What New Things?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lanathar wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
keftiu wrote:
A first-party Psion would be a lot of fun.
And we can be pretty sure that that one won't happen unless Dreamscarred Press decides to try to persuade Paizo to buy them out.
Dreamscarred Press don't own the Psion or Psionics, they just did the Pathfinder versions so Paizo could technically make them, they just have no interest in doing so.

Exactly. Paizo has no interest in stepping on the toes of Dreamscarred Press, so the only way to get a 1st party Psion would be for Dreamscarred Press to become part of Paizo and then get Paizo to publish their 2nd edition version of psionics. Otherwise, what we will get will be a 3rd party version of psionics of equal or better quality.

Unless I have misread, Rysky is saying the opposite to what you said. Having Dreamscarred be part of Paizo is not the “only way” to get 1st party psions as they don’t have copyright over psychic magic

Pretty much, thankies ^w^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

A Summoner w/o regular spells.

It's probably the only way to balance the class.

They could use focus spells for summoning other things (when their eidelon was gone) or to do those few tricks they had, if they take the feat(s).

I recognize that the eidelon shouldn't match a martial in power (unless the Summoner was knocked down to Animal Companion strength, which would be highly improbable), but maybe they could be made tough & resilient (at least stronger than an AC given how fast those died in the playtest w/o a Druid constantly healing). This toughness would be the cost of h.p. or actions from the Summoner so the Summoner's tied up while the eidelon's effective.
Unlike Druids & Rangers, I would not expect the Summoner/eidelon to fight side-by-side.

Nor am I in a rush to see them. This simply occurred to me.
Cheers

Uh...I think you're in for a lot of pain as you hit the windshield of PF2 design philosophy reality.

My concern for the summoner is how they're going to give it more spells than the wizard and sorcerer to compensate it for trying to play the very bad playstyle that is a PF2 summoner.

The only winning move is not to play.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lanathar wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
keftiu wrote:
A first-party Psion would be a lot of fun.
And we can be pretty sure that that one won't happen unless Dreamscarred Press decides to try to persuade Paizo to buy them out.
Dreamscarred Press don't own the Psion or Psionics, they just did the Pathfinder versions so Paizo could technically make them, they just have no interest in doing so.

Exactly. Paizo has no interest in stepping on the toes of Dreamscarred Press, so the only way to get a 1st party Psion would be for Dreamscarred Press to become part of Paizo and then get Paizo to publish their 2nd edition version of psionics. Otherwise, what we will get will be a 3rd party version of psionics of equal or better quality.

Unless I have misread, Rysky is saying the opposite to what you said. Having Dreamscarred be part of Paizo is not the “only way” to get 1st party psions as they don’t have copyright over psychic magic

I am not disputing that Paizo is allowed to do psionics -- but the way I described is the only way that they would be likely to become interested in doing so.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
keftiu wrote:
A first-party Psion would be a lot of fun.
And we can be pretty sure that that one won't happen unless Dreamscarred Press decides to try to persuade Paizo to buy them out.
Dreamscarred Press don't own the Psion or Psionics, they just did the Pathfinder versions so Paizo could technically make them, they just have no interest in doing so.

Exactly. Paizo has no interest in stepping on the toes of Dreamscarred Press, so the only way to get a 1st party Psion would be for Dreamscarred Press to become part of Paizo and then get Paizo to publish their 2nd edition version of psionics. Otherwise, what we will get will be a 3rd party version of psionics of equal or better quality.

Unless I have misread, Rysky is saying the opposite to what you said. Having Dreamscarred be part of Paizo is not the “only way” to get 1st party psions as they don’t have copyright over psychic magic

I am not disputing that Paizo is allowed to do psionics -- but the way I described is the only way that they would be likely to become interested in doing so.

Ah okay, in that case the likely scenario would be whoever working at Dreamscarred going to work individually at Paizo, not Paizo "buying" them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:


Uh...I think you're in for a lot of pain as you hit the windshield of PF2 design philosophy reality.

My concern for the summoner is how they're going to give it more spells than the wizard and sorcerer to compensate it for trying to play the very bad playstyle that is a PF2 summoner.

The only winning move is not to play.

A PF2 summoner doesn't exist yet? So it's odd to be saying already that it sucks. A strong summon, perhaps with an extra action, would be different than the normal minion rules, but not that hard to implement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


Uh...I think you're in for a lot of pain as you hit the windshield of PF2 design philosophy reality.

