I'm excited to build a whole bunch of summoner concepts.
Me too! :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been wanting to try some of the ritual summon spells to summon a creature, but they made the ritual summons require too many casters assisting. It doesn't seem usable in normal play.
Keep in mind that those things might exceed the current balance ( see any summoning spell progression ), since they have no limits, although they might cost a lot.
A simple task is worth a consumable of that creature level, while for example fighting on your side for a combat encounter would require a payment like a magical item of the creature level.
I mean, it feels balanced here:
1) Requiring different people for the summoning ( which costs golds )
2) Being able to ask for a simple task or a difficult task, but at a cost. For example:
Summoning a lvl 12 creature would require:
2 gp × the spell level × the target’s level= 144 ( 2x6x12 golds )
Then it comes down to the additional payment
If the ritual succeeds, you must offer the servitor payment depending on factors such as the duration and danger of the task. Payment always costs at least as much as a consumable item of the creature’s level, even for a short and simple task, and it often costs as much as a permanent magic item of the creature’s level to persuade a creature to fight alongside you.
So, for a simple and short task ( trivial stuff or situational like healing team mates, removing a curse, etc... ) a lvl 12 consumable might be for example a scroll meant to cast a 6th level spell, which is worth 300g
For a dangerous and more permanent task it "might require" ( because it's not granted that you'd be able to persuade the creature to fight alongside you ) a permanent magical item of the creature level, which might be worth around 1500/1700g.
The cost is really high, but its power is absurd ( it would be another character during a maybe difficult fight, in addition to anything else the party might summon ). That's why rituals are not supposed to be given to single characters (...
Which is why they are not really usable in normal play. No one in my group even bothers as they don't want to spend the gold or try to make the ritual rolls requiring nearly the entire group. It seems like they made these rituals, then make them unusable so that I'm not even sure why they're in the game. 5E did a much better job with rituals and summons by a country mile.
I want to play a character with what is known as a pet. Usually a demon or elemental that is an entirely separate creature with interesting powers that obeys my commands including dying while I run if needed and is a capable damage dealer or tank.
The PF1 summoner fulfilled this class fantasy. The PF2 summoner doesn't appear to fulfill this class fantasy. It is something else.
It seems odd that a video game can put these classes in the game in a well balanced fashion, but it has led to some strange design decisions in PF2. I feel like these changes were unnecessary as they had a quality model to build on for a summoned companion with the animal companion rules.
You can be a powerful martial with an animal companion as a completely separate creature with full hit points for both the martial and the creature, but somehow they couldn't manage it with the summoner.
It doesn't make sense to me. But it's said and done now. I'm disappointed, but I like the summoner class enough to give it a try and see what works. I want to see all the feats, abilities, and build combos before I make a final judgment. But this definitely isn't the PF summoner I had enjoyed in PF1. It doesn't feel like a summoner much at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can wizards summon fully powered Eidolons?Unless they changed it in the new book from the playtest, even summoners do not summon Eidolons, they manifest them.
And thematically the eidolon is still basically a summon, so.I disagree with that: it has more in common with animal companions that the summoning spells. To me, Eidolons and summoned creatures couldn't be further apart as it's more like pulling a familiar out of Sleeves of Storage or a Pet Cache. I don't call myself a summoner if I pull a rabbit out of my hat. ;)The description, at least in the playtest PDF, is
You’re the mortal conduit for a powerful being called an eidolon, which you can summon into your world. Whether your eidolon is a friend, a servant, or even a personal god, your connection to them shapes the course of your life and marks you as someone extraordinary.So yes, the summoner summons a specific powerful being into his world.
The fact they choose "manifest" instead of "summon" was probably to address feats and similar stuff to the eidolon's only.Not to say that the so deep bond a summoner managed to create with a specific creature imo brings him at the top of the "summoning ladder".
They can write that it is a summoned creature. But for those of us that played PF1 and every iteration of D&D, it doesn't feel like any summoned creature that I've ever known. Feels more like you split yourself into two beings manifesting some inner idea of a creature from your imagination that shares your life force.
In PF1 the eidolon felt like a summoned creature, especially the Unchained Summoner. They really made you feel like you summoned the appropriate creature in PF1. It was an amazing addition to the PF1 game that I will miss in PF2.
Negative is an option for dragon breath so an Eidolon that I would maybe play.
