|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Summoner's Eidolon could easily have a full three actions and offense on par with a PC. The Summoner themself, who would likely not be a spellcaster beyond Focus Spells, would be the one with sub-par personal combat abilities, and perhaps the ability to spend those actions buffing the Eidolon, much like animal companions can buff their master.
All that is pretty easy to engineer into the system, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see any of it.
I'd like to see a Summoner class based around an Eidolon whose combat math was based around a fixed profile, like those found in the Battle Form type spells. Fixed attack bonus and AC - with movement modes, special abilities, and weapon profiles tied to the form chosen on a fixed and balanced progression. Martial accuracy, or Martial -1 for the Eidolon.
The Summoner and Eidolon could share MAP and a reaction between them, with a more favorable action economy because of an inability to get an attack bonus out of the relationship.
I definitely think PF2Es tighter math and established progression would allow for the use of Eidilons that are not OP.
I'm torn on whether the Summoner should be a low spell slot spellcaster (bard), or a Focus based caster with a number of cantrips that work similar to compositions, providing bonuses to the eidolon and possibly the party.
AS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT APPROACH, I think an archetype (probably not necessary to do a full class) that got "early" access to the various summoning spells (IE, summon fiend as a 1st level spell with the normal summon creature limits) and the ability to summon uncommon/rare creatures would be an interesting expansion for the Summoning spells. Maybe with a mid/high level capstone of being Quickened for sustaining summons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting way to do it would be to have the summoner and eidolon have four actions between them that could be split any way they like, with a maximum of three actions on one creature. So maybe you want your eidolon to go all out on an enemy while you spend a single action move into position or you want to cast a spell while still letting your eidolon take two actions.
I think the summoner might have an eidolon that functions much like a souped-up animal companion with feats that alter the eidolon in various ways rather than the standard animal companion progression. I don't think they'll have spells, but they might have focus spells that affect the eidolon or summon more creatures.
Yeah, I'm imagining something like an animal companion but with a rule that allows 4 actions split however between the eidolon and summoner max 3 (as someone else suggested). I don't expect the summoner to have spells, but rather an array of focus spells that they can use to enhance themselves or the eidolon. Something that might allow you to choose a new form, or choose new evolutions, but definitely not math boosters.
Also they could still allow you to generically you focus spell as summon monster spells, with the caveat of not having it active at the same time as your eidolon.
I think the one thing to make sure of is that the stats of the eidolon are set (can't be modified) and progress along the lines of the druid shape changing spells (as far as raw numbers go) since the eidolon would intended to be the actual offensive part of the character.
Personally, I see no issue with having summons and an Eidolon active at the same time. 2E already has built-in countermeasures against the insane turn lengths and minion spam of 1E. The 4-action split thing seems as though it could work just like the Companion's Cry ranger feat. This could either be a feat the class can pick or a class feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My sell on the 1E summoner would be; "uses a single minion which is as powerful if not more powerful than the main summoner. The minion can be augmented and customized in near-endless ways depending on build choices. The main summoner uses support abilities to enhance the minion, and help the party."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Really quick answer, you're a Pokemon Master with one pokemon.
A slightly longer answer would be that the class essentially allows you to play a specially-built monster while at the same time having a more "normal" character for social interaction. The ability to change its form as you leveled up in PF1e was an extra benefit for when you got bored of using the same creature.
I'm definitely in the camp that likes the customization of the original summoner. However, I definitely understand that it's a pain to balance, especially as a GM. So I'm okay with the eidolon losing some customization options for ease of use.
For me, I'm a fan of JRPGs. So I like the idea of the eidolon being this creature you can summon when things are dire. This admittedly pushes the focus away from the eidolon some, but I think it might be better from a design standpoint. Have the summoner be more useful with spells and such, while also scaling back the eidolon a bit.
That said, I hope we keep the original icon. I'm not really a fan of the new Alchemist and Oracle iconics and I quite like Balazar
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.
This understates the other ways to build OP PF1 eidolons, especially in the pre-Unchained Summoner.
