Separate Eidolon evolution feats and summoner feats

[Verzen]

So here is a rehash of my idea. Maybe this will make it more clear.

Instead of having the boring preset packages of angel, demon, beast, construct, dragon etc.

A martial character gets 3 feats at 1st level. They get an ancestry feat, they get a class feat, they get a skill feat. They get a total of 3 feats to help customize their character in a way they want.

Our Eidolons would also get feats on the SAME exact trajectory. They would get 3 feats at level 1 for example. But INSTEAD of skill feats, class feats, ancestry feats, they select from a POOL of evolution feats. It would work the same exact way as a martial selecting their feats at level 1.

Currently there are multiple different pools a class gets.

Skill feats, class feats, general feats, ancestry feats. This idea would create a 5th pool of feats that can only be taken by the Eidolon or specific archetypes.

Eidolons however, REPLACE what a martial would normally get in terms of their skill, ancestry, and class feats with EVOLUTION feats.

That's not reinventing the wheel. That's not giving the Eidolon points like in PF1. That is giving the Eidolon their own feats to select and work with. Plus this feat pool can be double dipped in terms of archetype support if another archetype wishes to use this pool of feats.

[Dubious Scholar]

Yeah, no. As has been noted:

This bloats out feats a ton.
This is in fact 100% just rehashing 1e eidolon points (many evolutions already had minimum levels, so all this is doing is just saying all evolutions are one point and then labeling them feats in an attempt to disguise it)
This is 1e eidolon complexity, which is notoriously bad

[Verzen]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Yeah, no. As has been noted:

This bloats out feats a ton.
This is in fact 100% just rehashing 1e eidolon points (many evolutions already had minimum levels, so all this is doing is just saying all evolutions are one point and then labeling them feats in an attempt to disguise it)
This is 1e eidolon complexity, which is notoriously bad

So I guess ancestry feats, general feats, skill feats, and class feats are also notoriously bad. K.

[Verzen]

For your information, you cannot say this system is "notoriously bad" or a "good system" without knowing exactly what each feat did. It's impossible and you're just going on gut instinct based on a bad experience you had in the past with 1e apg summoner.

That would be like me saying, "Well, I ate a pizza as a kid and I threw up because the meat on it was bad. So all pizzas will make me sick and cause me to throw up. In fact, we should outlaw all pizza making in the future."

Uh no. The implementation of the original pizza was bad. That doesn't make the concept of what a pizza IS bad.

Same concept here.

[Salamileg]

Verzen wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Yeah, no. As has been noted:

This bloats out feats a ton.
This is in fact 100% just rehashing 1e eidolon points (many evolutions already had minimum levels, so all this is doing is just saying all evolutions are one point and then labeling them feats in an attempt to disguise it)
This is 1e eidolon complexity, which is notoriously bad

So I guess ancestry feats, general feats, skill feats, and class feats are also notoriously bad. K.

Ancestry feats, general feats, and skill feats are things that literally every character in the game, regardless of build, has access to. And every class has their own pool of class feats, yes, but this would basically require that Summoners have at least 50% more class feats than any other class did when they were released, and that's just not reasonable to ask for.

[Verzen]

Salamileg wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Yeah, no. As has been noted:

This bloats out feats a ton.
This is in fact 100% just rehashing 1e eidolon points (many evolutions already had minimum levels, so all this is doing is just saying all evolutions are one point and then labeling them feats in an attempt to disguise it)
This is 1e eidolon complexity, which is notoriously bad

So I guess ancestry feats, general feats, skill feats, and class feats are also notoriously bad. K.

Ancestry feats, general feats, and skill feats are things that literally every character in the game, regardless of build, has access to. And every class has their own pool of class feats, yes, but this would basically require that Summoners have at least 50% more class feats than any other class did when they were released, and that's just not reasonable to ask for.

Except 90% of our power comes from our Eidolon that.. won't have any feats at all except for evolution feats. They dont have general feats. They dont have skill feats. They dont have ancestry feats. They are bare bones when it comes to actual customization. Hell, my summoner is infinitely more customizable than my Eidolon which feels bad.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

Hell, my summoner is infinitely more customizable than my Eidolon which feels bad.

