Two things that I think have come out of the Summoner play test.
The first is that people really like the Eidolon idea of being able to 'build' a monster.
The second is that it is very hard to balance the Eidolon with the additional magical abilities of the Summoner.
I would add to those points that there has often been a desire for a Savage Monster Class or class system for DnD.
The biggest problem of those ideas has been that when you start to build something like a Giant or Vampire that they don't balance well with the class system. The Eidolon evolution system does mesh with the class system.
Last, I would point out that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids can all be focused as Summoners (a few extra feats might help to reduce casting times; extend the length on a summoning; or further grow a familiar to be more of a permanent summon but otherwise work within the system). A summoning class doesn't really bring major 'newness' to the game (fill a missing niche).
In design, you focus on what sells and what people are interested in. I would drop the spells and summoning and focus on the concept of the Eidolon. This is the idea that has the 'buzz' and the interest of the boards. People have been interested in the option of being able to select from a list of abilities to make a monster that they want to play.
I would suggest that starting with the Eidolon base, you would need to add in a few 'paths' like the Sorcerer or Wizard has to represent major choices like being 'Undead', 'Dragon', 'Angelic', 'Abberant', and others. These types of paths would add things like better hit die type, breath weapon, outsider immunities, healing, exceeding some basic limits of limbs (Abberant would have this), negative or positive energy effects.
This would give something truly different for the players to have as a choice and use a base for players that want to be a mixture of a class and a monster while still fitting within the class system.
|
I was finding myself more excited about the Eidolon than the summoner as well, and was thinking how awesome it would be if I was just building a monstrous character to play as, rather than a pet for the PC. I could definitely see the Eidolon rules being adapted for a monstrous/shape-shifting class. Actually, shape-shifting seems like it would be the way to go on this one, maybe as the byproduct of sharing your body with some other-worldly creature.
I think the idea has merit
I like the idea of the summoner because through the E. the summoner is able to directly participate in all areas of the game. The player is involved in both the direct offense/defense and as a spell caster strategy and making use of well timed spells (from a safe area).
Additionally if the E. is "killed" no big expense in resurection, healing, etc. No chance the E is going to rise as an undead creature at the next full moon, ...etc...etc.
1> Personally, I am not a big fan of the stand back and watch others risk their lives type of approach to gaming. I know it is not everyone's thing but even if you are doing support, you should be close and supporting instead of lurking around some corner. The idea of it is okay if the Eidolon dies is like telling your party fighter that they were a good meat shield and you will miss them. If you were the fighter then you have a higher stake in what happens to you. A higher stake in what happens to a player is normally a good thing in game play as they become more concerned on how the dice roll.
2> Seperating the Eidolon idea and making a pure monster class will help provide a 'new' option for fighter types (no magic) that have been wanting something new. Currently the main choices have been
Fighter - good with armour, weapons, and feats
Barbarian - uses rage to make up for armour
Monk - Use mystical ki to supplement strong unarmed attacks
(While Paladin and Ranger exist they have magic mixed into their make up)
A Monster class would offer a non-magical fighter alternative. It would also make a good mix class for people looking to combine their fighter with something else.
It is a piece of the puzzle that has been mostly missing from the game.
3> I've been gaming for over thirty years and there has always been people that wanted to play the role of some sort of monster or intelligent animal. A class that gave them the option and DM's a way to satisfy people wanting to play Unicorns and Dragons would be a real plus for the Pathfinder system. I think you would attract more 'new' customers with such a class then a variation on summoning. In the end it is sales that drive the business and pay the bills.
4> Focusing on the abilities of the Eidolon alone as the character should make balancing the class much easier than trying to do the current Eidolon companion, SLA, and Spells.
-------------------------
I am not sure that 'shape shifting' class would be as good as a monster class. 'Shape shifting' would start to tread close to the Druid's Wild Shape schtik. There are also the Beast Shape, Elemental Shape, and Form of the Dragon spells in the game.
A non-magical monster with 'natural' attacks would be an alternative for someone looking to be a bashy fighter but not wanting to have the full weapons and armour kit. Changing or mutating every 1 to 3 levels should be plenty. Especially if players keep some consistancy in their changes (though many creatures go through metamorphisis that are very unrelated in shape and form from each other).
I was finding myself more excited about the Eidolon than the summoner as well, and was thinking how awesome it would be if I was just building a monstrous character to play as, rather than a pet for the PC. I could definitely see the Eidolon rules being adapted for a monstrous/shape-shifting class. Actually, shape-shifting seems like it would be the way to go on this one, maybe as the byproduct of sharing your body with some other-worldly creature.
