As I said earlier, I wouldn't be surprised to see an outcome where they have 10th level slots, but can only put heightened/signature spells in them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little bit worried about Summoner as a full caster.
Even for the three slot casters, there's not exactly a ton of room in the chassis for other features. I feel like it's gonna be kinda hard to squeeze something as mechanically robust and powerful as an Eidolon should be alongside spellcasting. I mean maybe they could drop Summoner down to 2 slots/level but even then it'd be tough.
I'm a little bit worried about Summoner as a full caster.
Even for the three slot casters, there's not exactly a ton of room in the chassis for other features. I feel like it's gonna be kinda hard to squeeze something as mechanically robust and powerful as an Eidolon should be alongside spellcasting. I mean maybe they could drop Summoner down to 2 slots/level but even then it'd be tough.
I think if summoners had to invest focus points to empower the eidolon that could be a notable balancing factor.
Aka lock out a focus point all day to give your eidolon an evolution or two, have the evolutions scale, and then eventually increasing the maximum investment.
Maybe a two investment focus point grabs a bundle of certain evolution points but a total of five evolutions instead of the usual 2.
Sort of the same mechanic as witches bottle but all day and investing up to a maximum. Then how much spell casting you’re doing and how powerful your eidolon are become correlated.
Idk just throwing our random concepts, but if the class features have a bit of a “give and take” aspect to them, it might be able to fit more in the budget.
But if the shared action economy is a thing, casting spells is going to be less common on some turns anyways.
A total of 4 actions across both of them up to a maximum of 3 would make it to where using your eidolon comes with a direct caveat to casting, which honestly is a really cool way to vary their combat.
It could also be that you cannot cast Summoner Focus spells with a focus cost while the Eidolon is summoned. Which would remove all the weirdness of trying to tie it to Focus Spells.
I still say that Eidolons should not share action economy.
Depends but you’d have to be careful then, because then the ideal would be pushing the eidolon to the Max and then if it dies switch to focus spell mode. The investment position still means you have to be careful with your eidolon since you juiced it up.
Shared action economy is already a thing for animal companions, so the assumption of the feats that allows action benefits (free single action if not commanded) are built in.
Right now a Druid and AC effectively have the same action economy (2 and 2), so the shared economy is basically just giving them Mature and the inverse of Mature for free. That might be too strong right out of the gate, but it depends on what eidolons look like and what summoners look like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also Druid + AC is not the action economy of the Summoner.
One, I don't think we know what the action economy of the Summoner would be, and the example I gave is not the same.
What I was pointing out is that if there were 4 actions to use across both the Summoner and the Eidolon (aka, the shared action economy), then that is relatively the same as Druid:
2 actions to do what Druid wants, Command 1 action (effective loss of action to gain 2 AC actions).
But the Summoner in this proposed scenario (not even mine, this is something that's been floated here before) allows for a Summoner to spend 1 action, Eidolon to spend 3, Summoner to spend 3 actions, and Eidolon to spend 1, or 2 and 2 (the standard).
The former portion is already possible with Mature Animal Companion (level 4 Feat) which grants a free action to the AC without a command (1 action + 3 action of Druid).
So the Summoner in this scenario is effectively getting Mature Companion for free and the Summoner only ability of using 3 actions via the Eidolon (1 action for the Summoner).
As far as considering that "bad", hard disagree. The latter discussed ability (1 action Summoner, 3 action Eidolon) might even be overpowered, but we just don't know what things look like yet or if there are consequences to balance it.
I'm sure they already have a base Summoner by now, the PT is soon, so it may be moot to even discuss the "what could be".
Summoner who has weaker casting, bad HP, and whose only good points are: Summoning Creatures and the Eidolon
Stating the "only good points" of a Class that doesn't exist yet seems a bit preemptive.
The old Summoner was capable of quite a bit, and if we're being completely honest, was one of the most powerful classes in the game because of their ridiculously fast track to Transmutation/Conjuration spells (Haste/Slow as a level 4 character in a game where Haste and Slow were already BUSTED good).
Regardless, Classes have grown vastly from their PF1 counterpart. If any of us are expecting a carbon copy replacement of a PF1 at this point, then I think you're probably hanging your hopes on something unlikely to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the Summoner in this scenario is effectively getting Mature Companion for free and the Summoner only ability of using 3 actions via the Eidolon (1 action for the Summoner).
Companion's Cry is what you're looking for.
So the Summoner in this scenario is effectively getting Mature Companion for free and the Summoner only ability of using 3 actions via the Eidolon (1 action for the Summoner).Companion's Cry is what you're looking for.
That'd be it. 2 level 4 Class Feats to start the game might be too much though.
And all this presumes the Eidolon is some kind of suped up AC/Familiar, as I'm sure we'd be relatively disappointed to see something we couldn't "build".
That's more or less why locking out Focus Spells seems the most fair to power the companion, otherwise they will be straight up either too strong or their Eidolon won't be that iconic.
The Druid is balanced as it is because it has full spellcasting[...]That is unlike a Summoner who has weaker casting
Just to quibble a bit. As of the current state of PF2, Druids are the weaker casters.