My concern for the summoner is how they're going to give it more spells than the wizard and sorcerer to compensate it for trying to play the very bad playstyle that is a PF2 summoner.

The only winning move is not to play.

A PF2 summoner doesn't exist yet? So it's odd to be saying already that it sucks. A strong summon, perhaps with an extra action, would be different than the normal minion rules, but not that hard to implement.

A PF2 spellcaster who summons is a summoner, he's just not a Summoner. And summoners suck real bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

A Summoner w/o regular spells.

It's probably the only way to balance the class.

They could use focus spells for summoning other things (when their eidelon was gone) or to do those few tricks they had, if they take the feat(s).

I recognize that the eidelon shouldn't match a martial in power (unless the Summoner was knocked down to Animal Companion strength, which would be highly improbable), but maybe they could be made tough & resilient (at least stronger than an AC given how fast those died in the playtest w/o a Druid constantly healing). This toughness would be the cost of h.p. or actions from the Summoner so the Summoner's tied up while the eidelon's effective.
Unlike Druids & Rangers, I would not expect the Summoner/eidelon to fight side-by-side.

Nor am I in a rush to see them. This simply occurred to me.
Cheers

Uh...I think you're in for a lot of pain as you hit the windshield of PF2 design philosophy reality.

My concern for the summoner is how they're going to give it more spells than the wizard and sorcerer to compensate it for trying to play the very bad playstyle that is a PF2 summoner.

The only winning move is not to play.

Judging by your bolding, I think you misunderstood me.

The PC would be weakened so the Eidelon could be...average?
(albeit hopefully w/ flavorful & useful side abilities)

An Eidelon w/ martial level proficiencies (but no Rage, precision, etc.) could work if the Summoner was neutralized while the Eidelon was fighting.

So there could be three chains (not necessarily exclusive):
One: The Summoner w/ combat Eidelon. The Summoner has to command the Eidelon, maybe even has to take an action for the Eidelon to be at peak power. Example, having a Summoner feat where the Summoner takes an action to grant Expert proficiency to the Eidelon for a round. Other feats could be stacked on this action, keeping the Eidelon on par w/ a martial (kinda, actions might be limited and items would likely be).
Defense, temp h.p., etc. all requiring this extra action (or maybe the Eidelon doesn't need one to maintain, but each boost does need one so the Summoner wants to use more actions). With the Summoner only getting one action (or none w/ another bonus), they can do little except maybe hide (assuming they don't need line of sight! though a feat might remedy that).
Two: A Summoner w/ skilled Eidelon. Interesting way to gain extra skills for the party perhaps.
Three: A Summoner who use focus points for summoning creatures. As well as a longer duration and Augment Summoning, perhaps a lot of the "boost your Eidelon" feat options above could equally apply to summoned creatures. Unlike a Conjurer, the Summoner doesn't actually have much else they can do so there's less threat of the "equivalent to 2 PCs" danger that definitely informs Paizo's views on animal companions.
The Summoner has to use their actions just to keep their combatants viable, maybe even w/ a Reaction (later option to free action) to absorb damage on behalf of their creature because really, if the Summoner loses that, they're out of combat anyway (in this variant).

The Summoner would be fighting, by proxy, like a martial. I wouldn't give them a spell list. Having both is what made PF1 Summoners OP.

Another idea for paths:
1. Eidelon
2. No Eidelon, but get second creature? More creatures? Faster recharge? Maybe can always maintain one summoning, so there's a constant replacement?
3. Eidelon/Summoner merge, bringing Summoner up to generic martial level (again w/o a special ability, but maybe great h.p.). This could work like the polymorph spells where the Summoner gets set stats, but perhaps w/ more flexibility on the only form they can take.

With only full-casters, I don't think a Summoner could be one, and not with the way spell lists are set up.

Cheers


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


Uh...I think you're in for a lot of pain as you hit the windshield of PF2 design philosophy reality.

My concern for the summoner is how they're going to give it more spells than the wizard and sorcerer to compensate it for trying to play the very bad playstyle that is a PF2 summoner.

The only winning move is not to play.

