilliant class but now I don't. The Eidolon steals the show and I feel I am playing an NPC (the Summoner) and a wierded out fighter (Eidolon) neither of which does it for me. The first I ran was dull as ditch water, no interpersonal skills and just plinked away with is crossbow whilst the Eidolon stole the show. The second one I ran was really interesting, a Paladin/Summoner/DD. The Eidolon was his mount and the interaction was more balanced, dare I say it, I enjoyed playing it. For people wanting a g!$h class this could be a good compromise. I like playing skill monkeys and roleplay and this class as it stands doesn't fullfil those niches for me.
|
I would agree that the Eidolon does have a predisposition towards being the center stage, but the rules do allow for someone to build otherwise. I would like to see a bit more choice in the base form / evo's to facilitate this (perhaps a base form with better mental vs physical stats).
I haven't posted my own testing eidolon, largely because I'm lazy. I basicly let it act as a spell / skill suppliment with enough combat to hold it's own and act as support to both the party and myself.
OK I will openly say it I love the summoner as it is. However, I also liked pokemon, and the conjurin ability that it has geeks me out. I think that the min/max thing is really a player ish (many will disagree)but you can build a survivable eidolon and not make them uber-powerful, and I know I played a summoner the other day and in role play my Eidolon was cool, but my pc was the focus. In combat my Eidolon was my protector as I buffed the party and stayed in the background (were a wizard should be) and my summoned creatures fought for me. Truth be told I like the armor changes, and the summoning changes (I prefer minutes to rounds), but all in all I think it is a fun flavor-filled class, and it just takes a little getting used to. it is def not for everybody.
I have actually playtested two different Summoners now but more on that later.
1. Yes. I have seen this already with the sample builds however that is kind of expected of this class.
I agree with you, I'm just worried if it's too much? So far what I've seen says it at least enough and scaling towards too much power.
2. This has already been done by Jason. The limit to one SM at a time was nescessary but the other nerfs on SM were OTT.
My point of view here is similar. Making the summons less powerful was to some extend needed. Making "the long-time summon ability" only one creature was great. Making that one only one was yet better. Casting time was kind of sad though. Makes it really hard to play the "The Summoner" as in the person, who calls planar creatures of all kinds to his side, is considered some bit of a weirdo to always be accompanied by a host of fiends (higher levels, okay, okay, but...) and who summons a great celestial to his aid in the timeof need. That's what the summoner should do to me. In principle, not in exact terms.
3. The Evolutions need to be looked at again especially the +2 to Natural Armor. The dumping of the Armor Prof was in away good thing for biped builds with Nat. Armor as it made them too good. However a compromise should be made that bipeds can get Armor Prof *or* Nat. Armor.
I would be very intrigued by the possibility to have it wear armor if nothing else then for the purpose of flavor. But I guess it could simply be it's natural armor shaping out like a semi-body/semi-armor. Maybe a slightly decrease of the base natural armor they get... just a few less would make a change. Make them able to take the extra natural armor evolution only once. Make it not stack with stuff like Barkskin of Amulets of Natural armor. Make the natural armor not count if they wear armor (special ruling should fix it, reasoning their changeable form). Maybe adding a Deflection AC evolution, to give them the opportunity of a more acceptable touch AC. And somehow avoiding the extreme main AC.
4. The Eidolon is the class! That is the problem when nerfing the Summoner.
Much of the same here. I don't want an "Eidolon" class. Every attempt at making a summoner I have seen spends double the time on making an Eidolon - What?
I would love to see the Eidolon as a "Summoner's helping hand and/or guardian".I would rejoice to see the Summoner do something on his own. Like summoning half an army of weak creatures to take the beating for his team, like having a special, summoned creature hang around much longer than anyone else can summon things.
This would make the class a "Summoner" with an Eidolon as an important but not overshadowing feature.
5. Yes it is overshadowing the actual Summoner but the class is designed that way. Personally I really don't like it. When people started talking about Pokemon I started crying blood.
Think I said it above. I am desperately fighting my fear that all those nice, young people I know, who really like the game, and also happen to like Pokemon (or such) will cover my Pathfinder games in cutish, pokemonish creatures. I shall say it only once. I'll never allow it as GM. Peace to all who like it. Don't force it on me.
6. No thoughts.
I'll use this one to say thanks for all of the other thoughts then.
