I'd very much like Paizo to tackle the three basic types of Summoner with the core chassis out of the gate with NO need to deal with archetypes.
1) Summon a semi-persistent Eidolon that does the heavy lifting for you in combat that gets ever more powerful, strange, and unique as you advance.
2) Specialize in summoning more temporary creatures for use in both combat but also for skill challenges that are especially suited to any number of creatures unique roles. Able to cast every Summon Spell printed numerous times a day with the use of Focus points.
3) Channel the power of ancestors, spirits, ghosts, and other extraplanar beings that can haunt places and invite them to share their body and as they advance the summoner gains new and more powerful otherworldly beings that further empower and enhance the summoner themselves. This could be used in a variety of ways from the Synthesist concept to a Spiritualist and Medium all the way through to concepts where characters summon legendary magical equipment and weapons to help them fight
Sounds like 3 different classes to me.
I feel like trying to cram so many disparate ideas into one class just would end up diluting it. Plus "specializing in summoning temporary creatures" just seems like something a conjuration wizard should be doing.
IMO, a summoner class should focus on what made the summoner in PF1 unique: A customizable, high powered, singular companion that fights on behalf of the summoner, with the summoner augmenting it.
You might be able to squeeze the Spiritualist and Hunter in there, because both of those classes were thematically similar in PF1 and were built in kind of similar ways.
But trying to make it simultaneously the summoner, spiritualist, synethesist, master summoner and medium all at once sounds really messy. I realize master summoner and synthesist were both summoner archetypes in PF1, but the overloaded chassis is largely why the class was so problematic in PF1 anyways.
I agree that the Conjurer and the Summoner should be distinct.
I think a PF2 version of the Binder could be a really cool type of summoner.
The 3.5e Binder made short-term pacts with various entities called Vestiges which each granted a list of abilities. The result was that the binder essentially could sub in for most other classes as needed, depending on which entity/entities it bound that day. That could be a cool baseline, with the additional ability to manifest the entity in question as an eidolon (high-powered minion).
The PF1 Medium is built around the same idea, but with the spirits connected to the six primary stats (and, I think, Harrow suits?) which doesn't really have the same pizzazz as binding Amon, the Void before the Altar or Chupoclops, the Harbinger of Forever.
I like this idea!
I also like the Summoner being renamed (because Summoner sounds so boring.)
I'm actually inclined to treat the Summoner as an Archetype - pretty much only giving the Eidolon, with the later archetype "feats" giving improvements on the base.
I think the most balanced approach would be to keep the summoner with relatively weak proficiency may comparable to the druid. Give them no spell-casting (apart from Focus spells).
But give them abilities like the Starfinder Envoy's Improvisations which rather the comparable to bard's composition cantrip but usually more target limited.
This approach could also work rather well.
So I know NOTHING about a summoner, but I would hope it sells that class fantasy of selling your soul for power, or just having such a strong will you can bind creatures to serve your purposes, typically have more defensive spells and abilities combined with a lot of utility, debuffing and control spells with a few direct damage spells. It would never be a “Nuker” class and more often than not your damage would come from your animal companion/eidolon.
Since the Eidolon isn't always an evil outsider, it wouldn't necessarily be "selling one's soul," but the idea of working out the actual bargain with the spirit could be interesting (kind of like a Champion's Code of Honor).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually inclined to treat the Summoner as an Archetype - pretty much only giving the Eidolon, with the later archetype "feats" giving improvements on the base.
I think that ultimately wouldn't be very satisfying.
The reason there's been so much griping about animal companions and familiars is because it's just a feat. Essentially, an animal companion has to be balanced in such a way that a Ranger who just takes Favored Terrain instead doesn't feel like they've lost anything, which means the companion itself is fairly underwhelming on its own.
IMO the whole point of doing a Summoner is to create an option that can have a powerful companion, because it'd be a core assumption that the whole class is balanced around, rather than a feat or two you tack onto a build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the whole point of doing a Summoner is to create an option that can have a powerful companion, because it'd be a core assumption that the whole class is balanced around, rather than a feat or two you tack onto a build.
This. 100% this.