I think the idea has merit
I actually enjoy the role-playing and character design opportunities created by the Summoner class--you can play it as a pokemon-style friendly relationship, an Aladdin/genie master/slave relationship, a weird facet of your personality given form, etc. So many great possibilities.
However, I also had the same idea about a shape-shifting class utilizing the eidolon's evolution-point idea. In fact, I was sort of expecting the alchemist's mutagens to involve some variant of this mechanic, but was reeeally wrong there... I haven't had time to sit down and come up with a home-brew yet, but I've been thinking about it. And I don't necessarily think it'll step on the druid's toes too much; I don't think he'll mind with his 9 levels of spells.
However, I haven't played the summoner yet, but I'm sort of curious how effective the eidolon would be without the summoner's buffing spells. Enlarge person, magic fang, etc seem like they'd make a big difference.
|
|
Honestly a shape-shifter class would be appropriate, because if you're making it a class then it is implied that you will be picking a race (like Human Shape-Shifter, or Gnome Shape-Shifter) like all of the other classes, which would still allow for multiclassing and all that jazz. If you make it a compound race/class then it opens up the quadruped and serpentine forms much more easily, and are just evolving to your true (unknown) form as you gain levels. I don't know... I guess I'll just have to stay on the fence with this one
I'm definately in favor of an official variation on the Eidolon that would let players 'build their own monster'. In D&D 3.5, letting players use monsterous characters was always a bit inconsistant, and it is even harder now since pathfinder gave up on (and rightfully so) listing LA for monsters. One of my players recently wanted a centaur, and I had to come up with a guess as to what I should make his HD and LA.
Unfortionately, I think the monster rules are so varried that it is unlikely that paizo will want to put together a full ruleset for letting a player be one. If they did, they would have to come up with a separate 'class' for each monster type (outsider, dragon, monsterous humanoid, animal...), with different hit dice, stats, and evolution point rates. The best we can probably hope for is a shapeshifter class.
Even if Paizo doesn't make one though, it shouldn't be too hard to put together just by looking at the summoner class.
I'm definately in favor of an official variation on the Eidolon that would let players 'build their own monster'. In D&D 3.5, letting players use monsterous characters was always a bit inconsistant, and it is even harder now since pathfinder gave up on (and rightfully so) listing LA for monsters. One of my players recently wanted a centaur, and I had to come up with a guess as to what I should make his HD and LA.
Unfortionately, I think the monster rules are so varried that it is unlikely that paizo will want to put together a full ruleset for letting a player be one. If they did, they would have to come up with a separate 'class' for each monster type (outsider, dragon, monsterous humanoid, animal...), with different hit dice, stats, and evolution point rates. The best we can probably hope for is a shapeshifter class.
Even if Paizo doesn't make one though, it shouldn't be too hard to put together just by looking at the summoner class.
Sorry, a slight threadjack... You could possibly do something like this for +0 LA... (from another thread my searchfu isn't up to finding).
Light Centaurs
+2 Strength, +2 Wisdom, –2 Intellegence: Centaurs are both mighty and cunning, but also a bit primal.
Medium: Centaurs are Medium creatures and have no bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Equine Steadiness: Centaurs have a base speed of 30 feet, but their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance.
Darkvision: Centaurs can see in the dark up to 60 feet.
Sure-Footed: Centaurs receive a +2 racial bonus on Acrobatics and Climb skill checks.
Born to Run: Centaurs receive Run as a bonus feat at 1st level.
Charger Breed: Centaurs deal double damage when charging with a lance and may wield a lance with one hand as if mounted.
Keen Senses: Centaurs receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception skill checks.
Hooves: Centaurs may make attacks with their hooves as a natural attack, but are considered unarmed and deal 1d4 each.
Weapon Familiarity: Centaurs are proficient with lances and javalins and treat two handed weapon a size catagory large is treated like
a medium sized weapon of the same name for purposes of porficiency and as a martial weapon.
Languages: Centaurs begin play speaking Common and Sylvan. Centaurs with high Intelligence scores can
choose from the following: Celestial, Draconic, Elven, Gnoll, Gnome, Goblin, and Orc.
I like the summoner class, but if the players had class levels it'd be insanely broken. Not only that, but think of a monk with 6 arms flurrying at higher levels would not only be overpowered, but would take FOREVER to have a turn with all those dice.
|
However, I haven't played the summoner yet, but I'm sort of curious how effective the eidolon would be without the summoner's buffing spells. Enlarge person, magic fang, etc seem like they'd make a big difference.
For the first two levels I haven't needed them. I've used Shield for myself and Arcane Armor for the Eidolon a few times. Enlarge has been for me or our beefy whoopass stick Druid.