7. Buffy the Summoner about sums it up.
8. I can't offer much on this. I think they have done a good job with the class within the rules. However a summoner to me is more like a specialist Conjurer.Personal Thoughts: I started thinking that this was going to be a brilliant class but now I don't. The Eidolon steals the show and I feel I am playing an NPC (the Summoner) and a wierded out fighter (Eidolon) neither of which does it for me. The first I ran was dull as ditch water, no interpersonal skills and just plinked away with is crossbow whilst the Eidolon stole the show. The second one I ran was really interesting, a Paladin/Summoner/DD. The Eidolon was his mount and the interaction was more balanced, dare I say it, I enjoyed playing it. For people wanting a g!$h class this could be a good compromise. I like playing skill monkeys and roleplay and this class as it stands doesn't fullfil those niches for me.
I'll just say as much as I agree, though not for the exact same reasons.
I like the idea of a Summoner. I like(d) the idea of an Eidolon. Then it overpowered the summoner (to me). Then I can't really like either of them as much as I think they deserve.As I see it the Summoner currently serves as a "Eidolons cohort". Which makes me, utterly and unstoppably, sad.
I have tried to give some idea of my idea of a summoner. Let me paint a picture of it (verbally):
Where even the Conjurer Wizard never has a powerful permanent companion summoned to his side, the Summoner will always seem to have a summoned creature, defining his nature as a summoner.
Where the buffing class as a general will focus on his team, the summoner will focus on having the greatest, mightest creatures summoned at the sound of his voice.
Where the melee class will fight the way through the Villains minions, the Summoner will have his loyal guardian assist them and protect him as needed be, and his summonings rushing on as a more expendable source of fighting prowess.
I personally prefer the summoner, with creatures all over to aid in all tasks, and as tactical assistance to the fighter/melee character. With his Eidolon protecting him from foes, so he can cast his spells. Still not doing that much as through the EXACT summoner. But not playign the Eidolon. This might not have been the intention with the class. I can accept that. I will however still mourn the loss of the idea. And partially ignore whatever the summoner ends up as if it's still focused on the Eidolon.
I have actually playtested two different Summoners now but more on that later.
2. This has already been done by Jason. The limit to one SM at a time was nescessary but the other nerfs on SM were OTT.
I'm curious why is the 1 SM at a time needed for the summoner but not for any other class?
I've seen Druids in 3.5 summon multiple critters each round and I can't see a summoner doing appreciably different to that. So if it's not a problem for Druids that get 9 levels of casting and wildshape over a summoner, why is it mandatory?
-James
The limit is only on his SM special ability not his normal SM spells. This gives a reason for a Summoner to learn SM rather than just rely on a class ability. Being able to unlease multiple SM 7x a day and two SM spells in a single encounter at first level is very different to 1 special ability and 2 spell castings. The problem isn't the spell itself but because the Summoner could cast SM as a special abilty 3+CHA mod a day.
I have actually playtested two different Summoners now but more on that later.
2. This has already been done by Jason. The limit to one SM at a time was nescessary but the other nerfs on SM were OTT.
I'm curious why is the 1 SM at a time needed for the summoner but not for any other class?
I've seen Druids in 3.5 summon multiple critters each round and I can't see a summoner doing appreciably different to that. So if it's not a problem for Druids that get 9 levels of casting and wildshape over a summoner, why is it mandatory?
-James
As far as I know the "only one summon at a time" applies only to the special ability? That at least doesn't make me sad. Okay, so you'll have to use your spellpower to have multiple summon. Like everyone else has to, to have summons at all. Hmm... Ouch. You're really in trouble. Allthough I could see the charm of a "multiple summoning a lot of weaker monsters at once" special power at a higher level. But as it is right now there's no room for MORE power in the summoner.
It's already POSSIBLE to make it very powerful, and while that doesn't mean everyone will do it, it still has to be considered. Kind of sad for people who don't want that 1 powerful Eidolon, but more summoning ability.
That's my opinion, do feel free to disagree.
As far as I know the "only one summon at a time" applies only to the special ability? That at least doesn't make me sad. Okay, so you'll have to use your spellpower to have multiple summon. Like everyone else has to, to have summons at all. Hmm... Ouch. You're really in trouble.
Considering that you have the spellpower of a *Bard* and are in competition with the *Druid*.. actually it -is- ouch.
A druid is a better summoner than the summoner, the pet is comparable, the druid gets better spellcasting, and the druid gets wildshape.
The summoner had more summons. That made sense. Now they don't.
-James
I would have to disagree about the Eidolon is comparable to the Druid's Animal Companion.
And they do have more summons, 3+Cha mod plus spells.