They could go a step further and make an even more limited progression for the summoner, but that's just speculative at this point.
The Druid is balanced as it is because it has full spellcasting[...]That is unlike a Summoner who has weaker castingJust to quibble a bit. As of the current state of PF2, Druids are the weaker casters.
They could go a step further and make an even more limited progression for the summoner, but that's just speculative at this point.
I was going to point this out as well. Theoretically they could go even lower than that (they implied as much with the Magus) in order to get even more power into the Eidolon budget, but it's early to make the assumption.
And "Wildshape" is one Druid Order option unless you spend Feats on it.
So really, in the native Druid kit, there is only your initial Order selection that comes with power.
Now more than likely we'll see something akin to the old Eidolong Base choice from PF1, and that'll effectively be the "Class Path" equivalent of the Summoner.
As far as what can fit into that budget by default, its hard to say. It will depend on initial proficiencies greatly.
But the more I think about it, the more I think they (like the Magus) are both going to be even further reduced casters with potentially the Magus abilities and Eidolon supplementing the loss with some "all day" versatility/powers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue I see is that Summoners are full casters. They may have less spell slots, but if they allow them to cast the same level of spells the other casters cast, they will have a very strong use of 2 of their actions.
Allowing them to cast a spell (an efficient one) and then use the last action to play an Eidolon with a high level of power would be just too powerful.
The Druid example is invalid because the Druid can't do everything at the same time. He has strong focus spells but they all cost 2 actions and as such can't be combined with a spell. And the Animal Companion is weak enough to not imbalance everything.
That's why I'm definitely on the side of action limitations. The Eidolon should be very strong (for the class to be interesting) but would need you to invest your actions for that. So casting a spell and playing with your Eidolon would be either impossible or not the most optimized way to use your Eidolon.
Also Druids dont get Companion's Cry that is a Ranger Feat. So yeah Druids, unless they multiclass, are casting spells while also controling their companion.
Okay just to clarify, a Druid with a companion is either a Human, level 2, or an Animal Order Druid.
In which case, a Druid has 1 Focus spell in all the scenarios.
But the AC is either going to be weaker or less versatile than the Eidolon, at least we all sort of expect that.
As far as them casting every turn, sure they can attempt that, but not really until higher level. Their slots are pretty limited to start the game even though they start with a strong Focus Spell usually.
And I don't really see any "concentration" Druid spells, Heal Animal, Wild Shape, Tempest Surge, Wild Morph all are instant with no concentration and Tempest Surge is a 2 action cast (the others vary from 1 to 2).
Personally, I could see them allowing Evolutions to buy natural attacks (or natural attacks being part of the Base) and then simply being able to buy Familiar Abilities as Evolutions (maybe we a few Summoner only "evolutions") as honestly most of the Familiar Abilites are in the realm of Eidolon (skilled, movement, speech, etc.).
If the Summoner is a full caster (and not getting 10th level spells, to me, is not really that much of a caveat) then they either need to get less spells, get less access to focus spells, or the Eidolon is going to be about as powerful as an Animal Companion (because otherwise it would be too strong if we compare power budgets to Druid, which is the closest pet class at the moment).
We can also potentially compare it to the Witch, with some admitted discretion to the notable differences, as it has a baseline scaling pet enhancer, a Focus Spell/Cantrip mechanic, and is a full caster.
The Witch has unarmored and 6HP.
So there is perhaps more budget for reducing Summoner to say Unarmored (they were light armored in PF1) or a lower HP die (want to say d8 in PF1, but it escapes me).
And while a lot of people played the Summoner because of the Eidolon, and I do think it is core to the class, they did get Summon enhancements and were know for conjuring all kinds of things. Summoner means person who summons, not person who owns an Eidolon.
Basically, I think it should at least be on the table to not supe your Eidolon up if that's not your beef, and it can still provide meaningful benefits potentially without the beef (but more on par with a Familiar/AC), but then it opens the other side of the Summoner, the Summoning side.
Now more or less, that dichotomy was in the previous edition as well, but considering the tight balance the game has on pets I have a feeling that factor is going to come into play again in order to enable the Eidolon to stand as the strongest of the Minions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Druid is balanced as it is because it has full spellcasting[...]That is unlike a Summoner who has weaker castingJust to quibble a bit. As of the current state of PF2, Druids are the weaker casters.
They could go a step further and make an even more limited progression for the summoner, but that's just speculative at this point.
It is not. They said that summoners in their current state would get the same spell progression as the magus, except spontaneous.
I can't recall if they said the exact details, but that much I do remember.
Edit: The Q&A panel from gencon around minute 20 they start talking about the Magus and Summoner, revealing that both top off at 9th level casting and have diminished spellcasting. "They are a 9 level caster, but they don't get as many spells. And you'll see the details on that in the playtest."