Dragon Eidolon with glide, constrict and bloody claws.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree with Deriven. At this point a beastmaster feels more like a summoner to me than summoner does. I'll probably get around to writing my own version eventually taking pieces from druid, summoner, and beastmaster to create it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well in the survey had the option of making the Eidolon work like an Animal Companion but more customizable with Summoner as a full caster, at the cost that the Eidolon itself would be weaker.
It happened that the majority of the votes has gone to keep the Eidolon stronger at the cost of the Shared hit points.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PF1 summoner fulfilled this class fantasy. The PF2 summoner doesn't appear to fulfill this class fantasy. It is something else.
Quite intentionally so, yes.
You can be a powerful martial with an animal companion as a completely separate creature with full hit points for both the martial and the creature, but somehow they couldn't manage it with the summoner.
That's because the Eidolon is waaaay more powerful than an animal companion. A lot of people want a "pet class" where the pet can actually competitively hang with the PCs, not be a disposable damage sponge/buff. Revisit this old thread, and think about how the summoner functions compared to Zapp's complaints about animal companions.
One could make a case that thematically these roles should have been reversed: a flesh and blood animal companion may be treated as more precious than an immortal spirit. But the shard HP/action pool wouldn't really work on an animal as well, and in general the much more complex mechanics would have been a bad fit for the CRB.
I want to play a character with what is known as a pet. Usually a demon or elemental that is an entirely separate creature with interesting powers
Animal companions with some of the rare ability sets (genie blessed) seem to fit that fairly well, and there's design space for more of those to be published.
But this definitely isn't the PF summoner I had enjoyed in PF1. It doesn't feel like a summoner much at all.
Unfortunately, no class symbolized the broken balance of PF1 more than the summoner, so I don't think there was ever much hope here.
It seems odd that a video game can put these classes in the game in a well balanced fashion, but it has led to some strange design decisions in PF2.
Video games aren't TTRPGs. Most notably, video games (or at least, ones like WoW) don't require the other players to idly twiddle their thumbs and gradually lose interest in the game when one player's turn takes three times as long.
that obeys my commands including dying while I run if needed and is a capable damage dealer or tank.
I will note the Eidolon CAN still be used in a similar role: see my notes as to its scouting potential. It can also quite credibly hold the line while the party retreats thanks to it's size, abilities like grab, and the ability to be healed from longer distances thanks to the shared HP link. You mostly just need to make sure someone can carry the summoner themself should it get knocked out, which isn't unreasonable. I've seen monks run from battles carrying gnomes and halflings a lot, actually.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At level 20, an Animal Companion does 30% of the damage an Eidolon does (Strength-based Eidolon without Boost Eidolon).
So, I think there is no comparison between both. The Eidolon is the closest thing to a real pet.
ACs are only strong at low level (when they cost you the majority of your feats, so it seems legitimate to me).
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the shared HP is pretty rad. Using your own life force to power and augment a summoned creature is a pretty compelling trope, and happens to allow for such a character to be balanced.
I think a little adjustment of perspective here would go a long way. In any other context this would 100% be considered a summoning specialist, but since it doesn't perfectly match a narrow mechanical ruleset it somehow doesn't count?
I don't really see how these complaints could be handled in anything other than a massively OP disaster of a class.
Plus, if you really want a summoner focused only on classic summoming spells, the wizard is still here for you. In a real way, it's a good thing this class doesn't invalidate the existing options
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish they’d renamed the class as well. But I do like what I’m hearing about the split slot feat for summons. I’m hopeful that will help recreate the “summoning font” some of us advocated for. I mean, 8 casts in your top slots seems like it would come close, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "summoning font" seems like something better done with an archetype. Since the whole "you get summon monster SLAs" on the PF1 Summoner always felt vestigial to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish they’d renamed the class as well. But I do like what I’m hearing about the split slot feat for summons. I’m hopeful that will help recreate the “summoning font” some of us advocated for. I mean, 8 casts in your top slots seems like it would come close, right?
Master Summoner is only one slot per day. So it just bumps you from 4 slots to 5 slots but two of them have to be used on summons/incarnates.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "summoning font" seems like something better done with an archetype. Since the whole "you get summon monster SLAs" on the PF1 Summoner always felt vestigial to me.
In actual play, sure, but for me it is what justified the name. You had an innate ability to summon, completely separate from the rest of your spellcasting, that could be used for your eidolon or to summon generally.
The playtest PF2 summoner didn’t really have that.
In the end, the class is named what it is. My opinion on that is unchanged, but pretty unimportant.