Druid animal companions aren't customizable. You have a list of animals you can pick from, which is neat and all, but has it's limits. With the eidolon you can make what you like. No feat wasted, no skill wasted...exactly what you need. This is great, except for just how good the eidolon winds up being at what you want it to do. We have a second level summoner/first level oracle in our Rise of the Runelord campaign, and nearly any skill check while trapsing around the dungeon is owned by the eidolon.
|
|
I just got a chance to start my own Summoner last night. I had a lot of fun.
1. I would say that there is a tendency in some ways for overpowered Eidolons. The problem with something as flexible as the Eidolon is that flexibility allows those who want to to break the system.
2. Jason did start in a bit on the Eidolons and I think there will be some further revisions. Some costs may need to be reevaluated or the Eidolons own progression slowed a bit.
3. Its hard to say. As noted above there a several ways to slow them down a bit. Maybe less Natural Armor as it levels or maybe less evolutions points. Id rather find any other solution than lowering the EP's since I think they're the most interesting part of the Eidolon.
4. Not for me. I have a gishy summoner that fights with his Eidolon. I may ride it eventually. I want my Eidolon to be a sort of partner. Not a weakling, not a super beast, but an ally with whom I can use some interesting tactics.
5. I suspect it is overshadowing casting/buffing summoners. When you go gish you're as much a part of the action as the Eidolon.
6. Well, I'm hardly the only example of people having fun with the Summoner. Another poster noted above that he had way more fun when he was gishy, though. Maybe martial weapon proficiencies (or at least a selection of them) to encourage people to try it.
7. If you take away the buffs the Summoner practically has no spells. It won't be much of a caster class then.
8. Well, I see my own version as a sort of rough and tumble caster that gets help from other planes to support his generally not quite as strong as a front line warrior abilities. I can also see it as a traveling menagerie of otherworldly beasts.
Going to address #6 of the OP's list.
This may be way off base, but its just a thought.
A way to make a summoner w/eidolon (hereinafter referred to as Big E) with a summoner focus and less of a Big E focus, would be to actually make them the same thing.
Yes- the same thing.
If you go by the theory that it sucks to play the class pet not the class then the summoner suffers from two things.
1) Big E hogs all the glory.
2) The summoner has nothing to do but sip wine and tell Big E what to do. (esp since ye olde neft bat was taken to the SLA summons)
A proposed solution would be: Make the Eidolon something the summoner becomes, instead of something he summons. If you are familiar with the various "aspect" spells, it would be in line with these.
The summoner "summons" once a day, a set of powers for himself. These powers work in every other way like the Eidolon. Consider him a rider if you will (though internally).
They would no longer have separate gear lists, mental stats, or skill lists since they would actually become the same creature when summoned. It would be like a very fancy suit of armor- though it could be whatever form imaginable.
This kills both of the stated problems.
1) Big E doesn't hog the glory because there is just one person. You, the summoner. Big E is just a set of powers you bring onto yourself.
2) You have plenty to do! Go attack or.. stealth or .. whatever it is you've built your Big E to let you do better.
notes:
This would clearly require some modification as you wouldn't want to be able to simply dump physical stats for mental and then acquire high physical stats for the Eidolon.
Thoughts?
-S
Going to address #6 of the OP's list.
This may be way off base, but its just a thought.A way to make a summoner w/eidolon (hereinafter referred to as Big E) with a summoner focus and less of a Big E focus, would be to actually make them the same thing.
Yes- the same thing.
If you go by the theory that it sucks to play the class pet not the class then the summoner suffers from two things.
1) Big E hogs all the glory.
2) The summoner has nothing to do but sip wine and tell Big E what to do. (esp since ye olde neft bat was taken to the SLA summons)A proposed solution would be: Make the Eidolon something the summoner becomes, instead of something he summons. If you are familiar with the various "aspect" spells, it would be in line with these.
The summoner "summons" once a day, a set of powers for himself. These powers work in every other way like the Eidolon. Consider him a rider if you will (though internally).
They would no longer have separate gear lists, mental stats, or skill lists since they would actually become the same creature when summoned. It would be like a very fancy suit of armor- though it could be whatever form imaginable.This kills both of the stated problems.
1) Big E doesn't hog the glory because there is just one person. You, the summoner. Big E is just a set of powers you bring onto yourself.
2) You have plenty to do! Go attack or.. stealth or .. whatever it is you've built your Big E to let you do better.notes:
This would clearly require some modification as you wouldn't want to be able to simply dump physical stats for mental and then acquire high physical stats for the Eidolon.Thoughts?
-S
Me Hulk!
Hear me roar!!!!Very reasonable suggestion. One I really like.
Question: Would my +1 torn purple shorts of armor stay with me or disappear when I become "calm" again?