Synthesist as "OP" was always kind of weird to me because it gives up the action economy advantages of caster having separate actions from the eidolon. Everything that was strong about the synthesist's eidolon armor could have been as strong on just the eidolon.
For the eidolon: One straightforward way was max out the number of melee attacks. Pounce builds were strong because of the sheer number of attacks they could consistently get while the caster still did stuff, and the power just scaled over time with size increases and higher attack number limits.
|
[speculation]
Baseline is Minion gets 2 actions if master sacrifices 1.
Baseline Summon spells are 3 actions to cast, 1 to sustain.
Let's call them "Pacts"?
Binder
Baseline may sacrifice 2 actions to grant Minion 3 actions.
Feat support to improve action economy Commanding Minion (ex. Eventually 1+3, 2+2, 3+1)
Master
Baseline may Cast Summon spells as 2-action activities.
Feat support to consolidate actions to Sustain into other actions (ex. Stride + Sustain = 1 action)
Synthesist
Baseline choose a Chassis + Evolutions which may be Summoned over self.
Feat support to amplify, consolidate, and diversify those options.
[/speculation]
My sell on the 1E summoner would be; "uses a single minion which is as powerful if not more powerful than the main summoner. The minion can be augmented and customized in near-endless ways depending on build choices. The main summoner uses support abilities to enhance the minion, and help the party."
Really quick answer, you're a Pokemon Master with one pokemon.
A slightly longer answer would be that the class essentially allows you to play a specially-built monster while at the same time having a more "normal" character for social interaction. The ability to change its form as you leveled up in PF1e was an extra benefit for when you got bored of using the same creature.
That doesn't really sound like a "summoner" to me. When I hear "summoner" I picture someone with a list of creatures they can conjure, as well as a way to expand that list as they progress. I don't think of the summoner having one strong, customizable creature they call upon every single time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
My take: You're not an amazing/heroic character yourself like other members of your party - so instead you've summoned, made a contract, and linked yourself with a more powerful being to do the heavy lifting for you and benefit from some of the scraps of its power. As you grow stronger, you strengthen your eidolon and/or allow it to express more of its power on the mortal plane. While you may not be as strong or skilled as others, you have an intelligent being of power at your beck and call (...mostly).
I never liked the ideas of Summoners being based around casting Summon Monster a bunch of times - that sounds like the bailiwick of a Conjuration Specialist Wizard instead. (Having a class = better version of supposed specialty from another class sounds like terrible design to me.)
---
For the class mechanics: I imagine the Summoner themselves isn't as strong and certainly doesn't have full spellcasting. They'd have focus spells (mostly related to eidolon), and maybe some unique rituals and/or extra skill with rituals (like a ritual used to summon eidolon). At most, they could get a few cantrips with tradition based on the eidolon and themed as originating from their connection to it.
The type of eidolon they summoned would form their class path (think Unchained Summoner types along with maybe Spiritualist Phantoms / Promethian Alchemist Homunculus Companion). Emphasize the mental link & soul sharing between the Summoner and their Eidolon to give the Eidolon 1 action per round with the Summoner able to freely transfer transfer any number of their 3 actions to the Eidolon (linked minds = limited mental focus to split between the two).
Eidolon would have to improve via class feats, maybe with some feats giving a split benefit to both the Eidolon and the Summoner. Care would need to be taken with how powerful the Eidolon is without class feats due to how multiclassing works in PF2. You don't want it to be a power option for other classes to dip into Summoner just to get an Eidolon on top of all their normal abilities, or Summoners always multiclassing to take someone else's feats rather than their own.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
The God Callers of Sarkoris and Balazar the PF1 iconic summoner both come to mind. The God Callers conjured their gods to the material plane for assistance and defense in exchange for servitude to those gods. Balazar made a pact with a protean spirit where the eidolon would help him escape to freedom in exchange for giving it material form. More broadly, a way of making a pact with an extraplanar spirit directly, empowering it with a physical form in exchange for protection and assistance in battle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Turns out summoning several creatures every encounter doesn’t mix very well with the cooperative nature of a TTRPG.