A PF2 summoner doesn't exist yet? So it's odd to be saying already that it sucks. A strong summon, perhaps with an extra action, would be different than the normal minion rules, but not that hard to implement.
A PF2 spellcaster who summons is a summoner, he's just not a Summoner. And summoners suck real bad.

My point is, if they made a Summoner class, then they would have a strong summon, which was better than a wizard's "summon construct" spell.


One thing I think will be interesting is if Paizo tries to maintain parity with the number of spellcasting classes compared to non-spellcasting classes they release. PF1 had a huge number of casters (something like 28/43 classes got spell slots), and while we've already seen the Paladin and Ranger lose their vancian casting, a lot of these old classes are going to need spells if they come back.

So if they want to release 4 classes in a book, and there's 2 spellcasters they really want to bring back, then there are 2 slots for non-casters to fill. So there's probably much more room for "something new" in that martial, or skilled martial, or martial with focus spells space than there is in the caster space.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I would like to see something like a "Runecaster". I am inspired by the Runecaster class from the old "AD&D, 2nd Edition Vikings Campaign Sourcebook" that introduced a Runecaster class that engraved runes in objects to empower them; kind of like a prepared caster planning ahead of time, but martial. I envision that the Pathfinder 2E version of the Runecaster would also be a mostly-martial class that uses the new rules for inscribing Runes, creating Talismans, working with Rituals, and maybe even preparing mystical Snares in conjunction with martial abilities to fight. The Viking Campaign Sourcebook also had other cool concepts like the Trollborn and Berserker.

Another cool class concept to revisit would be the "Taltos". There was an old Dragon Magazine article that gave options to make one for AD&D, 2nd Edition. I really enjoyed that article. It took inspiration from Steven Brust's "Vlad Taltos" book series, as well as Hungarian mythology. Of course, the same concepts or similar ones will probably get rolled into the Magus when it comes back in 2E, but the flavor presented in that article was very cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ah okay, in that case the likely scenario would be whoever working at Dreamscarred going to work individually at Paizo, not Paizo "buying" them.

The point is largely, I think, that Dreamscarred Press makes their bank on their psionics publications so Paizo trying to muscle in on that would be kind of a dick move. The developers at Paizo have personal experience with getting shoved out of publishing content by a company that wanted to keep all the money to themselves, so...

It helps that Golarion's version of psychic casting looks very different from psionics. They can both exist without stepping over one another.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ah okay, in that case the likely scenario would be whoever working at Dreamscarred going to work individually at Paizo, not Paizo "buying" them.

The point is largely, I think, that Dreamscarred Press makes their bank on their psionics publications so Paizo trying to muscle in on that would be kind of a dick move. The developers at Paizo have personal experience with getting shoved out of publishing content by a company that wanted to keep all the money to themselves, so...

It helps that Golarion's version of psychic casting looks very different from psionics. They can both exist without stepping over one another.

I was not aware that was their main thing. In which case that makes a lot of sense


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

One thing I think will be interesting is if Paizo tries to maintain parity with the number of spellcasting classes compared to non-spellcasting classes they release. PF1 had a huge number of casters (something like 28/43 classes got spell slots), and while we've already seen the Paladin and Ranger lose their vancian casting, a lot of these old classes are going to need spells if they come back.

So if they want to release 4 classes in a book, and there's 2 spellcasters they really want to bring back, then there are 2 slots for non-casters to fill. So there's probably much more room for "something new" in that martial, or skilled martial, or martial with focus spells space than there is in the caster space.

I would like if parity was kept. It would show they are committing not having spellcasters take over the game

It is worth thing about ways old classes could “lose” spells.

Occultist could be really focused based . Perhaps having more than most

Inquisitor could lose spells and be a more skill and sneaky version of champion ( or it could be the “skill” cleric to go with the martial and magic ones already there so not a new class)

Summoner and spiritualist could be pet classes once they work that out. Summons could be focus related and eidolon permanent

Hunter could be like the above or a new rangers edge to focus more in companion teamwork

Radically magus could become an arcane based focus caster with class feats more like the old arcane shield and strike (this one is a bit much I accept)

Skald if not some kind of “fury” muse for bard could have the composition like cantrip and then other skill and combat abilities

Several bloodrager abilities could just become barbarian instincts . I mean - dragon already has...

Some fairly radical thinking there that could see several of the old spell classes folded into existing classes or have spells removed. But an example of each has already happened (warpriest and then alchemist/investigator)

If the above approach is taken there might not be enough casting classes :-P !