I wish they’d renamed the class as well. But I do like what I’m hearing about the split slot feat for summons. I’m hopeful that will help recreate the “summoning font” some of us advocated for. I mean, 8 casts in your top slots seems like it would come close, right?Master Summoner is only one slot per day. So it just bumps you from 4 slots to 5 slots but two of them have to be used on summons/incarnates.
Welp, that sucks then. I was imagining being able to use a top level or top -1 summon in every fight.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Themes and flavors aside, imo it's best to think of the Summoner + Eidolon less as someone with a companion and more as a single entity, because that's how you play for the most part.
A summoning spellcaster or an animal companion ranger uses their pet to supplement their actions, manage MAP, act as an additional meatshield and support their character.
But the eidolon and summoner share MAP (not to mention the summoner has caster weapon proficiencies because I guess Paizo hates fun) and skill proficiencies and health.
That's all pretty basic stuff we know about, but it's worth emphasizing because a lot of people keep comparing the Summoner to a Ranger or Druid with an animal companion and that's just not the mechanical design space it exists in. If you go into the Summoner looking for a character with the ultimate companion, you might end up let down because the Eidolon is only a separate entity for flavor purposes. Mechanically it's just you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a little adjustment of perspective here would go a long way. In any other context this would 100% be considered a summoning specialist, but since it doesn't perfectly match a narrow mechanical ruleset it somehow doesn't count?
Yes actually. I agree perspectives/expectations can be shifted, but if we’re doing that, why not shift the name of the class to match the updated PF2 mechanics.
A summoning spellcaster or an animal companion ranger uses their pet to supplement their actions, manage MAP, act as an additional meatshield and support their character.
But the eidolon and summoner share MAP (not to mention the summoner has caster weapon proficiencies because I guess Paizo hates fun) and skill proficiencies and health.
And this is probably the root of what makes an Eidolon distinct from a Summon. More so than not being a minion, more so than manifesting instead of summoning, an Eidolon has a completely different playstyle than PF2 summons. If an Eidolon played like a suped up summoned minion, then I’d have much fewer objections to the name.
They just…don’t.
Didn’t help these discussions that a lot of the people that wanted to keep the name were more interested in angering and insulting certain other posters, myself included, than what the class was called. So the possibility was more or less dead before it could even be seriously considered (assuming name changing was on the table in the first place, and it sounds like it was not).
|
Many many people argued for changing the names of the new Classes in the PF1 APG, especially the Oracle, to no avail. Same later for the Warpriest, even though portemanteau are not seen as proper names for a Class. So I have zero hope for a name change for a new Class. A PF1 Class with great fame : even less.
In some ways the real question is what Paizo's vision of the Summoner is, compared to other similar concepts.
For me personally to three main kinds of summoner I think of are warlocks from WoW, Pokemon trainers, or Yuna from FFX. Obviously the first two and right out with this version of summoners, but I can kind of make a Yuna style one, if I keep it to a single sort of eidolon instead of a handful. Only problem there is your stuck as a sort of one trick pony.
PF2's Summoner is really good for doing the puppet archetype in fighting games; characters like Carl Clover where the main deal is how cool and strong the summoned partner is and the summoner plays second fiddle mechanically are everywhere in that genre. I really wanted the "summoner is the primary, summon is an assist" to be the realm of the summoner archetype but Paizo has decided to make it way weaker than it needed to be...
If anything watching some ArcSys puppet characters might help people get a better grasp on what the summoner is supposed to feel like, Zato's another good example where you're really picking him over other characters because you want to play Eddie.
EDIT: It occurs to me that the "split skills" concept from before might actually make a lot more sense on a multiclass summoner. If you start off in Rogue you still have a main character with 18 DEX/16 CHA and a sub character with 18 STR, but with far more skill increases available you can feel a lot better about making your eidolon a maneuver buddy and investing in skills you wouldn't normally be good at.
Well in the survey had the option of making the Eidolon work like an Animal Companion but more customizable with Summoner as a full caster, at the cost that the Eidolon itself would be weaker.
It happened that the majority of the votes has gone to keep the Eidolon stronger at the cost of the Shared hit points.
So, a reskinned AC with *"some extra customization".
*Extra customizable means more or lesss nothing, since the AC is not customizable at all because all choices are forced ( tied to STR or DEX builds, and STR builds don't work at all because of AC issues ). A wolf will always be a wolf, and a bear will always be a bear.
I mean, it seems something than can easily be done wtih any AC...
With this summoner we have a completely new and original class to play with, and an archetype meant to give customization to an existing character with the companion feature would require nothing create ( and would make happy anybody ).