Issues:
1. Is there possibilities for or maybe even inbuilt tendencies towards extreme power in the current Eidolon rules?
2. Clarifying which points of the Eidolon rules might open for/lead to mentioned possibility for high-poweredness.
3. How can each point best be dealt with? (Here multiple opinion is wanted way too badly) - This is the point were we try to tell the Paizo staff what we would like to see the Eidolon do. This is the point where we give them opur ideas to play with for the final product.
4. (Personal Interest Question) Would it be more interesting for the Summoner to have a severely (not removed, at all) Eidolon (still customizable, less power in the customization though) and more summons (maybe more powerful or long-termed)?
5. Is the Eidolon over-shadowing the Summoner as it is? Is this good or bad, and why so? (Opinions expcted and accepted, as usually for me I hope everyone will show that accept)
6. Slight detached from main subject: How can the Summoner seem more apparent in comparison to the Eidolon? Rules, flavor and other abilities in focus?
7. Slightly detached again: Is the Summoner perhaps a bit too much of a "Buffing" class? (Point here being: would more summoning ability, less ability to buff the Eidolon (not removing it, but leaving it more to other classes) be preferable) The why of it matters more than the Yes/No.
8. This is once again detached from the main theme: What do you see the Summoner as and how do you feel it could best be reflected in the rules? (Mainly because I'm interested in what people imagine when the hear about a "Summoner" as a class.)
1. Yes, there is. The flexibility of the class is it's greatest gift and curse at the same time. If all your effort with your eidolon is devoted to one thing, you will be rediculously good at doing that one thing. If abilities are spread out into attack, defence, utility, and movement, the eidolon is alot more balanced.
2. Like I said i think the fact that you can devote all of your effort to offense can really throw things off. Think of 6 claw attacks, 6 tentacles and a bite with pounce. Its madness. Your eidolon wont do anything else, but when it does, its just all kinds of vicious.
3. I would like to see the different evolutions not split up by cost, but by type (offense, defense and utility or something like that) and alocate evolution points for each group or perhaps have a range of evolution points for each group.
4. Honestly, I think that it is good that the focus is on the eidolon for the class. If you want a sidekick that is good but not the main focus, we have that already in a bunch of classes. Here the spotlight is on the pet, which we do not have. To remove that would really reduce the need for the class as it's uniqueness goes away.
5. It is, but it doesnt HAVE to. You can design your eidolon to with you instead of infront of you. If you focus on fighting with your summoner and give your eidolon abilities to help you (a buff spell like ability, and have it trip things for you and aid you) the focus will be on the summoner, but that wont likely be the most powerful way to play the class. As it is I am quite fine with this particular class focusing on the pet. It lets me explore certain role play opportunities that I never was able to before (Think Rhialto the Marvelous stories in the Dying Earth Series).
6. If you focus on the summoner in how you put together the character, and roleplay it that way, you can definately shift the focus to the summoner like I said above.
7. I think its good for the summoner to have stong buffs for a couple reasons. First I think if the eidolon is properly balanced it should be weaker then a fighting class on its own, but a match when buff. Two, the summoner can give those buffs to other party members as well, providing a little extra team work which should help the summoner themselves take a role in the party instead of it all being vicarious.
8. I see a couple things. But most of all I see a magic user who has somehow attained the service or friendship of a powerful outsider, who will aid him in his adventures. I think the rules as they are reflect that best, though like i said i think the eidolon needs some work.
Going to address #6 of the OP's list.
This may be way off base, but its just a thought.A way to make a summoner w/eidolon (hereinafter referred to as Big E) with a summoner focus and less of a Big E focus, would be to actually make them the same thing.
Yes- the same thing.
If you go by the theory that it sucks to play the class pet not the class then the summoner suffers from two things.
1) Big E hogs all the glory.
2) The summoner has nothing to do but sip wine and tell Big E what to do. (esp since ye olde neft bat was taken to the SLA summons)A proposed solution would be: Make the Eidolon something the summoner becomes, instead of something he summons. If you are familiar with the various "aspect" spells, it would be in line with these.
The summoner "summons" once a day, a set of powers for himself. These powers work in every other way like the Eidolon. Consider him a rider if you will (though internally).
They would no longer have separate gear lists, mental stats, or skill lists since they would actually become the same creature when summoned. It would be like a very fancy suit of armor- though it could be whatever form imaginable.This kills both of the stated problems.
1) Big E doesn't hog the glory because there is just one person. You, the summoner. Big E is just a set of powers you bring onto yourself.