The issue I've had the most trouble with has been DR with my Eidolon and the d6 and a couple d4's weren't cutting it. Enlarging the Eidolon to a d8 and a pair of d6's plus 3 wasn't going to cut it. However, after Level 6 when my quadruped Eidolon is large, making it huge with the spell and getting the reach enhancement will be nice.
I like the summoner class, but if the players had class levels it'd be insanely broken. Not only that, but think of a monk with 6 arms flurrying at higher levels would not only be overpowered, but would take FOREVER to have a turn with all those dice.
Two points on this.
The first is that I would suggest looking at the rules on p182 of the Pathfinder Core Book in regards to combining Unarmed attacks from say a monk with the Natural Attacks of say a monster.
The second would be that if Eidolons are part of the game or multiple summoned creatures then you already have people rolling multiple dice for their turn.
If anything, by eliminating the spell caster character with their actions and additional summons, you are streamling that characters turn.
-------------------
I agree that the Eidolon could not be taken directly in as it is written.
The hit dice would need to be changed from the current 2HD to 17HD to a proper 1HD to 20HD spread.
I would likely remove the automatic gains of natural armour and characteristic increases of Str and Dex. The evolution rules provide for these to be added and it may just need to add a few more evolution points to acount for people purchasing these and refiguring how often these increases can be purchased. The original automatic gains were do to a pre-set package of Ability Scores that would no longer apply. Players would also be more likely to spend money for armour for their characters reducing the need for the automatic natural armour.
I don't think that the product of the monster class would be a 'perfect' monster duplicate from the bestiary. Then again, in most cases, no one would want a perfect duplicate. Talk to a hundred people on vampires, dragons, and werewolves and they will probably give you a hundred different interpretations on the various abilities and natures of these creatures.
I don't think it would be much more difficult then the current progression choices that are set out for the Wizard or Sorcerer to set up the major choice of something like being Undead or Dragon. Class level systems have people accepting that you don't get all the powers at first level.
-----------
My big problem with my 'interpretation' of the meaning of a shape-shifting class is that a shape-shifter should be able to constantly change their form. If they need to flow like water under a door then they change to water or a pudding and do it.
It becomes as more work on the GM and player when a turn comes up and the player has to 'decide' what they are going to be for that combat or worse that round. I've seen players have enough trouble working out summoned creatures from the bestiary with the Augmented Summoning feat and Celestial template.
This is why I like that the evolution occurs when a person levels and then is locked for the time being. It saves constant recalculation of abilities (and questions like if I use my standard action to shift forms to six claws, how many attacks can I now make).
---------------
I would also point out that concentrating on the Eidolon and making a monster class does not really remove the mixture of the summoner and monster from the game. Multiclassing still allows the person that wants the spell casting and the monstrous role to exist (you just can't sit behind some shield monster unless you cast a spell to do it).
The advantage of the monster class would be that it would open up new options for other classes to look at the multiclassing potential.
This is not 'new' as Eberon for example had Warforged and Shifters that had the natural attacks that combined with other classes. The balance of levels taken to gain abilities in the monster class will compare to the levels that were not taken in another class.
|
I was finding myself more excited about the Eidolon than the summoner as well, and was thinking how awesome it would be if I was just building a monstrous character to play as, rather than a pet for the PC. I could definitely see the Eidolon rules being adapted for a monstrous/shape-shifting class. Actually, shape-shifting seems like it would be the way to go on this one, maybe as the byproduct of sharing your body with some other-worldly creature.
I think the idea has merit
Lol ditto, so I was like hmmm, Binding on self make tiny put in jar (this binding doesn't say I can't use spells or other powers and does stop aging.) Magic Jar into big E. There now I'm a handy dandy monster.
I'd even forgo the BIG E just for Evolution Points to spend on self. But at that point we replace the Big Stupid Fighter but with spells, so now we are actually a cleric.
So in the long run I think the current config is best. I would like to see more evolution points on his self though.
|
|
I started a thread a while back about splitting the Summoner's progression into the normal one and one that focuses more heavily on the summoning SLA's and turned the Eidolon basically into a familiar. A third progression that allowed the Summoner to meld himself like an Eidolon would be a possibility.
More likely, though, I'd see this as a prestige class for Summoner.
The summoner does add something to the game that isn't here yet: A character that is focussed on his Creature. With this class, you can go Frankenstein, or, if you want, Pokemon Trainer.
You can also play the monster itself, with the summoner being your pet.
There will probably be a PFRPG book that is all about monstrous characters, so you can play a minotaur or gnoll or angel - as seen in the bestiary.
The combination makes sense: You can focus wholly on the Eidolon, or you can focus on summoning in general.