I've been contemplating doing this as I think it would work with some minor modifications that should not imbalance the game. But I'm waiting to see the eidolon first.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's because the Eidolon is waaaay more powerful than an animal companion. A lot of people want a "pet class" where the pet can actually competitively hang with the PCs, not be a disposable damage sponge/buff. Revisit this old thread, and think about how the summoner functions compared to Zapp's complaints about animal companions.
One could make a case that thematically these roles should have been reversed: a flesh and blood animal companion may be treated as more precious than an immortal spirit. But the shard HP/action pool wouldn't really work on an animal as well, and in general the much more complex mechanics would have been a bad fit for the CRB.
I will test this when I pit an animal companion against an eidolon. I really want to see if this is true. An animal companion can be quite powerful, especially a nimble animal companion with a fairly high AC.
Yet the real question isn't if an eidolon is as more powerful than an animal companion. It's is a summoner with an eidolon as powerful as another class with an animal companion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Themes and flavors aside, imo it's best to think of the Summoner + Eidolon less as someone with a companion and more as a single entity, because that's how you play for the most part.
A summoning spellcaster or an animal companion ranger uses their pet to supplement their actions, manage MAP, act as an additional meatshield and support their character.
But the eidolon and summoner share MAP (not to mention the summoner has caster weapon proficiencies because I guess Paizo hates fun) and skill proficiencies and health.
That's all pretty basic stuff we know about, but it's worth emphasizing because a lot of people keep comparing the Summoner to a Ranger or Druid with an animal companion and that's just not the mechanical design space it exists in. If you go into the Summoner looking for a character with the ultimate companion, you might end up let down because the Eidolon is only a separate entity for flavor purposes. Mechanically it's just you.
The shared MAP I think will cause a summoner to get absolutely destroyed by another class using an Animal Companion. A big advantage of an animal companion is it is a separate entity with its own MAP. But I will test it and see what happens.
That is one of things I think I will be rewriting. It seems like another one of those overkill attempts at balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because the Eidolon is waaaay more powerful than an animal companion. A lot of people want a "pet class" where the pet can actually competitively hang with the PCs, not be a disposable damage sponge/buff. Revisit this old thread, and think about how the summoner functions compared to Zapp's complaints about animal companions.
One could make a case that thematically these roles should have been reversed: a flesh and blood animal companion may be treated as more precious than an immortal spirit. But the shard HP/action pool wouldn't really work on an animal as well, and in general the much more complex mechanics would have been a bad fit for the CRB.
I will test this when I pit an animal companion against an eidolon. I really want to see if this is true. An animal companion can be quite powerful, especially a nimble animal companion with a fairly high AC.
Yet the real question isn't if an eidolon is as more powerful than an animal companion. It's is a summoner with an eidolon as powerful as another class with an animal companion.
The summoner could spend the same number of feats to get an animal companion as the other class in this comparison does so I'm not sure if that's a good measure.
The summoner could spend the same number of feats to get an animal companion as the other class in this comparison does so I'm not sure if that's a good measure.That's because the Eidolon is waaaay more powerful than an animal companion. A lot of people want a "pet class" where the pet can actually competitively hang with the PCs, not be a disposable damage sponge/buff. Revisit this old thread, and think about how the summoner functions compared to Zapp's complaints about animal companions.
One could make a case that thematically these roles should have been reversed: a flesh and blood animal companion may be treated as more precious than an immortal spirit. But the shard HP/action pool wouldn't really work on an animal as well, and in general the much more complex mechanics would have been a bad fit for the CRB.
I will test this when I pit an animal companion against an eidolon. I really want to see if this is true. An animal companion can be quite powerful, especially a nimble animal companion with a fairly high AC.
Yet the real question isn't if an eidolon is as more powerful than an animal companion. It's is a summoner with an eidolon as powerful as another class with an animal companion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The summoner could spend the same number of feats to get an animal companion as the other class in this comparison does so I'm not sure if that's a good measure.That's because the Eidolon is waaaay more powerful than an animal companion. A lot of people want a "pet class" where the pet can actually competitively hang with the PCs, not be a disposable damage sponge/buff. Revisit this old thread, and think about how the summoner functions compared to Zapp's complaints about animal companions.
One could make a case that thematically these roles should have been reversed: a flesh and blood animal companion may be treated as more precious than an immortal spirit. But the shard HP/action pool wouldn't really work on an animal as well, and in general the much more complex mechanics would have been a bad fit for the CRB.
