| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly? I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the class is called "Summoner" and works the way it does can be summarized as "Final Fantasy X". (Sort of like how the answer to "why do two-bladed swords exist in 3.5?" is "The Phantom Menace")
If you think about summoning from a D&D tradition standpoint, the whole "being a conduit for a powerful supernatural being that fights for you" thing is a little weird, like you mention. But if you think of it from a "Yuna is awesome and I want to play that as a D&D character" standpoint, it's basically a perfect fit. Certainly that was literally the first thing I thought of when I saw the class for the first time.
At this point, though, Summoner has been a popular part of Pathfinder for far too long for Paizo to consider changing the name.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be surprised if a system as crunchy as evolution points came back.
It doesn't have to be that fiddly. You can do something like:
Summoner has 4 spells/level. If your Eidolon manifests in its basic form, you have 3 spells/level. If your Eidolon manifests in its advanced form you have 2 spells/level. If your Eidolon manifests in its specialist form you have 1 spell/level. If your Eidolon manifests in its ultimate form you can't cast non-cantrip spells.
Then have the various levels of forms unlock with class features.
In any case, the lore around doesn't to me seem to support the class being called the summoner. It seems more like the focus of the class is more summoning adjacent, and that it might perhaps be constrained by the notion that it is only summoning. I think that it may have been this name is part of what confused me about the class to begin with.
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned, but another difference between the familiar, animal companion, and an Eidolon is that while the former two tag along with you all the time, the Eidolon in PF1 came when you summoned it. If that continues into PF2, would that help you imagine it?
As Mark said, an Eidolon is fundamentally from a different plane, and exists on this one through you. You control when it comes and goes, and apparently how substantially it is allowed to exist on its own.
|
Yeah, post APG, I think most concepts are very doable by 2nd level in one way or another. Some are a tad Feat starved, but I don't feel very limited otherwise.
The few I do feel limited by are almost all specific weapon interactions, and fixable with a single new Feat per relevant Class (I think one Feat each for Rogues, Swashbucklers, and Monks would do it...restricting all of these Feats to d8 weapons keeps this balanced, too). Given that, many GMs will even be willing to homebrew something.
Besides which, that's not Classes being narrow in general so much as weapon proficiencies and permissions being very narrow...which is a different problem entirely, and a much smaller one.
The narrowness to me comes like this. Say I want to make an explorer, I imagine the character as one who seeks out the uncharted places of the world, to map them out and plant a flag. So I look at some different classes and decide rogue or ranger would fit my concept the best. Now I get to decide does my character sneak and stab people in the back or are they a hunter? Neither of these were part of my concept, but I am forced to take one because they are baked in part of the classes.
So now I start writing up the character, I have some background ideas already, I know she's a farm girl. So I look at the farmhand background, perfect right? Except it doesn't let me get the starting ability score spread I wanted. So now I have to chose between not having the stats I want or taking a different background.Every character I write for pf2 has some sort of choices like these. The mechanics never quite line up with the character concept so I have to make some sort of compromise. This is because every choice in pf2 is a package deal, so you chose the package that has the most things in it that you want, but you're stuck with everything in the package, you can't trade any of them out, you can't even discard the ones you don't like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I look at some different classes and decide rogue or ranger would fit my concept the best. Now I get to decide does my character sneak and stab people in the back or are they a hunter? Neither of these were part of my concept, but I am forced to take one because they are baked in part of the classes.
This is the part where your logic falls apart for me. Considering multiclass archetypes exist, if the core class feature of rogue doesn't fit your concept, then how is rogue the class that "fits your concept best"?
It's like saying, "I decide that wizard is the class that would fit my concept best, but I'm forced to take arcane spellcasting, which wasn't part of my concept".
An explorer character could just as easily be a swashbuckler, fighter, barbarian, bard, champion of Desna, etc. etc.