The "make a deal with a powerful being" angle seems like it would step on the witch's toes, thematically speaking. You could even argue that the witch's familiar occupies the same role as the summoner's eidolon in giving the source of their power a physical foothold.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s a pretty weak connection. The fact that whatever you “made a deal with” is walking around on the battlefield as your equal combatant is already a massive distinction. The nature of the deal is completely different too, being much more of a spiritual bond with the eidolon versus the witch’s servitude in exchange for power and knowledge.
The "make a deal with a powerful being" angle seems like it would step on the witch's toes, thematically speaking. You could even argue that the witch's familiar occupies the same role as the summoner's eidolon in giving the source of their power a physical foothold.
You could also say a cleric's arrangement with a deity steps on the witch's toes because thematically both get their powers from some an outside force of greater power than themself. And the difference is the nature of the relationship between the two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
That doesn't really sound like a "summoner" to me. When I hear "summoner" I picture someone with a list of creatures they can conjure, as well as a way to expand that list as they progress. I don't think of the summoner having one strong, customizable creature they call upon every single time.
Why did you even ask if you were just going to shoot down the thing that the summoner's build was in 1e (particularly in answer to your question about things that other classes can't do) and say that it should be something different?
I would like a summoner focused on summoning different types of creatures. I'd like them to be thematically like a sorcerer with much depending on what they summon.
If they summon elementals, then there powers should focus on elemental powers.
If they summon extraplanar creatures, then divine type of things.
And so and so on. Their abilities should let them buff and enhance their summons.
The Eidolon was the summoner's unique thing in pathfinder 1st.
No whilst I would love to see how pathinder 2e would do a more final fantasy style summoner one who summons monster from the ether to do a singular big supernatural attack.
I just can't see them doing the summoner without doing the iconic eidolon.
I think there is a good chance we won't ever see the summoner because of last editions problems and because they are a class like the magus whose core stick messes with the three action economy. But if we do they will have an eidolon with some degree of customisation.
I'd be quite happy if they make it 2 classes.
Perhaps even a dedicated eidolon summoner class, plus an archetype that would turn a wizard/sorceror into a summoner specialist.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
While animal companions, familiars and summoned monsters are kinda weak in PF2, I don't think that's actually a problem necessarily for the Summoner.
Those options are inherently problematic because you're attaching them to classes who do tons of other stuff. An animal companion is just a feat or two for a druid or ranger. A summon spell is a single spell slot from a caster.
A class that's built from the ground up to support a single powerful companion doesn't necessarily have that problem, because its power budget is going to revolve around that aspect of their class, rather than it being one single option bolted onto a class that has to be perfectly functional without it too.
So rather than worrying about it being problematic, I think a PF2 summoner should lean really hard on the eidolon and giving players the ability to customize a dynamic, powerful companion at the expense of other class features.
Agree with the sentiment that a noncaster summoner might be a better and more interesting direction to take the class, with instead focus spells and other actions designed to help augment the eidolon and class feats that expand its capabilities.
So I like the idea of the eidolon being this creature you can summon when things are dire. This admittedly pushes the focus away from the eidolon some, but I think it might be better from a design standpoint.
Not sure I agree. Games like Pathfinder have always had trouble balancing desperation moves or limit breaks. They're really hard to tune right, especially since PF2 has moved away from hard encounters/day guidelines like some older games used to push.
I also think, in general, scaling back the eidolon is a poor choice because that's the one key feature that separated the summoner from other classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Eidolon was the summoner's unique thing in pathfinder 1st.
No whilst I would love to see how pathinder 2e would do a more final fantasy style summoner one who summons monster from the ether to do a singular big supernatural attack.
I just can't see them doing the summoner without doing the iconic eidolon.
I think there is a good chance we won't ever see the summoner because of last editions problems and because they are a class like the magus whose core stick messes with the three action economy. But if we do they will have an eidolon with some degree of customisation.
Magi would no more mess with the action economy than Flurry of Blows or Twin Takedown, both available at level 1.
I'm curious if they'll redo the point system, or go for a more simplified system like Hunter/Shifter animal focus and the familiar abilities in PF2. Definitely a lot of limits to what you can do with just giving a set number of abilities, but perhaps that might appeal to whomever winds up designing the class.