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would seriously love something along the line of the 3.5 supplement magic of incarnum but I kind of doubt that will happen


lordcirth wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


Uh...I think you're in for a lot of pain as you hit the windshield of PF2 design philosophy reality.

My concern for the summoner is how they're going to give it more spells than the wizard and sorcerer to compensate it for trying to play the very bad playstyle that is a PF2 summoner.

The only winning move is not to play.

A PF2 summoner doesn't exist yet? So it's odd to be saying already that it sucks. A strong summon, perhaps with an extra action, would be different than the normal minion rules, but not that hard to implement.
A PF2 spellcaster who summons is a summoner, he's just not a Summoner. And summoners suck real bad.
My point is, if they made a Summoner class, then they would have a strong summon, which was better than a wizard's "summon construct" spell.

...why would you think that.

The Eidolon is just going to be a reflavored but no stronger animal companion. (Maybe with skill/utility options, but it's surely not going to be a better combat monster.)

The summoning isn't going to be meaningfully stronger than that on a standard caster because we already have the druid offering this same set up with full casting and standard casting. They are deadly serious about not letting companions take over the game, unbalance anything, or tie up time at the table.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think it would be kind of neat if the eidolon and the Summoner shared stats, much like a spellcaster and his familiar, but it had the capability to attack and/or use special abilities.

If they shared actions and hit points, then you wouldn't have the balance issue of it being like playing two characters quite so much.

Sure they could still flank, be in two separate places at once, and the like, but that would be one of the draws of being a Summoner in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
My point is, if they made a Summoner class, then they would have a strong summon, which was better than a wizard's "summon construct" spell.

...why would you think that.

The Eidolon is just going to be a reflavored but no stronger animal companion. (Maybe with skill/utility options, but it's surely not going to be a better combat monster.)

The summoning isn't going to be meaningfully stronger than that on a standard caster because we already have the druid offering this same set up with full casting and standard casting. They are deadly serious about not letting companions take over the game, unbalance anything, or tie up time at the table.

Druids are full casters, who can also get an animal companion. Summoners are defined by their summon. Obviously they could have a strong companion, with utility, and little to no spellcasting. What would be the point of making a Summoner class if their summon didn't do anything an AC couldn't?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


The Eidolon is just going to be a reflavored but no stronger animal companion. (Maybe with skill/utility options, but it's surely not going to be a better combat monster.)

The summoning isn't going to be meaningfully stronger than that on a standard caster because we already have the druid offering this same set up with full casting and standard casting. They are deadly serious about not letting companions take over the game, unbalance anything, or tie up time at the table.

Druids are full casters, who can also get an animal companion. Summoners are defined by their summon. Obviously they could have a strong companion, with utility, and little to no spellcasting. What would be the point of making a Summoner class if their summon didn't do anything an AC couldn't?

It wouldn't blow up the PF2 design and balance goals.

I foresee a lot of broken hearts when the Summoner makes a reappearance, second only to the Shifter. This time, though, it will be deliberate malice rather than incompetence.


Xenocrat wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


The Eidolon is just going to be a reflavored but no stronger animal companion. (Maybe with skill/utility options, but it's surely not going to be a better combat monster.)

The summoning isn't going to be meaningfully stronger than that on a standard caster because we already have the druid offering this same set up with full casting and standard casting. They are deadly serious about not letting companions take over the game, unbalance anything, or tie up time at the table.

Druids are full casters, who can also get an animal companion. Summoners are defined by their summon. Obviously they could have a strong companion, with utility, and little to no spellcasting. What would be the point of making a Summoner class if their summon didn't do anything an AC couldn't?

It wouldn't blow up the PF2 design and balance goals.

I foresee a lot of broken hearts when the Summoner makes a reappearance, second only to the Shifter. This time, though, it will be deliberate malice rather than incompetence.

Broken hearts? How so? In that the Eidolon will be no way near as powerful as hoped ?


Lanathar wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


I foresee a lot of broken hearts when the Summoner makes a reappearance, second only to the Shifter. This time, though, it will be deliberate malice rather than incompetence.
Broken hearts? How so? In that the Eidolon will be no way near as powerful as hoped ?