I will test this when I pit an animal companion against an eidolon. I really want to see if this is true. An animal companion can be quite powerful, especially a nimble animal companion with a fairly high AC.
Yet the real question isn't if an eidolon is as more powerful than an animal companion. It's is a summoner with an eidolon as powerful as another class with an animal companion.
The summoner could. That is a somewhat good idea. You could get an animal companion use your one action to have the AC attack with 2 actions without shared MAP bypassing the shared MAP rule that would make it so bad for the summoner itself to attack with his companion. That would be interesting.
The summoner could. That is a somewhat good idea. You could get an animal companion use your one action to have the AC attack with 2 actions without shared MAP bypassing the shared MAP rule that would make it so bad for the summoner itself to attack with his companion. That would be interesting.The summoner could spend the same number of feats to get an animal companion as the other class in this comparison does so I'm not sure if that's a good measure.That's because the Eidolon is waaaay more powerful than an animal companion. A lot of people want a "pet class" where the pet can actually competitively hang with the PCs, not be a disposable damage sponge/buff. Revisit this old thread, and think about how the summoner functions compared to Zapp's complaints about animal companions.
One could make a case that thematically these roles should have been reversed: a flesh and blood animal companion may be treated as more precious than an immortal spirit. But the shard HP/action pool wouldn't really work on an animal as well, and in general the much more complex mechanics would have been a bad fit for the CRB.
I will test this when I pit an animal companion against an eidolon. I really want to see if this is true. An animal companion can be quite powerful, especially a nimble animal companion with a fairly high AC.
Yet the real question isn't if an eidolon is as more powerful than an animal companion. It's is a summoner with an eidolon as powerful as another class with an animal companion.
It's something I wanted to try with a dhampir with an undead pet if we ever get an undead eidelon.... or I could do it now with a plant summoner leshy with an arboreal sapling pet....imma basic boy who likes staying on theme. ooo ooo, also kabold dragon summoner with riding drake
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been contemplating doing this as I think it would work with some minor modifications that should not imbalance the game. But I'm waiting to see the eidolon first.
I know there has a lot been released but even so we should really in all fairness shelve this conversation for now then.
Just a couple more days...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been contemplating doing this as I think it would work with some minor modifications that should not imbalance the game. But I'm waiting to see the eidolon first.I know there has a lot been released but even so we should really in all fairness shelve this conversation for now then.
Just a couple more days...
Yep. I want to see all the feats and eidolons first and how they can be built. We're getting little tastes in this thread and not a complete picture.
|
I'd be willing to make a summoner build to compete against a companion build.
I think a white room comparison is going to miss a lot of factors.
One really big advantage the Eidolon has is its adapatability. And that is something that is going to be significantly more valuable in some campaigns and some circumstances than in others
I'd be willing to make a summoner build to compete against a companion build.I think a white room comparison is going to miss a lot of factors.
One really big advantage the Eidolon has is its adapatability. And that is something that is going to be significantly more valuable in some campaigns and some circumstances than in others
It sounds like it would be really valuable in your own AV campaign, actually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The summoner is something I can see building into an effective character. They did some tweaking that should help quite a bit. I'm still going to make some modifications, but not as many I thought I might have to.
The summoner is better than I thought it would be.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the book is on Nethys and wow, people were arguing so much that the "eidolon" was summoned. But they explicitly tell you that it doesn't have the "Summoned" trait. While literally never saying that you "summon" it, you: beckon, manifest, bring to reality, etc. But never summon it, in fact the word "summoned" is used twice.
People were arguing that it is thematically summoned, not that it mechanivally has the summoned trait. All those words you quoted are synonyms for summon that are pretty obviously used just to avoid conflict with the summon trait.
This is like arguing the fighter isn't a fighter because it's description refers to a battle instead of a fight. Real silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is like arguing the fighter isn't a fighter because it's description refers to a battle instead of a fight.
IMO, it's like arguing that a champion or barbarian should be called a fighter because they thematically fights things... Capitalized words in the game have meaning past the common vernacular or comparing synonyms. The fact is that the Summoner doesn't have a whole lot to do with Summoned creatures and how thematically linked something is is a matter of opinion. So I think saying "real silly" is... real silly IMO. :P
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wanting the class not to be called a summoner bc the eidelon doesn't have the summoned tag seems like some old guard moral victory of "see, I told you it wasn't good enough!" when it's really just a balancing concern. Thematically and mechanically this seems like a summoner to me. Honestly it's one of the coolest classes in the game so far, and I came in with the expectation that the magus would take that prize (magi are still great but summoners are just that much more fun to build).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wanting the class not to be called a summoner bc the eidelon doesn't have the summoned tag seems like some old guard moral victory of "see, I told you it wasn't good enough!" when it's really just a balancing concern.