So I like the idea of the eidolon being this creature you can summon when things are dire. This admittedly pushes the focus away from the eidolon some, but I think it might be better from a design standpoint.Not sure I agree. Games like Pathfinder have always had trouble balancing desperation moves or limit breaks. They're really hard to tune right, especially since PF2 has moved away from hard encounters/day guidelines like some older games used to push.
I also think, in general, scaling back the eidolon is a poor choice because that's the one key feature that separated the summoner from other classes.
Consider for a moment that these were additional summons on top of your main one, and that these were the bulk of your focus spells. Like instead of Winter Bolt, you summoned Shiva?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could also say a cleric's arrangement with a deity steps on the witch's toes because thematically both get their powers from some an outside force of greater power than themself. And the difference is the nature of the relationship between the two.
Some people did say that, which is why the witch didn't have access to the divine spell list in the APG playtest. I acknowledge that the witch and the summoner go about things differently, but think that, with the benefit of a new edition, we have the opportunity to take another look at the conceit of the class to see if we can't expand on the original formula.
What if you wanted to summon something that wasn't from another plane, like a dragon? What if you just wanted to treat your eidolon as a glorified animal companion and not care about who it is or where it came from? Witches can do that because they don't need to know specifically where their power comes from, but it's hard to ignore your patron-equivalent when it's standing right next to you.
Why did you even ask if you were just going to shoot down the thing that the summoner's build was in 1e (particularly in answer to your question about things that other classes can't do) and say that it should be something different?
In part to suggest an alternate design direction a class named "summoner" could take, in part to suggest that, if this class sticks to summoning only one creature, maybe it should be given a different name.
Some people did say that, which is why the witch didn't have access to the divine spell list in the APG playtest.
More complicated than that. They didn't have Divine in the playtest because they felt Divine was the least Arcane of the four spell lists, and since Witches were arcane casters in PF1, they should be limited to the lists that touch Arcane casting in this edition.
In fairness, she also posted a different justification that more closely says what you say, but both can be true.
What if you wanted to summon something that wasn't from another plane, like a dragon? What if you just wanted to treat your eidolon as a glorified animal companion and not care about who it is or where it came from? Witches can do that because they don't need to know specifically where their power comes from, but it's hard to ignore your patron-equivalent when it's standing right next to you.
Casters are able to use Summon spells to summon dragons and animals, so I'm not sure why a summoner wouldn't be able to summon a dragon or animal using a summon ability. "Summon" doesn't seem to specify extraplanar creatures anymore, so that restriction isn't there.
Casters are able to use Summon spells to summon dragons and animals, so I'm not sure why a summoner wouldn't be able to summon a dragon or animal using a summon ability. "Summon" doesn't seem to specify extraplanar creatures anymore, so that restriction isn't there.
I'm talking about summoning as an eidolon, not via regular summon monster spells. Of the two ways summoners could summon things, that definitely seems to be the one people are more interested in getting again.
Casters are able to use Summon spells to summon dragons and animals, so I'm not sure why a summoner wouldn't be able to summon a dragon or animal using a summon ability. "Summon" doesn't seem to specify extraplanar creatures anymore, so that restriction isn't there.I'm talking about summoning as an eidolon, not via regular summon monster spells. Of the two ways summoners could summon things, that definitely seems to be the one people are more interested in getting again.
Summoners in PF1 used a summoning ritual to summon their eidolon. This ability was specifically linked to their ability to use a summon spell-like ability, implying these are different forms of the same spell. When I said "summoning ability", that was the ability I was talking about. I see no reason to assume they can't summon an animal companion or dragon instead of an Eidolon using that ability. PF1 summoners could summon constructs, plants, and fey instead of outsiders if they chose the appropriate archetype, and several other archetypes made your eidolon animal-like instead of outsider-like.
I think we'll get all those options back and more. It's just a matter of figuring out the starting chassis and defining what options you're able to add onto it. And if I'm wrong, if you're not able to summon a dragon or animal companion, there's an archetype and two classes released so far, with another archetype on the way, that will let you do those two options specifically once the APG is out.