Yes. Plenty of Summoner fans were already mad about the unchained eidolon. It's not going to get better. Quite the opposite.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


I foresee a lot of broken hearts when the Summoner makes a reappearance, second only to the Shifter. This time, though, it will be deliberate malice rather than incompetence.
Broken hearts? How so? In that the Eidolon will be no way near as powerful as hoped ?
Yes. Plenty of Summoner fans were already mad about the unchained eidolon. It's not going to get better. Quite the opposite.

Pardon me as I play a small song on the saddest violin for them if this comes to pass. They can join the wizards in the "my class no longer invalidates x and that's a bad thing" room.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


I foresee a lot of broken hearts when the Summoner makes a reappearance, second only to the Shifter. This time, though, it will be deliberate malice rather than incompetence.
Broken hearts? How so? In that the Eidolon will be no way near as powerful as hoped ?
Yes. Plenty of Summoner fans were already mad about the unchained eidolon. It's not going to get better. Quite the opposite.
Pardon me as I play a small song on the saddest violin for them if this comes to pass. They can join the wizards in the "my class no longer invalidates x and that's a bad thing" room.

100% this. I have zero sympathy for the rage at the lost of completely broken / overpowered class features and abilities

Kind of like the people complaining about the change to Divine Grace when all it was a case of was "I am annoyed I can't dip paladin and get charisma to all my saves".

Indeed a fair portion of the complaining threads for 2E have been "I can't make my super broken 1E character" just worded with more finesse. Probably second to the proficiency complaints (with maybe some overlap)

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
I would seriously love something along the line of the 3.5 supplement magic of incarnum but I kind of doubt that will happen

From Paizo, very likely not. But it was heavily supported in 3pp for PF1 and very likely will be again in PF2.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems bizarre to be insisting that the Summoner is going to be a terrible class in PF2 when Paizo hasn't even announced they're going to make one, much less given us a chance to see any rules associated with this hypothetical class.


Besides the Shifter/Oozemorph/Synthesist there were a few other archetypes in PF1 that I loved the idea of, and really want to see again, but hopefully in a fixed or improved form (fixed is too strong a wording for some of these - some of them work, just with some irritating or silly issue).

1. Fiend Keeper - the flavour was awesome, the only problem was that although parts of the medium class made complete sense, they didn’t replace the ability to change your fiend each morning ... which made negative sense with the Fiend Keeper’s theme.

2. Gadget crafter version of the alchemist. Lovely idea, but they didn’t change the spell list at all - and nearly none of the spells made sense as gadgets. This was later better implemented as a rethemed version of the occultist talisman crafter.

3. The magus archetype Mind-blade. Thematically Psylocke; cutting people with the razor focus of your telekinetic prowess. Only it had psychic casting which you didn’t want to do in melee, and the spells didn’t quite make sense with the fact that you specialised in summoning a mental blade in order to cut your foes physically in half.

4. Blood Kineticist. Awesome flavour for a Dhampir. Terrible fit mechanically for a dhampir.

5 Kinetic Knight. Can’t remember exactly what was wrong with this. I think it was just the fact that it ended up being weaker in melee than the standard kineticist, and gave up a lot of abilities in order to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
It seems bizarre to be insisting that the Summoner is going to be a terrible class in PF2 when Paizo hasn't even announced they're going to make one, much less given us a chance to see any rules associated with this hypothetical class.

have u read the summon spells


browsing this thread made me suddenly want for a "calculator" from Final Fantasy Tactics. You have a broad list of spells or abilities, but have to combine them with specific numerical fields (like has an AC that is a multiple of 4, or is a multiple of 5 squares away) and it affects all potential targets in those specific fields.

Standing in the middle of a large open field and calculates for a fireball that hits 3 people that aren't anywhere near each other, and one of them was an ally. "Oops, sorry. You should have had a slightly different initiative."


A focus mage. Which I kind of think Kineticist could be, looking at Bard.

Basically focus points are used for metamagic while you have specific base spell cantrips. Your focus cantrips can be simple - 30', single target damage of an element, spell attack roll.

A mix of free metamagics (e.g. +range for action) like other casters, and then ones that burn focus (e.g. now it's a cone).

Some kind of a class mechanic to make focus go a little further (like taking conditions? e.g. take slowed 1 for two rounds to push extra juice out).

Of course, this only gets you a blaster, and kineticists had some other options running for them.