The bit about Backgrounds resonates with me a bit more, but honestly there are so many Backgrounds printed by now, and more all the time, that it has never been hard to find a Background that fits any given character both mechanically and thematically. I just have to remind myself that just because something is my Background doesn't mean it's the single defining part of my character's background. Which is, admittedly, counter-intuitive. But nothing says that your character has to have the Farmhand background just because they were a farmhand at some point in their life.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The narrowness to me comes like this. Say I want to make an explorer, I imagine the character as one who seeks out the uncharted places of the world, to map them out and plant a flag. So I look at some different classes and decide rogue or ranger would fit my concept the best. Now I get to decide does my character sneak and stab people in the back or are they a hunter? Neither of these were part of my concept, but I am forced to take one because they are baked in part of the classes.
No you aren't. Or at least, not thematically. Sneak Attack and Hunter's Edge are mechanics, neither has much built in flavor, and both are perfectly reasonable to flavor as just knowing how to fight. Every person who fights takes advantage of opponent's weaknesses and picks specific targets to fight, after all. You're just better at it.
So now I start writing up the character, I have some background ideas already, I know she's a farm girl. So I look at the farmhand background, perfect right? Except it doesn't let me get the starting ability score spread I wanted. So now I have to chose between not having the stats I want or taking a different background.
Uh...all Backgrounds get a floating +2. You can always get the single stat you want with literally any of them. If there are two stats you want, a quick look at the Backgrounds almost always finds you two or three that fit your already decided backstory. The concept and backstory you've listed easily fits the Emissary, Scout, and Farmhand Backgrounds (the third emphasizes her childhood, the former two what she's been doing since, which is more important in terms of stats is up to you). Between those, you can get literally any pair of stat ups you like.
Every character I write for pf2 has some sort of choices like these. The mechanics never quite line up with the character concept so I have to make some sort of compromise. This is because every choice in pf2 is a package deal, so you chose the package that has the most things in it that you want, but you're stuck with everything in the package, you can't trade any of them out, you can't even discard the ones you don't like.
Only if you view the mechanics as somehow straightjacketing the flavor you have in mind. Sneak Attack isn't always a literal back stab, Hunter's Edge isn't always being a literal Hunter, and almost every backstory has more than one Background contained in it.
You decide what the mechanics mean for your individual character, and doing so is really not that hard to do.
|
|
If you want a spread of 18 16 12 12 10 10, then your background and ancestry must both add to the your 18 and 16 stats. So, say you want those to be dex and cha, then you would have to pick a background that has either dex or charisma as the mandatory boost. This can force a choice between mechanics and background.
Let's try a different approach.
The barbarian is a character with mechanics that are based on the flavor of a berserk warrior. This is what classes are, they are a flavor that have some mechanics written to try to represent that flavor in the game. Now this doesn't mean you can't reflavor those mechanics and use the barbarian class to play a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, but if they had a Genki Girl class that got an enthusiasm pool and special abilities based off it, you'd pick that instead. You could reflavor a fighter as a berserk warrior, but since the barbarian exists, you'd pick the barbarian because that is closer to the concept that you want. You could reflavor a wizard as a summoner, but if they make a summoner class, that'd be preferable.
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there was no narrative justification for the summoner, we wouldn't have done a summoner class. We'll have plenty to speak to on this topic in the book itself for people to read around 11 months from today.
But if you want a taste right now for the narrative justification, check out page 95 of Lost Omens: Gods and Magic.
The barbarian is a character with mechanics that are based on the flavor of a berserk warrior. This is what classes are, they are a flavor that have some mechanics written to try to represent that flavor in the game. Now this doesn't mean you can't reflavor those mechanics and use the barbarian class to play a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, but if they had a Genki Girl class that got an enthusiasm pool and special abilities based off it, you'd pick that instead. You could reflavor a fighter as a berserk warrior, but since the barbarian exists, you'd pick the barbarian because that is closer to the concept that you want.