2) You have plenty to do! Go attack or.. stealth or .. whatever it is you've built your Big E to let you do better.notes:
This would clearly require some modification as you wouldn't want to be able to simply dump physical stats for mental and then acquire high physical stats for the Eidolon.Thoughts?
-S
I wouldnt mind something like this at all, so long as it like you say doesnt allow you to dump the physical stats. It would be like a beefed up and more flexible wild shape. I would however not wish to see this replace the existing mechanic, as we do not have a class that focus' on its pet. We have plenty of classes that are designed to go out and do the things 'big e' could be made to do. I like that it's something different.
1. As has been stated, the issue is that anything with this much flexibility can be abused and brought into the extremely overpowered side of things. Flexibility like that is a min-maxers dream, but I don't feel it should be nerfed just because it can be abused. I believe that most players will have far more balance eidolons than the extreme samples that have popped up around here.
2. The AC needs to be addressed, without just pulling away the armor use. The number of attacks does get ridiculous if you min/max it, though I personally would get bored with setups that generate that huge number of attacks, as there would be no strategy involved. A few of the evolutions need clarification, but aren't necessarily broken. Also, the eidolon is far too predisposed towards being a combat monstrosity, where some of us want something that can be a skill monkey using the base stats.
3. OK, this could get long here.
First, the issue of AC. I will acknowledge that the numbers get out of hand, and far more easily than they do on a PC. (I can generate a PC with a 60 AC, but I actually have to work for it.) I have a number of suggestions for this.
- Modify the Natural Armor Evolution, making it grant 1 NA for every 1 evolution point, perhaps allowing it to be taken once per every 3 summoner levels instead of every 5 to make up for the lower gains. This would mean that 7 evolution points (at level 18) would get you 7 NA, instead of 4 evolution points (at level 15) getting you 8 NA (or 5 getting you 10 at level 20).
- Lower the increase to natural armor to begin with. The +12 that an animal companion gets over 20 levels is a fine number, especially when you consider that an eidolon can increase his natural armor in more than one way (evolutions and the Improved Natural Armor feat).
- Make it so the wearing armor cuts the eidolon's inherent natural armor (base form + automatic level increases) in half, or removes it completely. If cutting it in half, that should only effect the natural armor gained from the evolution if my above reduced gains suggestion is used, since the natural armor gained from evolution points does remove other options.
Second, the number of attacks. This, especially in combination with pounce (which is only available to 1 of the 3 base forms), is one of the big complaints. I don't have any hard and fast numbers, but I did have the idea to limit their attacks by level, perhaps only allowing number of primary attacks of 2+1 per 5 levels (with each pair of claws counting as one due to lower base damage) and additional secondary attacks equal to 1 per 3 levels (due to lower attack bonus).
My third complaint regarding the tendency towards combat monstrosities I don't really have any solid ideas on, though I like the idea of a point buy setup, with an eidolon's base stats just being 10s (which would especially work well for me, as many of the campaigns I've played in have you roll stats for companions like this, and I could then build it as I wanted). However, we would also need some less combat-oriented abilities (perhaps some evolutions resembling skill tricks or something).
4. To be honest, I'd like to see a class that goes in the opposite direction, where the monster is the PC, and there's almost no other way to play it. But even my druids are more based around their animal companions than their other aspects.
5. I think that depends on how you play it (and how you create the eidolon). If you have a combat monstrosity for an eidolon, then yes, it does, though I'm not sure this is a bad thing. If you instead look at the eidolon as a partner, whether serving as a mount, a flanking buddy, or some other battle tactic, I don't think it has to.
6. I have no comments here, as I don't see it as hugely overshadowed now, and I think any thoughts I have would like break game balance somewhere.
7. I'm honestly torn on this question. If you just look at the spell list, then the answer is undoubtedly yes. But I think the summoner, like the bard, has an actual place in combat. Mid-BAB, light armor, & a d8, especially used with an ally, don't make you a horrible combatant. Sure, you're not going to outshine the fighter, but I think you can have an effect on combat.
8. I'll admit, especially with the current nerfs, this is not what I thought when I thought summoner. I had assumed a full-casting class that would have some of its buddies out at all times (i.e. conjurer on steroids). That said, I really like the class as is, though it could maybe use a name change. I find it difficult to really give a straight answer on this one honestly.
I would see it more as a "choose option A or B at creation" rather than it replacing it for everyone. Afterall- some folks like Big E taking the lime light.
As for armor/gear and all that.. I'm not terribly good at figuring out non-over powered ways to implement such, so I will leave it to your all collective rules writing skills.
I would think that either
the gear you are wearing becomes the gear its wearing.