If you wanted to run really wild let the metamagic effects ride other classes' focus powers.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd kind of prefer the Summoner be renamed "God Caller" or something, because not only does that tie the class into the setting more but it means we can make the class summon one specific outsider with whom they have a bond and leave the "summons anything and everything" out of the picture.

Like they should be able to summon their eidolon, and buff their eidolon, but they don't need standard action summon monster or haste or anything like that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

an artificer seems like the most obvious new option.

I would kind of like an "Anti-Barbarian", a character who can reach some sort of zen-like calm that increases their AC and allows them to shrug off or ignore various effects such as fear and such.

I'd like some full casters that ONLY rely on focus pool points, with perhaps some sort of ability to have a larger focus pool.

I also wouldn't mind seeing some of the popular archetypes fleshed out and revamped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I'd like some full casters that ONLY rely on focus pool points, with perhaps some sort of ability to have a larger focus pool.

The Occultist is the best choice for this, IMO. That class's PF1 mechanics are in many ways the groundwork for PF2's focus system.


Squiggit wrote:
The problem with the D&D warlock is that it's sort of split, the kineticist has the closest thing to its mechanics but the witch has the closest thing to its flavor. So if you're interested in that whole package you're kinda SoL.

I thought the Vigilante Archetype was great actually, and it scratched an okay itch.

If Mythic Bolts scaled a little better it would have been perfect, but the flavor and concept was all there.


I agree the Summoner at least at this point is too volatile to release. It either beats all companion based classes and/or summon spells or its nerfed into the ground and potentially worse than even the base Shifter. There is just no way to reconcile the minion action economy with the feat cost while also keeping parity with animal companions and actually making an Eidolon work like an Eidolon (evolution is core to the concept even if people dont like it).

Rune and Onmyoji casters could be fun along side Word casters. Given that its 3pp I doubt it will happen, but some support for Akashic magic might also be cool.

Martial wise, a thrown weapon class could be cool and a basis for the obligatory Captain America style characters; Just to make sure I'm saying a class that gets fun abilities when using thrown weapons, something for Desna worshipers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I'd like some full casters that ONLY rely on focus pool points, with perhaps some sort of ability to have a larger focus pool.
The Occultist is the best choice for this, IMO. That class's PF1 mechanics are in many ways the groundwork for PF2's focus system.

Agreed. A full caster with cantrips and focus spells would also be the answer to 5E's warlock (mechanically, anyway).

Silver Crusade

I'll join the call for a Commander/Warlord but I'm not sure it needs a class, a general Archetype might do.

In PF1 I loved the Battle Herald, but they were a bit of a pain to get going, generally requiring Standard Bearer Cavalier. In PF2, I want my Bard to be able to do it, be the absolute master of buffs. Huge Cha, stand there shouting Inspire Courage and various Tactics. If the Commander is a class, that's ok, I'm quite happy to take the dedication, but it can be used with so many other classes it might have to be more open. A Barbarian/Warlord or Champion/Knight or Fighter/Commander - I don't have to expand on these concepts for us to see the value in such a character.

There is a bit of a concern with the proposed Cavalier archetype. If Good on a mount and Tactician are both Archetype paths (either general or MC) then replicating the PF1 Cavalier might be difficult. I'd prefer Good on a horse just to be a couple of feats, then it works for Paladins or even a Ranger shooting from horseback.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


I foresee a lot of broken hearts when the Summoner makes a reappearance, second only to the Shifter. This time, though, it will be deliberate malice rather than incompetence.
Broken hearts? How so? In that the Eidolon will be no way near as powerful as hoped ?
Yes. Plenty of Summoner fans were already mad about the unchained eidolon. It's not going to get better. Quite the opposite.
Pardon me as I play a small song on the saddest violin for them if this comes to pass. They can join the wizards in the "my class no longer invalidates x and that's a bad thing" room.

100% this. I have zero sympathy for the rage at the lost of completely broken / overpowered class features and abilities

I think you missed the point. Many players preferred the classic Summoner over the Unchained Summoner because it was way more customizable and because the Unchained one was missing many fun options. Sure the Summoner was broken, but their was other option to fix it.

In 2E, it will be way more easier to make it less op. It could even be made without spell casting (barring some focus spells like "heal eidolon".