Not necessarily. If the mechanics of the Fighter worked better for me, then I'd probably stick with the fighter and reflavor. Especially the fighter actually, as that has little internal flavoring of its own. The dirty fighting heavy armor rogue talked about upthread could be an Outwit Ranger or a Rage totem barbarian instead.
If there was no narrative justification for the summoner, we wouldn't have done a summoner class. We'll have plenty to speak to on this topic in the book itself for people to read around 11 months from today.
But if you want a taste right now for the narrative justification, check out page 95 of Lost Omens: Gods and Magic.
I love the summoner. Please make it cool.
And even more important, effective and interesting. Please do not make summoner feats like witch feats. My friend is completely underwhelmed by witch feats. I mean Witch's Bottle, what the heck was that. How can any designer look at that feat and see a good combat use for using two focus points that you can't get back until it is used? Who thought that feat up?
Try to think of the feats in terms of how a player can use the feat in battle within the 3 action system in a fashion that isn't like pulling teeth or effectively unusable and/or worthless.
Yeah, post APG, I think most concepts are very doable by 2nd level in one way or another. Some are a tad Feat starved, but I don't feel very limited otherwise.
The few I do feel limited by are almost all specific weapon interactions, and fixable with a single new Feat per relevant Class (I think one Feat each for Rogues, Swashbucklers, and Monks would do it...restricting all of these Feats to d8 weapons keeps this balanced, too). Given that, many GMs will even be willing to homebrew something.
Besides which, that's not Classes being narrow in general so much as weapon proficiencies and permissions being very narrow...which is a different problem entirely, and a much smaller one.
The narrowness to me comes like this. Say I want to make an explorer, I imagine the character as one who seeks out the uncharted places of the world, to map them out and plant a flag. So I look at some different classes and decide rogue or ranger would fit my concept the best. Now I get to decide does my character sneak and stab people in the back or are they a hunter? Neither of these were part of my concept, but I am forced to take one because they are baked in part of the classes.
So now I start writing up the character, I have some background ideas already, I know she's a farm girl. So I look at the farmhand background, perfect right? Except it doesn't let me get the starting ability score spread I wanted. So now I have to chose between not having the stats I want or taking a different background.Every character I write for pf2 has some sort of choices like these. The mechanics never quite line up with the character concept so I have to make some sort of compromise. This is because every choice in pf2 is a package deal, so you chose the package that has the most things in it that you want, but you're stuck with everything in the package, you can't trade any of them out, you can't even discard the ones you don't like.
That is something that I tried very hard to push against during the Playtest, and I am very sorry it didn't pan out. I too wanted the freedom to, say, pick a class for how "skillsy" it could be (read: by having the most Skill Feats, which then meant the Rogue) without having that choice dictate that somehow I must prefer daggers or similar weapons and wouldn't dream of using something like a greatsword. The two have diddly-bupkiss to do with each other, but it still somehow became a package deal.
Granted, I don't have a copy of the APG, and the Investigator might surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath. It will probably be the same "confirm, color inside the lines" disappointment as the Rogue.
Eidolons are not something you "manifest in part".
When you summon an Eidolon you summon the entire Eidolon. No advanced version, no greater version, no circumstantial version. If they do it that way I would not call that an Eidolon, it would just a Phantom.
I'm not sure this will be the case in 2e. Since if there's more behind your Eidolon than "what you can manifest", that does give more oomph for the Sarkorian religion where these things are Gods.
First Edition doesn't really clearly state "there is nothing going on with your Eidolon besides what you summon" anywhere from what I can tell. It seems like "My eidolon is an avatar of some divine force, and as I become more powerful it can manifest more fully" is a reasonable diagetic perspective for a 1e summoner.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want a spread of 18 16 12 12 10 10, then your background and ancestry must both add to the your 18 and 16 stats. So, say you want those to be dex and cha, then you would have to pick a background that has either dex or charisma as the mandatory boost. This can force a choice between mechanics and background.
That's a really specific and usually unnecessary spread. But lets say you need it. If that's really true, as I said almost any backstory has at least 3 different Backgrounds in it, and one of them will get you the stats you want.