The best part of 2e is that with the math being as tight as it is, it should be extremely viable to come up something that isn't OP but remains combat viable. Suddenly, it doesn't matter if your companion has claws, a bit, horns and wings because all that is is an array of options, instead of straight op.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason there's been so much griping about animal companions and familiars is because it's just a feat. Essentially, an animal companion has to be balanced in such a way that a Ranger who just takes Favored Terrain instead doesn't feel like they've lost anything, which means the companion itself is fairly underwhelming on its own.
IMO the whole point of doing a Summoner is to create an option that can have a powerful companion, because it'd be a core assumption that the whole class is balanced around, rather than a feat or two you tack onto a build.
To be fair, having a class means having a multiclass archetype - and I'd image that getting an eidolon through such an archetype would either be in the dedication feat or at most one feat afterward. So regardless of what the class does, I imagine the Eidolon at base will have to be relatively equal to 1-2 feats in power.
That said, if the Summoner assumes using their class feats to add enhancements to their Eidolon in various ways - I could see that being able to make the Eidolon much stronger overall with the standard multiclass archetype feat limiting others to picking 1/2 level feats helping prevent Eidolons from being broken to multiclass into.
I am hoping the eidolon is a class feature that can't be taken with dedication.
What else would you want from a summoner if not the eidolon?
I imagine you'd get the eidolon but it'd be weaker somehow.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 Summoners aren't reminiscent of Binders at all. 3.5 Binders (and PF1 Medium, which is loosely based on the binder) are about temporarily binding yourself with a spirit-thingy that gives you a set powers. Summoners are about having a customizable pet and spamming regular summons.
I think the fiction kind of fits. The god callers of Sarkoris aren't too far from the vestige-bound binders of 3.5e. Mechanically I agree having a customizable pet and regular summons doesn't fit the image as well which is why I suggested that it would only work if they got rid of the summon spam.
It's a pretty common well to take inspiration from though. If you're going for "make a deal with an entity that will give you power in exchange for something they want", almost all of the PF1 APG base classes qualify, and I'm specifically including Cavaliers in that. Having a direct servitor is a narrower narrative, though I would argue that the 3.5 Binder didn't really qualify for that. I double checked my copy of Tome of Magic, and I didn't see anything that implied that the vestige served you, instead loaning you its powers while experiencing reality through your eyes. Which I'll admit is REALLY splitting hairs, but it is the difference between a Medium/Shaman/Witch and a Summoner/Spiritualist/Hunter.
|
The two ways Summoner worked in PF1 was either by going Synthesist OPWTFBBQ melee build or by being Master Summoner and winning the game by spamming summons. I don't see the second option ever happening due to a general kibosh Paizo has put on summon abuse in PF2.
I ran a Summoner up to 7th level as just a 'boy and his dog' and it worked fine. I never felt left behind in terms of power or things to do in a party with a couple of power gamers.
My Eidelon used pounce to get a bite and two claws after a charge and kept up nicely with a Teifling two hander fighter and a overly complicated Magus. He had the bonus of being 'disposable', resummoning 24 hrs after death made me not hesitant to get him into combat.
The character himself played a support role in combat. Maxing UMD for cure wands and Haste at 4th level worked pretty well. I could and did hang out in the back and I don't think I was even attacked until 2nd level. And I killed well over 4 monsters with Acid Splash.
A Summoner couldn't have a Summoned creature and their Eidelon out at the same time and I didn't generally used Summon very often.
I have mixed feeling with this. PF1 was pretty clearly "outsider" though many people tried to twist that into dragon (because dragons make everything better) and several archetypes allowed for things like constructs, fey, etc.
I went "dragon" because I was playing a kobold. Why wouldn't the kobold's idea of a powerful ally be a dragon?
I'm sure I've posted art before, too. And yes, its quite the brute-tank hybrid that's just the other side of Overpowered, but it's not the mass of tentacles for maximum attack efficiency that people talk about.
Right now (level 7) its evolutions are:
Resistance (Electricity) 5 [from base form]
Claw
Mount
Climb
Energy Attacks
Improved Natural Armor
Rend
I use the tail evolution as a kind of place to bank a point in order to save up for a more expensive evolution next level. One, because then I don't need to figure out which of the other abilities I sacrifice and two, it fits the theme without looking weird.