Or, the gear you wear melds and becomes completely non-functional (except for the mental stat boosters) and your "new form" has to outfit itself.
or, some happy medium. Maybe have it work like wildshape. some stuff fits inside some stuff has to be put on outside, and so on.
As i said- I'm not great at that sort of rules-writing.
-S
I honestly don't see gear being that much of an issue if you treat it like gear for animal companions. Let them wear anything their shape allows. If that means the eidolon ends up with 40 AC, than that means the summoner has that much less money to spend on defending himself. Also, a lot of spells are touch, which means all that armor doesn't do any good. Either way, the summoner is left with that much less protection, and a spellcaster who knows what they are doing would just go after the summoner; even mid and high level rogues could fairly easily ignore the eidolon and go for the softer target. Once the summoner is dead, hit the eidolon from range with touch attack spells, and the fight is over. The only time I could see gear being an issue is if the DM let the summoner have the usual amount of treasure/magic items for himself, and than some for the eidolon on top of that. Besides, given the amount of attention given to the topic, I would be very surprised if the eidolon in the final version gets all the natural armor it does now.
This is a repost of my post about eidolons on ENWorld:
Call me cruel, but I am letting a player run a Summoner but with a twist. The eidolon will be more like a tulpa and at each evolution it will strain to be free and independent of the summoner. If it gets the chance to break free it will be an independent creature, a thought-form made manifest in physical form and under its own control.
Such a creature would long to become a power in its own right and would strive to evolve through its own actions.
If the eidolon breaks free a summoner may conjure another, but there will always be a slight chance of the creature breaking free and becoming a creature under its own power as the new one evolves.
This throws in a little unpredictability as I find the class too stable considering all of the summoning and conjuring of creatures. Magic should be dangerous and it should backlash every so often.
This throws in a little unpredictability as I find the class too stable considering all of the summoning and conjuring of creatures. Magic should be dangerous and it should backlash every so often.
Why exactly should magic be dangerous? Do wizard spells have backlash? (perhaps an errant teleport but thats about it) Do dieties sometimes tell their servant clerics 'Nah no spells for you today, come back tommorrow at dawn and we'll talk'? Does a conjuration wizard run the risk of losing control of his giant spiders?
Why exactly should magic be dangerous? Do wizard spells have backlash? (perhaps an errant teleport but thats about it) Do dieties sometimes tell their servant clerics 'Nah no spells for you today, come back tommorrow at dawn and we'll talk'? Does a conjuration wizard run the risk of losing control of his giant spiders?
Magic should be dangerous as there is no reason for it to be always reliable, magic is a raw power of unknown origin. In my game world, if the cleric did something that their deity (ies) would find questionable then yes, there are no spells for that day, however, it is more likely that the spells would be weirded out somehow. If the God of Spiders knows of some reason to mess with the conjured spiders then yes, there is a chance that they may scuttle amok.
I wasn't planning on a massive chance of the eidolon breaking free, however it makes sense to me that such a creature, upon evolving, would want to be an independent creature. Certainly there are factors to consider, however the chance of the creature breaking free should be a real thing and therefore the summoner would do everything that they could to keep this from happening, which I would allow.
Predictability is boring, a possibility of things going awry keeps people on their toes.
...In my game world....
Predictability is boring, a possibility of things going awry keeps people on their toes.
If you want to do such a thing in your game world that is fine, but it is most assuredly a campain specific issue.
As for predictability being boring, does that mean you have a chances for the fighter's sword to turn into a fish at times during the day? Or the rogue to reach for his theives tools and find a jack in the box?
Fighters don't always hit, do they? Are they assured a strike with every sword swing? Alas, no.
Is a Rogue always going to disarm the trap? Every time? Ah, nay again.
It isn't about silliness, it is about predictability in process. Why should a magic-user's spells always go according to plan every time? It isn't about thinking three steps ahead of the game, it is about not knowing how the game will unfold. How boring for a player to always know the end result, to always think that they are in charge and master each situation.
Fighters don't always hit, do they? Are they assured a strike with every sword swing? Alas, no.
Is a Rogue always going to disarm the trap? Every time? Ah, nay again.It isn't about silliness, it is about predictability in process. Why should a magic-user's spells always go according to plan every time? It isn't about thinking three steps ahead of the game, it is about not knowing how the game will unfold. How boring for a player to always know the end result, to always think that they are in charge and master each situation.
But they dont always go according to plan. The same chance is there, with saving throws, or attack rolls. What spells do you know of that always work? A figther rolls to attack and either hits or misses. A spell caster casts a spell the target rolls to save, and the spell succeeds or fails. Still unpredictable.