If you give me a character with a backstory and a set of two stats you need, I can almost certainly give you a Background that fits both thematically and mechanically in only a few minutes.
Let's try a different approach.
The barbarian is a character with mechanics that are based on the flavor of a berserk warrior. This is what classes are, they are a flavor that have some mechanics written to try to represent that flavor in the game. Now this doesn't mean you can't reflavor those mechanics and use the barbarian class to play a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, but if they had a Genki Girl class that got an enthusiasm pool and special abilities based off it, you'd pick that instead. You could reflavor a fighter as a berserk warrior, but since the barbarian exists, you'd pick the barbarian because that is closer to the concept that you want. You could reflavor a wizard as a summoner, but if they make a summoner class, that'd be preferable.
I mean, usually yes, but nothing prevents you from coloring outside the lines if you want to, and there are a lot of tools to do so. This describes suggestions rather than restrictions, at least in my eyes.
That is something that I tried very hard to push against during the Playtest, and I am very sorry it didn't pan out. I too wanted the freedom to, say, pick a class for how "skillsy" it could be (read: by having the most Skill Feats, which then meant the Rogue) without having that choice dictate that somehow I must prefer daggers or similar weapons and wouldn't dream of using something like a greatsword. The two have diddly-bupkiss to do with each other, but it still somehow became a package deal.
To some extent Ruffian fixes this. They're not gonna have a greatsword, but it's pretty good at creating that kind of character aside from that. Inasmuch as it doesn't fix the issue, I think this is actually a fair complaint, but it's also getting back to 'I need a specific weapon', which I already agreed was the one area that had some issues.
Granted, I don't have a copy of the APG, and the Investigator might surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath. It will probably be the same "confirm, color inside the lines" disappointment as the Rogue.
Investigators are incentivized to use finesse or agile weapons much as Rogues are, or ranged weapons, but they are proficient with all martial weapons, and I'm pretty sure there's actually a decent greatsword Investigator build out there that we just haven't quite cobbled together yet. It loses out on, eventually, 5d6 damage (average 17.5) and a slight bonus to hit...but only once per turn, and gaining what's eventually 12 damage per attack from using a d12 weapon instead of a d6 one might close the gap if done properly, or at least come pretty close.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
...DMW, now I want to make an Investigator/Barbarian.
"Hmm, yes, I see there is a structural weakness in your armor between the third and fourth plate on the lateral side... I'MA SMASH IT!"
:P
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure how they fit into Golorion lore, but there were multiple instances of "unbound eidolons" that showed up in pf1 adventures.
Those were monsters we invented as an attempt to find a place for the buffet-style pick-your-power exquisite corpse version of eidolons we started with that didn't have a place in the multiverse to get summoned from in the first place.
Investigators are incentivized to use finesse or agile weapons much as Rogues are, or ranged weapons, but they are proficient with all martial weapons, and I'm pretty sure there's actually a decent greatsword Investigator build out there that we just haven't quite cobbled together yet. It loses out on, eventually, 5d6 damage (average 17.5) and a slight bonus to hit...but only once per turn, and gaining what's eventually 12 damage per attack from using a d12 weapon instead of a d6 one might close the gap if done properly, or at least come pretty close.
Probably by fishing a crit out of hits on your attack could potentially make up the gap... deriving as many bonuses to your attack and penalties to their AC.
Barbarian MCD as Max Astro said could work but it would require you to take Moment of Clarity because Stratagem is Concentrate.
That said though, turn open DaS, Rage, and attack is decent, and then on subsequent turns you'd be able to MoC -> DaS -> Attack/someaction
Barbarian seems a bit starved to make it work and you'd really need the Proficiency bonus of a Fighter to Critical Fish.
The best bet is probably to honestly go Fighter first and then Investigator MCD if we're maximizing a greatsword, since losing the associated damage for a non-INT strike sort of defeats the purpose of not simply getting the MCD version (which comes sans both of them anyways).