No, you're just unhappy with the fact that the customization of your Eidolon doesn't come with discreet mechanical benefits.

Unlike your character, your eidolon isnt constrained by creature type, limb count, body shape, biology and morphology, physical composition, mortality, mentality, or other less ingrained things like class or profession.

The eidolon is infinitely customizable- you just don't appreciate the ways in which it is customizable.

[Katrixia]

Mechanical diversity and customization is very valid criticism and a very valid desire for the class that most people seem to be clammering about in regards to the Eidolon itself.

[Verzen]

Quote:

No, you're just unhappy with the fact that the customization of your Eidolon doesn't come with discreet mechanical benefits.

We are playing a game based on discreet mechanical benefits.

Literally every single ancestry feat, every single class feat, every single general feat, every single skill feat comes with mechanical benefits and when combined, it means the summoner, not the Eidolon, is far more customizable than the Eidolon will ever hope to be. And this does NOT feel good.

[Katrixia]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Yeah, no. As has been noted:

This bloats out feats a ton.
This is in fact 100% just rehashing 1e eidolon points (many evolutions already had minimum levels, so all this is doing is just saying all evolutions are one point and then labeling them feats in an attempt to disguise it)
This is 1e eidolon complexity, which is notoriously bad

The majority of the problem with 1e Eidolons was natural attacks being so busted on a ball of insta-death. That's 90% of why 1e Eidolon had problems, that is simply not the case in 2e as that function is simply not present to be exploited.

The Evolution points system from 1e were beloved, it wasn't what made the Eidolon a pain and the complexity is extremely over exaggerated. Not that i feel that system should come back 100%, but i'm simply commenting on the fact that Evolution points from 1e were absolutely not the problem and it was not hard to navigate.

[KrispyXIV]

-Poison- wrote:

Mechanical diversity and customization is very valid criticism and a very valid desire for the class that most people seem to be clammering about in regards to the Eidolon itself.

Wanting more mechanical options is fine, and I dont think anyone is opposed to that.

Suggesting that Eidolons are not customizable and variable, however is extremely misleading and completely untrue. The player is given great agency for creating and describing their eidolon, and is freed from the requirement to obtain mechanical items to justify descriptive elements.

Its the suggestions that descriptive elements MUST come with mechanics that I (and I believe others) take exception too. Mechanics don't need to be that granular.

[Verzen]

I do not like the idea of, "Oh just use your imagination" because, in practice, that just doesn't work.

Take for example me wanting to create an ice Eidolon. She looks JUST LIKE Shiva from Final Fantasy. So which template should I use? Oh lets go ahead and go with the angel template. Well, good damage doesn't fit and it is still dealt ice damage. So lets go with beast. Oh that doesn't work either. Dragon? Maybe dragon comes the closest, but it's still vulnerable to cold and isn't weak to fire so that doesn't quite make sense either!

I HATE the argument of "just use your imagination and reskin it" in a game that is unique and separates itself from a simpler game such as 5th ed by its mechanics by telling me that we shouldn't need a mechanical difference.

Your state of mind with "just use your imagination" needs to be left in 5th ed where it belongs. Pathfinder is about mechanical customization and that is why I like it.

[Verzen]

-Poison- wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Yeah, no. As has been noted:

This bloats out feats a ton.
This is in fact 100% just rehashing 1e eidolon points (many evolutions already had minimum levels, so all this is doing is just saying all evolutions are one point and then labeling them feats in an attempt to disguise it)
This is 1e eidolon complexity, which is notoriously bad

The majority of the problem with 1e Eidolons was natural attacks being so busted on a ball of insta-death. That's 90% of why 1e Eidolon had problems, that is simply not the case in 2e as that function is simply not present to be exploited.

The Evolution points system from 1e were beloved, it wasn't what made the Eidolon a pain and the complexity is extremely over exaggerated. Not that i feel that system should come back 100%, but i'm simply commenting on the fact that Evolution points from 1e were absolutely not the problem and it was not hard to navigate.