First, regarding Cleric / Witch / Summoner, I'd view it something like this:
Cleric: Servitude to deity-level entity with the nature of the agreement fully understood by both parties. Cleric cannot break arrangement without losing magic / class features, nor should they have much reason to do so when they knew all the details upfront before making the agreement.
Witch: Pact with very-powerful entity (typically below deity-level) with the nature of agreement not fully understood, and either one or both parties having motives of their own. While the Patron is more powerful, the Witch is not a Servant and may decide they need to oppose their Patron if things change or they learn secrets they don't like.
Summoner(PF1): Pact with strong-ish outsider that actually links the two together. PF1 describes them as sharing a shard of the same soul and have abilities which share senses and lifeforce. Power dynamic is reversed with the Summoner being in the power/authority role, though the outside entity is the weakest of the three.
What if you wanted to summon something that wasn't from another plane, like a dragon? What if you just wanted to treat your eidolon as a glorified animal companion and not care about who it is or where it came from? Witches can do that because they don't need to know specifically where their power comes from, but it's hard to ignore your patron-equivalent when it's standing right next to you.
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.
So on one hand, I like the idea of expanding Summoners a bit on their eidolon type, especially so they could incorporate things like the Spiritualist's Phantom or maybe even the Promethean Alchmist's Homunculus Companion. (Because honestly, Spiritualist was basically "occult summoner but less broken" already. So why not combined them?)
On the other hand, I dislike the ides of not caring "about who it is or where it came from" for the Eidolon. This reminds me of the worst (& most common) Summoners I saw in PF1 where the Eidolon was a formless blob of the "best" evolutions with zero theming or personality. If the centerpiece of the class is summoning a powerful companion - that companion really should should have a strong thematic base and be something that matters to the class in my opinion.
Perhaps even a dedicated eidolon summoner class, plus an archetype that would turn a wizard/sorcerer into a summoner specialist.
I dig this idea.
Honestly wouldn't mind seeing summoners as any spell casting tradition. You could key it off of the type that they select. Fey and animals for primal, demons and angels for divine, elementals and undead for wizards, and bags of tentacles for occult, as an example.
Though, I'm not entirely sure they have to be spell casters (at least of the current 10th level type) at all. Focus spells would probably be able to do the job just as well, then maybe give them some feats in the style of the multiclasses (one feat for spell levels 1-3, ect) if you want to mix in some true casting.
Honestly wouldn't mind seeing summoners as any spell casting tradition. You could key it off of the type that they select. Fey and animals for primal, demons and angels for divine, elementals and undead for wizards, and bags of tentacles for occult, as an example.
Undead are generally divine creatures by default, with Spirits being occult.
So if you wanted to split it up by tradition I'd imagine it'd be something like:
Arcane - Constructs, Elementals?, maybe Dragons?*
Divine - Celestials, Fiends, Monitors, Undead
Occult - Aberrations, Astrals, Spirits, Oozes
Primal - Animals, Elementals?, Fey, Plants
[*Everyone always seems to want Dragon Eidolons even though I don't think Dragons really fit here...]
To be fair, Summoner archetypes & Unchained Eidolon sub-types in PF1 did have connections to what have now become all four traditions in PF2. So I could potentially see Summoners having some type of ability to pick a tradition to be related to based on their Eidolon - but still don't think they should be actual casters and should focus more on their Eidolon with a smattering of focus spells or maybe cantrips at most (leave Sorcerer/Witch as the pick-list casters).
Honestly summoner is a weird one specially because there aren't custom spell lists any more.
...
Also keep in mind that Eidolon and Summons are mutually exclusive.\***************************
P.S. Summoners in lore are inherently Arcane casters that use binding magic.
Yes it doesn't translate simply to the new system.
It is possible to pick up minor spell casting through a mulitclass archetype. Not sure if that would be emough.
The PF1 Summoner was always an odd character with two modes. I don't think that the dual nature worked well. I always saw it as a conflict. As I player I enjoyed it as it had insane depth and resources. There was this custom Eidolon, but after that all these Summon Monster options. I think these are better off on different characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. Summoners in lore are inherently Arcane casters that use binding magic.