And then a Fighter with this and the Strike + Debuff feats is solid.
Barb would be tough, but I think they lack a lot of good one action attacks which is what makes Moment of Clarity -> Devise a Stratagem so tough to pull off (and honestly you'd need haste for the free Stride).
Now if you weren't simply trying to make up the damage, I think you might be able to get away with it by going Investigator and then picking up debuffs via an Archetype of some kind (though not sure the best one here) but it'll be tough to fish with lower proficiencies.
___________________________________________________
Oh, and Summoner totally deserves a narrative space. Really excited to see how the it works in the new system. Not going to lie, I'm excited to see what an Archetype for a Summoner might look like almost as much.
My bet for the summoner is that they will be a full-ish caster, but you need to invest spell slots in your Eidolon to buy "evolution points" or whatever metacurrency they use. If their Eidolon goes away, they then get those spells back.
That sounds quite fun in a tinkerish manner. Alhough in an actual gameplay, you might have to plan out point allocations beforehand to streamline the flow and not hamper others (just like preparing "routine" spells)...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, insult the designers, that'll make them more agreeable to your wants.If there was no narrative justification for the summoner, we wouldn't have done a summoner class. We'll have plenty to speak to on this topic in the book itself for people to read around 11 months from today.
But if you want a taste right now for the narrative justification, check out page 95 of Lost Omens: Gods and Magic.
I love the summoner. Please make it cool.
And even more important, effective and interesting. Please do not make summoner feats like witch feats. My friend is completely underwhelmed by witch feats. I mean Witch's Bottle, what the heck was that. How can any designer look at that feat and see a good combat use for using two focus points that you can't get back until it is used? Who thought that feat up?
Try to think of the feats in terms of how a player can use the feat in battle within the 3 action system in a fashion that isn't like pulling teeth or effectively unusable and/or worthless.
Witch's Bottle is terrible. How did that make it in I do not know. Maybe it was thematic for the whole witch cursing people by tricking them into drinking a potion, but man, useless in actual combat play. You won't be convincing anyone to drink a potion in combat.
Murksight doesn't even synergize with spellcasting as it doesn't work for magically generated fog or mist.
My buddy is multiclassing at this point.
I pray the Summoner doesn't end up with feats like that. That would feel terrible.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Witch's Bottle is terrible. How did that make it in I do not know. Maybe it was thematic for the whole witch cursing people by tricking them into drinking a potion, but man, useless in actual combat play. You won't be convincing anyone to drink a potion in combat.
Thrilled to inform you that there are vast swathes of any given campaign that don't involve combat. Not only that, but there are beneficial hexes as well. Just because it doesn't work for your witch friend doesn't mean it's bad.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
People want their special mechanical uniqueness for their character concept because roleplaying and imagination is too hard, and Paizo is happy to fulfill that desire.
What?
This is an absurd take.
People want their special mechanical uniqueness for their character concept because roleplaying and imagination is too hard, and Paizo is happy to fulfill that desire.What?
This is an absurd take.
Yeah. From that point of view, why have a rulebook at all?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. From that point of view, why have a rulebook at all?People want their special mechanical uniqueness for their character concept because roleplaying and imagination is too hard, and Paizo is happy to fulfill that desire.What?
This is an absurd take.
Because the rulebook is an Eidolon with razor-sharp pages and teeth!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mimic/raktavarna eidolons... Terrifying.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
:Takes notes:
1) Send mimic rulebook eidolon to people's homes.
2) ???
3) Profit!
A Summoner using the Gate spell (yes they can use that spell) can summon the physical form of the Eidolon. As can any caster using a calling spell. None of them would bring a creature that is different than the Eidolon.
Should be noted, they most likely wouldn't be able to use that spell in PF2 as it's a 10th level spell, and I can't see them giving any class that doesn't naturally get 10th level spells a feature that lets them cast one. So unless they get a feat to give them a 10th level slot they won't be able to cast it.