For myself, it has nothing to do with that: I wanted a summoner that actually revolved around what the game defines as Summoning and what we got is one that revolves around a pet and the Summoning is a FAR distant second. IMO, Summoner is like going to an ice cream shop and all they offer is Italian ice: Now Italian ice is good and I enjoy it, but I walked into the place expecting ice cream. The fact that the clerk can find an old tub of vanilla in the back of the freezer if I REALLY want ice cream doesn't make it an ice cream shop for me.
Thematically and mechanically this seems like a summoner to me.
And that's great for you. IMO it fails in both but as these are opinions, it's not like either of us are right or wrong. I just find people calling one of them "silly" as going too far. I mean I'm not out here disparaging other peoples points of view.
Honestly it's one of the coolest classes in the game so far, and I came in with the expectation that the magus would take that prize (magi are still great but summoners are just that much more fun to build).
It's... Different. Can't say I'm a huge fan of combo hp and actions. Or wave casting in general for that matter. I'll play around with them but I'm not expecting myself to change my mind much on it.
|
|
Wanting the class not to be called a summoner bc the eidelon doesn't have the summoned tag seems like some old guard moral victory of "see, I told you it wasn't good enough!" when it's really just a balancing concern.For myself, it has nothing to do with that: I wanted a summoner that actually revolved around what the game defines as Summoning and what we got is one that revolves around a pet and the Summoning is a FAR distant second. IMO, Summoner is like going to an ice cream shop and all they offer is Italian ice: Now Italian ice is good and I enjoy it, but I walked into the place expecting ice cream. The fact that the clerk can find an old tub of vanilla in the back of the freezer if I REALLY want ice cream doesn't make it an ice cream shop for me.
Thematically and mechanically this seems like a summoner to me.And that's great for you. IMO it fails in both but as these are opinions, it's not like either of us are right or wrong. I just find people calling one of them "silly" as going too far. I mean I'm not out here disparaging other peoples points of view.
Honestly it's one of the coolest classes in the game so far, and I came in with the expectation that the magus would take that prize (magi are still great but summoners are just that much more fun to build).It's... Different. Can't say I'm a huge fan of combo hp and actions. Or wave casting in general for that matter. I'll play around with them but I'm not expecting myself to change my mind much on it.
The PF1 Summoner was, from the very start, extremely focused on their Eidolon. Further Summoning abilities felt like an afterthought TBH. And most people wanted the feel of the PF1 Summoner back.
And Classes do not change name in Pathfinder. Just check the Oracle and how little divining the future it actually does.
Obviously it does not help that some present their opinion as fact.
Well part of it IS fact: the eidelon isn't a Summons. Whether that matters in it's meeting the thematic and/or mechanical expectations of a summoner class is the opinion that varies from person to person.
The PF1 Summoner was, from the very start, extremely focused on their Eidolon.
It was equally focused on it's summoning abilities with a font-like ability outside it's casting.
Further Summoning abilities felt like an afterthought TBH. And most people wanted the feel of the PF1 Summoner back.
Myself, I was in it to summons unless I was a synthesist. Myself, I even liked the Monster Tactician archetype for the Inquisitor because you got the summoning ability WITHOUT the Eidolon baggage.
And Classes do not change name in Pathfinder. Just check the Oracle and how little divining the future it actually does.
The difference, IMO, is that it references a defined Keyword of the game but has VERY little to do with it. So there is no Oracle keyword past the class but there IS for Summoned. Myself, I'd have rather had more summoning abilities that the class have a name change. Both are moot at this point though.
|
|
Obviously it does not help that some present their opinion as fact.Well part of it IS fact: the eidelon isn't a Summons. Whether that matters in it's meeting the thematic and/or mechanical expectations of a summoner class is the opinion that varies from person to person.
I think the Silly part was very much not about this fact of game terminology.
I think the Silly part was very much not about this fact of game terminology.Obviously it does not help that some present their opinion as fact.Well part of it IS fact: the eidelon isn't a Summons. Whether that matters in it's meeting the thematic and/or mechanical expectations of a summoner class is the opinion that varies from person to person.
I was replying to the post that was commenting about it.