I agree 100%. The 3 action system solves most of the original summoner issues.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

Mechanical diversity and customization is very valid criticism and a very valid desire for the class that most people seem to be clammering about in regards to the Eidolon itself.

Wanting more mechanical options is fine, and I dont think anyone is opposed to that.

Suggesting that Eidolons are not customizable and variable, however is extremely misleading and completely untrue. The player is given great agency for creating and describing their eidolon, and is freed from the requirement to obtain mechanical items to justify descriptive elements.

Its the suggestions that descriptive elements MUST come with mechanics that I (and I believe others) take exception too. Mechanics don't need to be that granular.

Okay tell me. You have two angel eidolons now how are they MECHANICALLY different.

I don't want just cosmetics.

This is on par with saying, "Well, you don't need mechanical differences between two dwarf fighters! Just picture one with a braids and one who is bald. Use your imagination. That's the customization dwarves have right now. They dont need all those class feats, ancestry feats, and skill feats! In fact, skill feats just get in the way of actually roleplaying our skills!"

[Verzen]

The one thing I DO say I love though is being able to define what kind of weapon we are actually using and not having that set in stone. All weapons deal the same damage. Cool. I can go with that. We can define our weapon however we want whether it's a tentacle or what not. That's awesome. But we still want some actual customizable, non cosmetic and mechanical alterations.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

Mechanical diversity and customization is very valid criticism and a very valid desire for the class that most people seem to be clammering about in regards to the Eidolon itself.

Wanting more mechanical options is fine, and I dont think anyone is opposed to that.

Suggesting that Eidolons are not customizable and variable, however is extremely misleading and completely untrue. The player is given great agency for creating and describing their eidolon, and is freed from the requirement to obtain mechanical items to justify descriptive elements.

Its the suggestions that descriptive elements MUST come with mechanics that I (and I believe others) take exception too. Mechanics don't need to be that granular.

Okay tell me. You have two angel eidolons now how are they MECHANICALLY different.

I don't want just cosmetics.

This is on par with saying, "Well, you don't need mechanical differences between two dwarf fighters! Just picture one with a braids and one who is bald. Use your imagination. That's the customization dwarves have right now. They dont need all those class feats, ancestry feats, and skill feats! In fact, skill feats just get in the way of actually roleplaying our skills!"

You mean other than skill proficiencies, attribute boost selection, and Evolution feat selection?

Or are we limiting this to just level 1, because that's the most constrained point of development for everyone - but its when your argument is most (but not completely - see skill proficiencies) true?

[Dubious Scholar]

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

Mechanical diversity and customization is very valid criticism and a very valid desire for the class that most people seem to be clammering about in regards to the Eidolon itself.

Wanting more mechanical options is fine, and I dont think anyone is opposed to that.

Suggesting that Eidolons are not customizable and variable, however is extremely misleading and completely untrue. The player is given great agency for creating and describing their eidolon, and is freed from the requirement to obtain mechanical items to justify descriptive elements.

Its the suggestions that descriptive elements MUST come with mechanics that I (and I believe others) take exception too. Mechanics don't need to be that granular.

Okay tell me. You have two angel eidolons now how are they MECHANICALLY different.

I don't want just cosmetics.

This is on par with saying, "Well, you don't need mechanical differences between two dwarf fighters! Just picture one with a braids and one who is bald. Use your imagination. That's the customization dwarves have right now. They dont need all those class feats, ancestry feats, and skill feats! In fact, skill feats just get in the way of actually roleplaying our skills!"

*reads feat list again*

Sure. Angel one is a spellcaster and has more skill training. Angel two shoots flaming bolts from their sword and I can ride on its shoulder. That's only a couple feats for each.

If you haven't been paying attention to Mark's posts, this is not the final list of evolutions, it's a sample for the sake of testing. You're demanding that it be completely scrapped because there aren't enough feats yet. That's silly.

You want to know how two 1st level fighters are mechanically different? Because honestly, they aren't really, not as a function of their class.

[manbearscientist]

A million discrete options aren't necessarily better than a few flexible options.