In general I think it would be good for you to let go of a lot of your assumptions about Summoners from 1st edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see them getting gate as an innate spell instead. Less flexible (you can’t boost a different spell into it the slot), but effectively close enough.
I can see them getting gate as an innate spell instead. Less flexible (you can’t boost a different spell into it the slot), but effectively close enough.
Gate is an uncommon spell, so it's definitely not going to be a built-in feature. Gate 1/day as an uncommon capstone feat is fair enough, and probably reasonable homebrew if they don't want to spend the space on it.
A Summoner using the Gate spell (yes they can use that spell) can summon the physical form of the Eidolon. As can any caster using a calling spell. None of them would bring a creature that is different than the Eidolon.Should be noted, they most likely wouldn't be able to use that spell in PF2 as it's a 10th level spell, and I can't see them giving any class that doesn't naturally get 10th level spells a feature that lets them cast one. So unless they get a feat to give them a 10th level slot they won't be able to cast it.
In general I think it would be good for you to let go of a lot of your assumptions about Summoners from 1st edition.
It's entirely possible Summoners will naturally have 10th level spell slots, honestly. Incap spells become much less useful to them at the highest levels if they don't.
One way I could see it going is something like "These 10th level spell slots work a bit differently than normal slots; you can only use your 10th level slots to cast heightened versions of your signature spells".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see them getting gate as an innate spell instead. Less flexible (you can’t boost a different spell into it the slot), but effectively close enough.Gate is an uncommon spell, so it's definitely not going to be a built-in feature. Gate 1/day as an uncommon capstone feat is fair enough, and probably reasonable homebrew if they don't want to spend the space on it.
I mean the Witch got Feats for specific spells and Gate I would say is probably a pretty iconic summoner spell.
I could see it deserving a Feat, after all, I'm sure most of the capstones will be Eidolon related but there'll be Summoners who want to lean into the "I can summon all the things" portion of the class.
I have been struggling to get my head around why the summoner is it's own thing rather than a class archetype of something like the witch.
My problem comes from this. Classes should fill a narrative niche not filled adequately by another class.
I believe that your premise -- that classes need to fill a narrative (or as I'd say, conceptual) niche -- is flawed. At least with respect to Pathfinder 2E. Because that clearly isn't a design principle.
Not only is every class in the APG (with the possible exception of the Oracle) conceptually redundant, but even the summoner and magus could have been covered just fine in the core book with very few additional rules components (perhaps as little as a single archetype and a few feats). Look at the Swashbuckler. There are no fewer than five (!) different but viable ways to get to "lightly armored, DEX-based fighter" just a little over a year in. Hell, one could argue that a straight up core fighter can do the job just fine. Swashbuckler as a class serves zero narrative purpose. It exists solely for mechanical reasons.
Don't get me wrong: I wish that had been a design principle, as I believe that it would have made for a better game (or at least a game that more closely cleaved to my preferences). But I do not think that it was.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why isn't the Swashbuckler a Fighter archetype? Why isn't the Witch a Sorcerer archetype? Why isn't the Investigator a Rogue archetype? You could say that about most non-CRB class that have/will come out. People want their special mechanical uniqueness for their character concept because roleplaying and imagination is too hard, and Paizo is happy to fulfill that desire.
I feel like you were doing fine...right up until you insulted people's imaginations because you don't share their preferences. For the record, I don't share them, either...but enough with the BADWRONGFUN. >:(
Thrilled to inform you that there are vast swathes of any given campaign that don't involve combat. Not only that, but there are beneficial hexes as well. Just because it doesn't work for your witch friend doesn't mean it's bad.
Witch's Bottle is terrible. How did that make it in I do not know. Maybe it was thematic for the whole witch cursing people by tricking them into drinking a potion, but man, useless in actual combat play. You won't be convincing anyone to drink a potion in combat.
It's bad because it could have been great, if it had not been made so specific.