I'd like to take a step back and look at the summoner on a fundamental level. What is the intended draw of the class? What kind of character concepts does it seek to fulfill that can't be fulfilled by other classes, both narratively and mechanically?
If I had no idea what a summoner was or how it worked, how would you sell me on the class?
So, for me, for the build that I made, what I like about it and why I had so much fun with it was that it let me play a silly kobold without making that kobold powerful in his own right. More than once he's GTFO'd out of a fight (ok, he got hit with Fear and failed his saves a couple times, but there were times when I as a player went "nope, I'm out") because the fight was going south and with the eidolon down, or nearly down, there was no other option for survival.
Has it led to other PCs getting deadified? Absolutely. (Part of this was due to the players deciding that they wanted to change characters just after a bad fight where we had one player absent, so the GM said, "ok, this monster's movement ability is rather strong, I'll say you guys could have cut-and-run without losses" so it was a near TPK just as it played out).
Now, not all of that is summoner specific, but the summoner class made that kind of story more plausible.
I like being able to call upon the power of a entity stronger than myself.
I like being able to have some degree of customization on what that power looks like.
I like being able to have that power go toe-to-toe against opponents that are "as good as" the party fighter: solid AC, solid to-hit, solid HP, solid damage.
(And boy, has it felt good to be in a room full of zombies and say, "guys, back off, I got this" because the zombies could only hit me on a 20, died in basically one hit, but were tearing through the rest of the part's HP as they were getting surrounded).
I like not having to worry too much about it running out of HP. Its a problem if it does, but one that's solved with enough time.
Does it sort of work out as "Summon: Barbarian"? Kind of. Is that a problem?
But don't you dare give the eidolon the minion trait. If anything, the summoner is the eidolon's minion. The eidolon is bigger, strong, and just as smart (ok, it has 7 INT to the kobold's 12, but still, that's quite a bit more than "animal intelligence": eidolons have names, can speak languages, and can do all sorts of other things without being commanded to do so).
Having both the eidolon and summoner share a multi-attack penalty would help with the balance but would be narratively hard to justify.
Not really. Consider that if the Eidolon DID have the Minion trait, and we had stuff like the following rules (or similar) to improve action Economy...
Bonded Mind - The Summoner and the Eidolon act together in times of stress, their thoughts and emotions coming into perfect alignment. However, neither is capable of acting completely independently in these situations, either. The Eidolon may use its Summoner's Reaction as if it were its own. However, because of their link both the Summoner and the Eidolon share Multiattack Penalties across their turns in the same round.
Coordinated Movement - Once per round when you take a Stride or Step action, your Eidolon also takes that action.
It's pretty likely to have the minion trait - and the only function of that trait is rules for how actions are split between the entities. I seriously doubt we'll get an independent Eidolon.
I can't see us getting 3 + 3 actions as a base and not having watered-down versions of both the summoner and Eidolon as a result. I want 2 + 2 actions so both (especially the Eidolon) can be justified as having more powerful actions as a result.
If it is a minion, then I don't see theme sharing a multi attack penalty, we have a few sources for minions and none of them work that way.Having both the eidolon and summoner share a multi-attack penalty would help with the balance but would be narratively hard to justify.Not really. Consider that if the Eidolon DID have the Minion trait, and we had stuff like the following rules (or similar) to improve action Economy...
Bonded Mind - The Summoner and the Eidolon act together in times of stress, their thoughts and emotions coming into perfect alignment. However, neither is capable of acting completely independently in these situations, either. The Eidolon may use its Summoner's Reaction as if it were its own. However, because of their link both the Summoner and the Eidolon share Multiattack Penalties across their turns in the same round.
Coordinated Movement - Once per round when you take a Stride or Step action, your Eidolon also takes that action.
If they aren't a minion and severely limited (shared MAP, no reaction of their own) I don't see them getting above Expert equivalent proficiency.
The class really needs to have some sort of action efficiency handicap if we don't want the Eidolon to be a joke, or just a fancy animal companion.