As for summoned things, does the eidolon not have the same miss chance as the fighter? [assuming it is balanced ofcourse] So why is that aspect of the summoner penalized in addition?
I would say that this aspect of the summoner would be penalized only at the time that the eidolon evolves to point out that life is not something to play about with or to be taken as something absolutely under one's control by a mere mortal. In my first post on this subject you will notice that I mentioned using the eidolon as a tulpa, a thought form made manifest.
Life is a strange thing in the real world that persists and has qualities that are at times unusual and stronger than one might imagine.
In the end, I am not going to sell you on it and really, it doesn't matter anyway, everyone's game world is different. I enjoy keeping player's on their toes and adding elements of danger, I don't furnish a cakewalk. You want to summon a weird lifeform and use it to fight for you? It might just rebel when it gets stronger, it might yearn to strike out on its own.
Not to point out anyone else, but then Quijenoth posts about limiting the eidolon's gear. Does that not penalize the summoner by not allowing the same gear that anyone else might have?
[I like the idea though, I must say.]
|
|
I would say that this aspect of the summoner would be penalized only at the time that the eidolon evolves to point out that life is not something to play about with or to be taken as something absolutely under one's control by a mere mortal. In my first post on this subject you will notice that I mentioned using the eidolon as a tulpa, a thought form made manifest.
Life is a strange thing in the real world that persists and has qualities that are at times unusual and stronger than one might imagine.
In the end, I am not going to sell you on it and really, it doesn't matter anyway, everyone's game world is different. I enjoy keeping player's on their toes and adding elements of danger, I don't furnish a cakewalk. You want to summon a weird lifeform and use it to fight for you? It might just rebel when it gets stronger, it might yearn to strike out on its own.
I assume you force Rangers and Druids to take similar tests? They might not be the powerful extraplanar ally that an Eidolon is but they have wants too, I expect. Mating, socializing with their own kind, things like that. Should not the Druid's bear consider bolting when it reaches maturity? Should not a Ranger's wolf desire to join a pack? Friendship? Love? Why can't a Summoner have the same bond with his Eidolon? My own considers his Eidolon a friend, a brother. If my Eidolon feels the same why would he leave?
The idea you propose makes a certain amount of sense if the Summoner never gained strength but the Eidolon did. If the summoner can coerce and (to a degree) control a Glabrezu why can't it control its own Eidolon even if it is a master/servant relationship?
|
|
You wouldn't need two paths if there were evolutions that let your eidolon amplify your summoning. That would let you turn your eidolon into nothing more than walking a storage battery for summoning power, making it less of a focus and improving your ability to summon other things at the same time.
Wouldn't that be kind of the second path I'm talking about? What would prevent the Summoner having a fairly bad ass combat beast that also amplified summoning?
I would say that this aspect of the summoner would be penalized only at the time that the eidolon evolves to point out that life is not something to play about with or to be taken as something absolutely under one's control by a mere mortal. In my first post on this subject you will notice that I mentioned using the eidolon as a tulpa, a thought form made manifest.
Life is a strange thing in the real world that persists and has qualities that are at times unusual and stronger than one might imagine.
In the end, I am not going to sell you on it and really, it doesn't matter anyway, everyone's game world is different. I enjoy keeping player's on their toes and adding elements of danger, I don't furnish a cakewalk. You want to summon a weird lifeform and use it to fight for you? It might just rebel when it gets stronger, it might yearn to strike out on its own.
Not to point out anyone else, but then Quijenoth posts about limiting the eidolon's gear. Does that not penalize the summoner by not allowing the same gear that anyone else might have?
[I like the idea though, I must say.]
I dont think limiting gear is a penalty to the summoner, its a power restriction on the eidolon. But you are right, you dont have to sell your campaign to me, I'm not in it, I was just pointing out what I think may be an imbalance between how you are treating casters vs martial characters. This is ofcourse completely acceptable if thats the intent, just look how popular Darksun is right?
Kyrt-Ryder: in response to your spoiler point. I just stated that the eidolon will be treated as a tulpa in my game, the character is Chaotic Neutral, which makes sense, however you slice it, this is the enslavement of a creature, as we talked about it at the table, a Good alignment didn't make sense. Bear in mind that my decision was a consensus, we are oldschoolers, we aren't tyrants, the rules are fast and loose and up for debate. Rulings, not rules, is the motto at the table. I proposed the tulpa aspect, we read through the summoner class together and this was agreed on. As a thought form given life, each time that the eidolon evolves, it will attempt to break free and has a 15% chance (with a cumulative 1% added each additional evolution). So really, it probably won't happen, the player is fine with it, and no toes were stepped on during the creation of the character.
|
It really boils down to this. If you enjoyed programs like Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh! and wanted to play a character like that than this is the class that's been served up for you on a platter.Personal opinion clearly but, This is Pathfinder, not Pokemon. Your character should be the main focus in your playing. It sounds like this is more a Pokemon class than a Summoner now.