The feat as it exists is hard to accept because it not only fails to offer much, it also displaces some other feat which might have offered more.A feat letting witches put Hexes on their claws, hair, daggers, dolls,spinning wheels, apples,flowers, old bones,coins, candy, elfshot,bottles or any other object,would be a better feat.
A feat that let the hex be triggered by making an attack with, using,breaking, eating or wielding the object would be a better feat.
A feat that allowed any touch or self ranged spells to be cast into and used through the object would be a much, much better feat.
Allowing the hex to be delivered by attacking with the bottle, allowing the bottle to be any object, allowing more kinds of triggers, and/or allowing the bottle to store spells,any of these choices would have increased the usefulness and creative play opportunities of the feat.
The feat we got instead displaces that feat, that it why I think it's a bad feat.
It serves such a small purpose
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It serves such a small purpose
It was pointed out in another thread already, but this is the only way to cast two hexes in the same turn, since using the bottle does not count as casting the Hex.
Therefore, you can get two hexes start on the same turn, even turn 1 (stoke the heart + Life Boost).
I disagree that it's not worth a Feat. If you started every battle (and refocus) by creating a Bottle, you can always start the opening turn with a Focus Hex.
It still only costs 1 Focus Point no matter what Hex you choose, so you can safely start a combat with a Focus Hex Buff on a teammate and then cast one on your turn. Life Boost won't even cost you sustain actions.
A Summoner using the Gate spell (yes they can use that spell) can summon the physical form of the Eidolon. As can any caster using a calling spell. None of them would bring a creature that is different than the Eidolon.Should be noted, they most likely wouldn't be able to use that spell in PF2 as it's a 10th level spell, and I can't see them giving any class that doesn't naturally get 10th level spells a feature that lets them cast one. So unless they get a feat to give them a 10th level slot they won't be able to cast it.
In general I think it would be good for you to let go of a lot of your assumptions about Summoners from 1st edition.
It's entirely possible Summoners will naturally have 10th level spell slots, honestly. Incap spells become much less useful to them at the highest levels if they don't.
One way I could see it going is something like "These 10th level spell slots work a bit differently than normal slots; you can only use your 10th level slots to cast heightened versions of your signature spells".
Then they would be tenth-level casters, not ninth level casters. Magus and Summoner were bad at save-or-suck in PF1 as well, and didn't have much of it on their lists, so I don't see that as much of an issue.
During the initial P2 reveals, Paizo referred to Bards as "9th level casters".
I think they are just keeping the P1 terminology, there.
During the initial P2 reveals, Paizo referred to Bards as "9th level casters".
I think they are just keeping the P1 terminology, there.
Oh, did they? I was vaguely recalling them referring to 10th level casters. I'll give 9th vs. 10th less weight, then. I'd be happy to have some of the casting space cleared out a bit for more eidolon/fighting prowess.
To be fair that was very early in the 2e cycle, and they could have updated their terminology by now; they could actually mean that Magus and Summoner don't have 10th level slots.
I'll be first to admit I don't know. :)
But the design of Incap spells and the heightening system in general does make it seem likely; after all, Magus IS known for damage spells, and it would feel a bit weird if their damage spells top off a level early. Same with Summoner and the various Summon spells, most of which can heighten to 10th level.
To be fair that was very early in the 2e cycle, and they could have updated their terminology by now; they could actually mean that Magus and Summoner don't have 10th level slots.
I'll be first to admit I don't know. :)
But the design of Incap spells and the heightening system in general does make it seem likely; after all, Magus IS known for damage spells, and it would feel a bit weird if their damage spells top off a level early. Same with Summoner and the various Summon spells, most of which can heighten to 10th level.
Sure. But, Magus also is getting weapon damage. Summoner is focusing on their eidolon. Should Magus get Time Stop, just so they could get a blasting spell? Should Summoner get Wish so they could heighten a summons? I'd personally expect a workaround instead. "If your eidolon is gone, summon at one level higher than your slot" or something. Or summon as a focus spell you can cast with your eidolon gone.