Temperans wrote:
I agree the Summoner at least at this point is too volatile to release. It either beats all companion based classes and/or summon spells or its nerfed into the ground and potentially worse than even the base Shifter.

It should beats all companion classes since none is all about companion. It shouldn't have a really strong eidolon and full spell casting at the same time though. Some focus spells options would be enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlesfire wrote:
Temperans wrote:
I agree the Summoner at least at this point is too volatile to release. It either beats all companion based classes and/or summon spells or its nerfed into the ground and potentially worse than even the base Shifter.

It should beats all companion classes since none is all about companion. It shouldn't have a really strong eidolon and full spell casting at the same time though. Some focus spells options would be enough.

One of the main complaints from people that font want new classes is, "it will take or invalidate the niche of X class". Just look at the discussions for Swashbuckler always getting someone stating (and I'm paraphrasing), "it invalidates fighters." And supposing that more class and no more classes sentiment are at an even split, then any new class is going to be judge by whether or not another class "loses exclusivity/power" and whether the class is even usable without being 1 giant feat chain. Companion builds are already huge chains if you dont want the companion to just sit there, potentially getting killed or taking up actions for "meh" results.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
One of the main complaints from people that font want new classes is, "it will take or invalidate the niche of X class".

I think in this case the Summoner it can work, but the Summoner to me is almost like balancing a spinning plate:

- Action economy makes it hard to balance, this holds true in both editions if the Eidolon had no action restrictions and even if it had just light action restrictions, that can still be hard to balance due to variability in combat

- It suffers from the same issues as designing the Mutagenist - you want it to be good in melee combat (your summon in this case) but not so good that it is better than other melee classes (because a Mutagenist/Summoner will likely have other things they cannot do)

- Summons that customizable (and at every level) mean that versatility is wide and combinations are high, this makes it hard to predict how new Eidolon attributes are going to affect overall power

- The cost for the death of a summon is always lower than the cost of the death of a character, even with staggering penalties to the Summoner, because by definition "Dead" is the worst condition

- GMs struggle to deal with them because Banishment or any amount of Summon prevention invalidates their whole schtick, killing the eidolon often came with a "can't come back for a while" penalty which meant "time to rest" for the party, and in general just had to be handled a lot differently than other classes. Punishing a player for reckless choices with their Eidolon "felt bad" to me, it felt like the only way I could give them consequences was to directly attack the Summoner itself (which is effective, but comes off as "targeting")

Now Summoner is at least unique enough as the "full companion class" with Focus spells for summoning purposes.

I would love to see one come back that was balanced, because the concept is a strong one and stands alone in terms of niche in a group.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Punishing a player for reckless choices with their Eidolon "felt bad" to me

"Drones (I mean, summoned creatures) go in first" is a perfectly valid tactic for a summoner. If the eidolon gets its ass kicked and the summoner's out of options, too bad. You were reckless, deal with it.

The only real problems I had with that were:

1) healing the eidolon back to full was expensive. The lack of natural healing and when it comes back from "dead" it only has half its hitpoints meant that a lot of healing resources went into recovery. The Heal Eidolon spell was not sufficient to make up for this discrepancy (and the GM wouldn't let me buy a wand of it).

2) Fear was out-sized effective against summoners. Yes, Will is the summoner's best save (but not the eidolon's), but spellcasting was Charisma based, meaning that a low Wisdom was inevitable (I got knocked out of TWO fights because of this, one of which was against a boss, and I was forced to spend 6 turns fleeing before it wore off. The fight did not go 12 rounds). I don't mind there being a way to shut down a class, it happens, the problem was that it was "ah, you failed both saves? See you next week." I was literally out of the fight, down the hall, around the corner, into the next town, and given the title "Sir Not Appearing in This Film." And with a fly speed (I'd just cast Evolution Surge for some wings to fight the flying boss) of 60 the rest of the party couldn't stop me, give me a new save, or target me with any kind of restorative magic.

Fortunately in PF2, Fear is no longer as powerful as it was.

Point is, killing the eidolon doesn't (or shouldn't) completely shut down the summoner. They should have backup resources (Summon Monster) to stay engaged in the goings-on. Are they going to be as effective? No. Is that fine? Yes. Don't be afraid to punish the summoner for being reckless; random summons are not going to be as powerful as the eidolon and that's ok, at least they aren't ordering pizza.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Temperans wrote:
One of the main complaints from people that font want new classes is, "it will take or invalidate the niche of X class".