Do this mean the monk becomes a streetfighter because some one wants to make a character from Streetfighter? Is the rogue a ninja because some one liked the ninja from G.I. Joe? Is the wizard Harry Potter?
You can make all the classes sound like something else.
|
|
Basically, a tulpa is a being that comes into existence through sheer willpower. He kept referring to it as a thoughtform. Basically, imagine creating the eidolon out of nothing but thought, giving it form and substance through sheer willpower. In this case, the minute ritual would probably some manner of meditation necessary to collect yourself enough to create the eidolon for the day.
The imaginary friend made real? Though 'friend' in this case may be stretching it...
|
As far as I know the "only one summon at a time" applies only to the special ability? That at least doesn't make me sad. Okay, so you'll have to use your spellpower to have multiple summon. Like everyone else has to, to have summons at all. Hmm... Ouch. You're really in trouble.
Considering that you have the spellpower of a *Bard* and are in competition with the *Druid*.. actually it -is- ouch.
A druid is a better summoner than the summoner, the pet is comparable, the druid gets better spellcasting, and the druid gets wildshape.
The summoner had more summons. That made sense. Now they don't.
-James
I would love for you to back up that statement by building a AnCo and an eidelon at the same level where they are comparable, without intentionally choosing weaker abilities for the eidelon. Cause from what I see at any given level an AnCo would get slaughtered by an Eidelon without some mitigating factor.
I would love for you to back up that statement by building a AnCo and an eidelon at the same level where they are comparable, without intentionally choosing weaker abilities for the eidelon. Cause from what I see at any given level an AnCo would get slaughtered by an Eidelon without some mitigating factor.
As far as I know the "only one summon at a time" applies only to the special ability? That at least doesn't make me sad. Okay, so you'll have to use your spellpower to have multiple summon. Like everyone else has to, to have summons at all. Hmm... Ouch. You're really in trouble.
Considering that you have the spellpower of a *Bard* and are in competition with the *Druid*.. actually it -is- ouch.
A druid is a better summoner than the summoner, the pet is comparable, the druid gets better spellcasting, and the druid gets wildshape.
The summoner had more summons. That made sense. Now they don't.
-James
What do you mean by 'weaker' abilities? We have already seen if you try to build an eidolon that is 'like' an animal companion it is only slightly better. For instance a while back someone built a constrictor snake eidolon with scent and such. It was better but not by a huge amount. It all about how you divide your evolution points. If you pack everything into offense you certainly will have a walking meteor swarm but the eidolon doesnt have to be built that way. There are plenty of good things that are not more natural attacks.
And wouldnt the full caster who can be a descent combatant in his own right standing behind the animal companion as opposed to the reduced caster summoner be a mitigating factor?
|
|
I would love for you to back up that statement by building a AnCo and an eidelon at the same level where they are comparable, without intentionally choosing weaker abilities for the eidelon. Cause from what I see at any given level an AnCo would get slaughtered by an Eidelon without some mitigating factor.
As far as I know the "only one summon at a time" applies only to the special ability? That at least doesn't make me sad. Okay, so you'll have to use your spellpower to have multiple summon. Like everyone else has to, to have summons at all. Hmm... Ouch. You're really in trouble.
Considering that you have the spellpower of a *Bard* and are in competition with the *Druid*.. actually it -is- ouch.
A druid is a better summoner than the summoner, the pet is comparable, the druid gets better spellcasting, and the druid gets wildshape.
The summoner had more summons. That made sense. Now they don't.
-James
What do you mean by 'weaker' abilities? We have already seen if you try to build an eidolon that is 'like' an animal companion it is only slightly better. For instance a while back someone built a constrictor snake eidolon with scent and such. It was better but not by a huge amount. It all about how you divide your evolution points. If you pack everything into offense you certainly will have a walking meteor swarm but the eidolon doesnt have to be built that way. There are plenty of good things that are not more natural attacks.
And wouldnt the full caster who can be a descent combatant in his own right standing behind the animal companion as opposed to the reduced caster summoner be a mitigating factor?
Right but at the same time that you built your constrictor snake you were forgoing a lot of abilities in order to build it "like the snake" whereas if you had just built it "like an eidelon" it would have been better by leaps and bounds. Also can you link to the thread where they did that?