Here is what a bulk bag of feats would look like

1 feat each for:

weapon traits: agile, finesse, backstabber, shove, trip, grapple, versatile, sweep, backswing, reach, disarm

Additional attacks, specifically ranged attacks

monster abilities: rend, constrict, trample

senses: low-light vision, darkvision, tremorsense, lifesense, all-around vision

other abilities: Attack of Opportunity, Sudden Charge, Power Attack, Lunge

Various special spells for flavor (i.e., Dimension Door)

Breath weapon, and then longer range, cones vs lines

Each energy type for the natural weapons: acid, cold, electricity, fire, sonic, law, chaos, evil, good.

movement options: faster, climb, swim, burrow

adaptations: severe heat, severe cold, breath underwater, extreme heat, extreme cold

proficiency in one of 14 skills

That's 53 feats describing thus far. We aren't even halfway done. And then you have to power balance those feats.

1: agile, finesse, shove, versatile, low-light vision, proficiency
2: backstabber, trip, grapple, reach, darkvision, faster movement
3: Attack of opportunity, rend, breath weapon
4: acid, cold, electricity, fire damage, climb, swim
5: backswing, sweep, sudden charge, power attack, lunge, constrict
6: fly, burrow, severe cold, severe heat, breathe underwater
...

Notice the issue? These are pretty basic abilities, but the constraints of this system force us to put pretty awful options at later levels. Virtually every here is something that a character could get in one way or another at an early level, but if you divide it like this, something has to be at 11, something has to be at 13. That can make it harder to make a concept work.

Compare to just one feat I've extrapolated as something I'd like to see:

Eidolon Archetype
Your eidolon gains a multiclass archetype dedication feat, and it gains the Eidolon trait. You can select further feats from this archetype, and they also gain the Eidolon trait. Feats that grant actions can be used by the Eidolon, while passive benefits only effect the Eidolon. The eidolon can't take a spellcasting class archetype that would grant a tradition other than its own. Effects that grant spellcasting do not grant slots, but grant equivalently heightening innate spells instead.

This is one feat, but it adds more options than the entirety of what I described before as the multiclass archetypes give access not only to hundreds of feats, but hundreds of spells as well. A lot of small discrete options aren't necessary to make a super diverse system for making Eidolons. (Note: the actual feats I'd suggest for this purpose are little different, this is just an example).

And under a system where evolution feats stream in to replace a character's normal feats, they will come at somewhat odd times. Under a multi-feat system, level 3 is as important as level 1 to an Eidolon. But should it be? I'd argue that the Eidolon needs a lot of diversity at level 1, but doesn't need the same amount of options at higher levels. It should be possible to make a fully fledged concept at level 1, and but it isn't necessary to have 'fully fledged concept' worth of feats at level 3, 5, and 7 as well. What higher levels need are expanding options for actions, with only a few exotics for passive mechanical benefits thrown in (all-around vision and flight, for instance).

That's why I'm heavily in favor of bases + feats as-is, with the additional of an initial pool to start off with. Stuff like weapon traits, senses, movement, negative healing, maybe even adding elemental or monster traits if we want to be spicy (i.e, adding the fire trait to an angel). Nothing that completely changes the way the Eidolon works mechanically, but enough to differentiate an amphibious beast from a climbing beast with that lives on an icy mountain.

[Verzen]

Quote:

Sure. Angel one is a spellcaster and has more skill training. Angel two shoots flaming bolts from their sword and I can ride on its shoulder. That's only a couple feats for each.

Those are not the customizations I am talking about. I am saying they are both angels. They are very homogenous in how they look and act and behave. They all get "good" damage at level 1. They all get "the aura" at level 7. Etc.

No. I am not saying I want it scrapped because there aren't enough feats. I am saying that by the very system put in place, it is impossible to have the customization I desire with the limited amount of feat choices present in the current system.

[Verzen]

manbearscientist wrote:

A million discrete options aren't necessarily better than a few flexible options.