The problem of lacking the minion trait is 6 actions would be hard to balance. Not impossible but difficult.
No one said it had to be 6 actions. There's been talk of "4, split as the player sees fit, with no more than 3 per body."
It should probably get its own reaction, and a base reaction it can take (probably something like attack of opportunity, but there's design space here to make it depend on its form), though what kind of reaction the summoner themselves would have might have to be something they get late, or via multiclassing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really understand why summon spells is something that ought to be attached to the summoner (well, other than the name). It is entirely disconnected from the eidolon concept - why not have a Minionmancer archetype or Wizard Creature Conjurer class archetype?
I'm not even opposed to the idea of a full minionmancer class if need be - I just don't understand the reason to staple Eidolons and summon spells together when they don't really have a greater magical connection.
Try to see Summoning and Eidolons as backing each other up, depending on which you choose to focus on. For Eidolon focused, if your eidolon dies, Summon spells give you a thematically appropriate backup. If the minionmancer runs out of Summons, their eidolon is their every combat equivalent.
The PF1 summoner’s summon spell like abilities and eidolon by RAW shared the same magical connection.
Yeah, I'd be totally down with not having a minionmancy option for the Summoner. The Eidolon is going to be the most complicated part of the class and deserves to be the core mechanic imo.
Plus, I can't see having a large amount of minions ever really being a thing in PF2.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also advocate dropping the summon monster aspect from the class. It feels disjointed with the whole eidolon aspect, and it doesn't work with how minions function in 2e. And for good reason: giving one player almost double the actions per turn of every other player makes for very dull combats.
For that reason and others, I support changing the name of the class. "Binder" has already been suggested, but something like "invoker" could also work.
Also it wouldnt be that hard to have 2 very different paths. Druids do it, Sorcerers do it, Clerics do it. The problem at the moment is that we have no idea how Paizo would even start to convert the class.
In all those classes you mentioned, the core of the class stays the same. All druids are primal spellcasters, all clerics are divine spellcasters, all sorcerers cast from one tradition. The different druid orders, sorcerer bloodlines, and cleric doctrines change the secondary aspects of the class, but not the core.
What you're suggesting are two very different classes, one with a single customizable pet with story relevance and one that spams summon monster over and over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* Eidolons should be as a effective as a Martial of no more than 2 levels lower.
.
There does need to be a bit of a difference in power, as an Eidolon is a secondary character (or perhaps the Summoner is the secondary and the Eidolon is the primary) But two levels is way too much. A two level difference is crushing and makes the Eidolon irrelevant.
I don't really understand why summon spells is something that ought to be attached to the summoner (well, other than the name). It is entirely disconnected from the eidolon concept - why not have a Minionmancer archetype or Wizard Creature Conjurer class archetype?
I see the Eidolon as a major summoning and the normal spells as lesser summons.
But I do see 3 distinct types in the PF1 Summoner class:
1) The classic Eidolon Summoner
2) the Master Summoner - who is really about working the normal summoning spells.
3) The Synthesis Summoner
The Eidolon itself has the option on focussing on a number of diiferent martial builds, or being more utility focused.
All of which I'd like to see somewhere in the PF2 system.
Yes it did have some balance problems. As a whole it got too many actions. But PF2 is better palced to address that. The mechanics around healing Eidolons were unnecessarily complex and need to be completely replace.
The mechanics around healing Eidolons were unnecessarily complex and need to be completely replaced.
What would a typical turn for a summoner look like? A typical turn for a fighter is some combination of Stride or Step, one or two Attack actions, and Raise Shield. For a spellcaster it's Stride or Step and two or three spellcasting actions, divided over one or two spells and/or cantrips. So what do summoners do? They have one action tied up in commanding their eidolon, which will probably use both its actions to move and attack or attack twice. What does the summoner do for their other two actions?
What would a typical turn for a summoner look like? A typical turn for a fighter is some combination of Stride or Step, one or two Attack actions, and Raise Shield.
I mean, for the eidolon, pretty much it does that. The summoner themselves is going to be using minor abilities of their own to aid their eidolon in various ways.
Looking at my PF1 character, honestly, most of the time the kobold just stays out of sight and doesn't do a whole lot.