I think in this case the Summoner it can work, but the Summoner to me is almost like balancing a spinning plate:

- Action economy makes it hard to balance, this holds true in both editions if the Eidolon had no action restrictions and even if it had just light action restrictions, that can still be hard to balance due to variability in combat

- It suffers from the same issues as designing the Mutagenist - you want it to be good in melee combat (your summon in this case) but not so good that it is better than other melee classes (because a Mutagenist/Summoner will likely have other things they cannot do)

- Summons that customizable (and at every level) mean that versatility is wide and combinations are high, this makes it hard to predict how new Eidolon attributes are going to affect overall power

- The cost for the death of a summon is always lower than the cost of the death of a character, even with staggering penalties to the Summoner, because by definition "Dead" is the worst condition

- GMs struggle to deal with them because Banishment or any amount of Summon prevention invalidates their whole schtick, killing the eidolon often came with a "can't come back for a while" penalty which meant "time to rest" for the party, and in general just had to be handled a lot differently than other classes. Punishing a player for reckless choices with their Eidolon "felt bad" to me, it felt like the only way I could give them consequences was to directly attack the Summoner itself (which is effective, but comes off as "targeting")

Now Summoner is at least unique enough as the "full companion class" with Focus spells for summoning purposes.

I would love to see one come back that was balanced, because the concept is a strong one and stands alone in terms of niche in a group.

Great Post! Summoner is a class that many players want, but GMs tend to struggle with. It should be included for sure because of it's high demand and the many concepts it can fulfill, but those are very valid points that should be addressed as much as possible for the new design.


Draco18s wrote:

"Drones (I mean, summoned creatures) go in first" is a perfectly valid tactic for a summoner. If the eidolon gets its ass kicked and the summoner's out of options, too bad. You were reckless, deal with it.

Point is, killing the eidolon doesn't (or shouldn't) completely shut down the summoner. They should have backup resources (Summon Monster) to stay engaged in the goings-on. Are they going to be as effective? No. Is that fine? Yes. Don't be afraid to punish the summoner for being reckless; random summons are not going to be as powerful as the eidolon and that's ok, at least they aren't...

Oh sure let me clarify.

I didn't feel "bad" for punishing the player, I felt bad because of the consequences to everyone at the table for punishing that player.

And I don't even really blame the player, building an Eidolon to fight in melee combat means it's supposed to be able to do that.

But if I decimate the Eidolon, that means they can't use it for the rest of the day. Now a resourceful Summoner that knows Slow/Haste as 2nd level spells is busted could definitely carry themselves through the day with Summon Monster and buffs.

However, a non-resourceful player or a less seasoned one to put it simply, might feel like they're "gimped" because they relied heavily on their Eidolon. I found this to be the case for players that typically played Martials that found interest in the Eidolon due to it's "martial" like role. It's purely anecdotal.

In either of the above cases of vet vs. new, if the player has the option to rest, they probably would, which slows down the game.

Then there's the Banishment spell, which basically amounts to Antimagic Field but specifically to Summoner. It never feels "good" to use that against the Summoner because of how vulnerable they are to the spell (at least to me).

Now of course there are ways to deal with them that don't create these "bad" feelings and I sought to do them as often as I could. However, I felt like this "prevent bad feel" required extra planning and finesse to make sure the Summoner felt like they were doing their thing, but not overshadowing others, and also being kept in check somewhat.

Thus my comparison to the spinning plate. You have to keep spinning it to make sure the balance doesn't fall in the wrong place (IMO).

ChibiNyan wrote:
reat Post! Summoner is a class that many players want, but GMs tend to struggle with. It should be included for sure because of it's high demand and the many concepts it can fulfill, but those are very valid points that should be addressed as much as possible for the new design.

Aww shucks, thank you!

Yeah I have faith the second pass is going to be phenomenal actually. The new system has the dominoes set up just right that integrating a minion-king-class is going to probably do well.

My only hope is that the Eidolon and the Summoner are heavily tethered, both in actions and in condition (i.e. the health of one has a direct impact on the health of the other, same for actions). Some form of "action trading".

Given that natural attacks have been streamlined, that was one of the bigger problems they faced in terms of Eidolon balance.

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What New Things? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.