Here is what a bulk bag of feats would look like

1 feat each for:

weapon traits: agile, finesse, backstabber, shove, trip, grapple, versatile, sweep, backswing, reach, disarm

Additional attacks, specifically ranged attacks

monster abilities: rend, constrict, trample

senses: low-light vision, darkvision, tremorsense, lifesense, all-around vision

other abilities: Attack of Opportunity, Sudden Charge, Power Attack, Lunge

Various special spells for flavor (i.e., Dimension Door)

Breath weapon, and then longer range, cones vs lines

Each energy type for the natural weapons: acid, cold, electricity, fire, sonic, law, chaos, evil, good.

movement options: faster, climb, swim, burrow

adaptations: severe heat, severe cold, breath underwater, extreme heat, extreme cold

proficiency in one of 14 skills

That's 53 feats describing thus far. We aren't even halfway done. And then you have to power balance those feats.

1: agile, finesse, shove, versatile, low-light vision, proficiency
2: backstabber, trip, grapple, reach, darkvision, faster movement
3: Attack of opportunity, rend, breath weapon
4: acid, cold, electricity, fire damage, climb, swim
5: backswing, sweep, sudden charge, power attack, lunge, constrict
6: fly, burrow, severe cold, severe heat, breathe underwater
...

Notice the issue? These are pretty basic abilities, but the constraints of this system force us to put pretty awful options at later levels. Virtually every here is something that a character could get in one way or another at an early level, but if you divide it like this, something has to be at 11, something has to be at 13. That can make it harder to make a concept work.

Compare to just one feat I've extrapolated as something I'd like to see:

Eidolon Archetype
Your eidolon gains a multiclass archetype dedication feat, and it gains the Eidolon trait. You can select further feats...

I would fully support and 100% get behind the ability for my Eidolon to take an archetype as a feat.

[Verzen]

As long as there are ways to advance that archetype somehow...

[Dubious Scholar]

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

Sure. Angel one is a spellcaster and has more skill training. Angel two shoots flaming bolts from their sword and I can ride on its shoulder. That's only a couple feats for each.

Those are not the customizations I am talking about. I am saying they are both angels. They are very homogenous in how they look and act and behave. They all get "good" damage at level 1. They all get "the aura" at level 7. Etc.

No. I am not saying I want it scrapped because there aren't enough feats. I am saying that by the very system put in place, it is impossible to have the customization I desire with the limited amount of feat choices present in the current system.

Did you read it? I'll take one as a burning wheel, literally, and is LG. The other is a lillend, and is CG (oh look an azata).

If you don't want those abilities, perhaps a fey eidolon is a better base? Or one of the flavors of arcane eidolon? Really, it sounds a lot to me like you're rejecting not just the playtest summoner but the unchained summoner as well here.

[Verzen]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

Sure. Angel one is a spellcaster and has more skill training. Angel two shoots flaming bolts from their sword and I can ride on its shoulder. That's only a couple feats for each.

Those are not the customizations I am talking about. I am saying they are both angels. They are very homogenous in how they look and act and behave. They all get "good" damage at level 1. They all get "the aura" at level 7. Etc.

No. I am not saying I want it scrapped because there aren't enough feats. I am saying that by the very system put in place, it is impossible to have the customization I desire with the limited amount of feat choices present in the current system.

Did you read it? I'll take one as a burning wheel, literally, and is LG. The other is a lillend, and is CG (oh look an azata).

If you don't want those abilities, perhaps a fey eidolon is a better base? Or one of the flavors of arcane eidolon? Really, it sounds a lot to me like you're rejecting not just the playtest summoner but the unchained summoner as well here.

I am rejecting the unchained summoner as well. It did NOT appeal to me because the Eidolon ideas I have in my head were never what was presented and I felt like player agency in being able to choose my Eidolon was removed from me. The ONLY one I played was the Twinned Archetype and that was because it was actually fun to play a character where I had a twin. That was a blast and a great idea to whoever designed that.

The issue with unchained was that it directly took away player agency to be able to design a chimeric Eidolon. I had a set path. Do I want an elemental? Beast? Fey? Construct? Well, what if I want none of those? What if I want an abberation, but I do not want the abilities that the abberation tells me all abberations need? What if my idea of what I want for MY abberation is completely different than what paizo tells me what I want for my abberation? It just felt bad.