So were witches, and look how that turned out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. Summoners in lore are inherently Arcane casters that use binding magic.
PF1 lore is basically obsolete in this respect due to the massive paradigm shift of PF2 splitting magic into 4 traditions. "Arcane" in PF1 was essentially a catch-all for "any magic that isn't Divine." That doesn't work when "not divine" now includes primal and occult as well.
---
For Summoner, I could see arguments for:
Arcane Tradition: For legacy and being broadest tradition, though CHA-casting didn't really emphasize "logic & rationality."
Occult Tradition: To emphasize the strangeness and nontraditional approach of summoning/binding an outsider to yourself. Not to mention the bizarreness of Eidolons having different evolutions based on what the Summoner does.
Variable Tradition: If any magical abilities the Summoner had was re-themed as originating from connection to Eidolon.
No Tradition: Since Rituals could potentially be used to explain the summoning/binding process without making Summoners a caster at all (probably closest to my personal preference).
I do like the idea of the Summoner picking one of the four traditions and that guides their eidolon choices. Maybe not to the extent of "If you pick Divine, you only get angels.". But perhaps you can pick a basic body form for the eidolon, then the spell list you choose will affect the supernatural abilities of the eidolon. So you could still have a flexible look to the eidolon companion but still have a central theme to them.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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
I think with the fact that God Callers got specific mention in Gods and Magic, that it means they certainly intended to come out with a summoner class that will be able to call an eidolon and fulfil that segment of the the existing Golarion lore.
As far as the Eidolon goes, I think it will have the Minion trait, they are too vested in it to not utilize it. However, I could see them have a class feature or feat allowing them to spend an action to grant their eidolon a third action, as well, I am thinking the ability to use a reaction (shared between the caster and the eidolon) that may have been chosen for it via an ability.
While I suspect that eidolon will not be built with points, if you look at familiars and animal companions, I find it quite likely that they will offer certain base frames for them to start, and will have a certain quantity of selectable abilities, which can be chosen per day, or perhaps changed each time you level up. Some of those abilities might have prerequisites of level, other abilities, for instance. All of that would seem quite within the design parameters they have been using within second edition so far.
I actually like the idea of them having a 'companion' summon, they can call with a short ritual or ceremony. If the creature reaches 0HP it is banished from the world for a time (no dying transitions). But if the companion is banished, or not called, I'm for them having a focus spell they can cast that will summon some other more mundane creature from some list.
I'll admit however, noting how druids and rangers now choose branches between animal companion, or spells, or animal shapechanging, I have to admit I could see having summoning one special companion being made/considered a different path than being able to repeatedly call up a minion to aide you in battle or tasks multiple times in a day being relegated to different paths. (as might having something boost you magically, not unlike barbarians and such, as was sort of the concept of the Synthesis summoner might become a third path if they decide that can do one that is more worthwhile than problematic)
It seems like they would want some forms of spells to buff their companion creature, or hide themselves from foes, so I could see them wanting spells and spell slots, but understand this would need to be kept from being too powerful. It might be interesting to see them instead of being limited like a 6th level caster, if instead their class was had caster slots more like a wizard archetype in respect to its natural progression, rather than as a wizard? It might also come with limitations on who-what can be the target of their spells, so they don't have as wide a list. Perhaps their slots would count as slots for magic item purposes, and the magic items wouldn't have the same limitations on targets when cast from the magic items.
Alternately or additionally, they might have special cantrips they can use to buff their companion, or protect themselves they can use each turn to help their companion in its battle for them? It does seem like they would be a good opportunity to wrap up things like, I think it was the spiritualist which had its phantom companion and it seems like there might have been other classes that had supernatural companions that it might make sense to integrate with.
All this said, that I have confidence that they have definite plans to re-do summoners for second edition. I have no idea where they are on the master roadmap however. However I think they will want to make sure they have a good handle on minion rules, and how far they can be safely stretched however before they do tackle it. With that in mind, I suspect it will definitely be a class that they put out during a playtest cycle in the future sometime.
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
I am strongly in favor of this.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.