While a level 4 feat or two might be a bit much at 1st level, perhaps they'll get that instead of a signature spell at 3rd? If they also get the ability to cast a Summon as a focus spell, a signature spell feature would be somewhat redundant anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While a level 4 feat or two might be a bit much at 2st level, perhaps they'll get that instead of a signature spell at 3rd? If they also get the ability to cast a Summon as a focus spell, a signature spell feature would be somewhat redundant anyways.
Not going to lie, that's rather tidy. If I were betting, I'd say this might be close.
Basically Summon is their predetermined "Signature Spell" and they start with a Focus Spell for Summoning.
Then another Focus Spell to Summon Eidolon, in which case it occupies the Focus Point and it cannot be recharged, and the Eidolon is out as long as you do so.
That's two Focus Points for lockout/investment and two for summoning and such.
Edit: The Q&A panel from gencon around minute 20 they start talking about the Magus and Summoner, revealing that both top off at 9th level casting and have diminished spellcasting. "They are a 9 level caster, but they don't get as many spells. And you'll see the details on that in the playtest."
Notably, they say "9 level caster" in juxtaposition to "6 level caster". Since 6 level casters don't exist in 2e, it's entirely possible they are still using 1e terminology there.
So I'm not sure that nails down whether they will have 10th level slots or not.
My money is still on "will" though, or at least to put another way - Summoner will definitely have a way to cast the 10th level version of Summon Animal and other summon spells. What that way is I'm not sure, but there's no way they would give Summoner stunted progression on summoning, to my mind.
At the apex of power, I think having 3/2 or 2/3 actions split between the Summoner and the Eidolon is what you want. Might be too much at low levels though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if they are getting less power late game they should be able to get more power early game than other casters.
Also they might make it so you can only summon the Eidolon once per day. In which case the Summoner is stronger until the Eidolon gets downed. Which is not rare in PF2.
I really hope this isn't the way they take it. I would hate for to be no way to recover your Eidolon during the day just because of a particularly nasty crit. or a bad saving throw.
I really hope this isn't the way they take it. I would hate for to be no way to recover your Eidolon during the day just because of a particularly nasty crit. or a bad saving throw.Well if they are getting less power late game they should be able to get more power early game than other casters.
Also they might make it so you can only summon the Eidolon once per day. In which case the Summoner is stronger until the Eidolon gets downed. Which is not rare in PF2.
Yeah this was a notable problem with the 1E way too, which was pretty punishing if the Eidolon died, to the point where a Summoner could feel a bit naked without it if they had invested a lot into it.
It should feel punishing, but in the resource expenditure department.
At the apex of power, I think having 3/2 or 2/3 actions split between the Summoner and the Eidolon is what you want. Might be too much at low levels though.
It's basically just permanent quickened in a sense, good, but I think as an apex concept, probably within reason. It should probably count as being quickened though and not allow more than 3 actions per creature.
Having your eidolon be a full combatant and having the summoner being able to cast a spell would feel good. How to reign that in with power levels though might be tricky.
Yeah summoner! Not like warpriest couldn't of been it's own thing side from cleric subtype. It's not even called a cleric. And Magus is getting it's own thing.
Depending on how Magus goes I might house rule a warpriest to use the Magus base with some changes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like having split stats like Cleric with WIS/CHA might be appropriate for Summoner and prevent direct competition with other casters, while promoting focus on buffs and utility. There could be de facto be two routes, going all in on both of those for Eidolon + Casting power, or dialing back on Casting to have strong Eidolon + strong other stats for combat/skills/saves.
In terms of power concerns of 2 action spell + Stronger-than-Animal-Companion Eidolon, maybe have some of Eidolon's power be contingent on extra Command action (or forgoing later action economy boosts) to gain bonuses... Or from other angle, have your own spellcasting be weaker unless you transfer power from Eidolon. With split stat system, that could involve substituting stat alternatively for Spell DC, or to Eidolon attack/save/HP stat. I know substitutions aren't the norm for 2E, but this might be OK as it isn't really leading to less MAD, just partially bypassing enforced increase to MAD (if that makes sense).
Edit: The Q&A panel from gencon around minute 20 they start talking about the Magus and Summoner, revealing that both top off at 9th level casting and have diminished spellcasting. "They are a 9 level caster, but they don't get as many spells. And you'll see the details on that in the playtest."Notably, they say "9 level caster" in juxtaposition to "6 level caster". Since 6 level casters don't exist in 2e, it's entirely possible they are still using 1e terminology there.
So I'm not sure that nails down whether they will have 10th level slots or not.
That’s a pretty big reach. The full context is “We went with kind of an interesting, kind of test version of diminished spell casting. So they’re not a 6th level caster, they are a 9 level caster, but they don’t get as many spells.”
It is pretty clear to me that the juxtaposition is between the two editions; that a half-caster in PF2 does not stop at 6th like in PF1, but goes on to 9. And if Logan for whatever reason did say 9 when he meant 10, it’s an even bigger reach that Mark wouldn’t clarify when describing the Summoner. Instead, he says “they have a very similar, though spontaneous form, of that limited 9 level spellcasting, to give them just a splash of very powerful spells in addition to the fact that they have an eidolon.”
Now, I do think they will get access to 10th level summoning. I do not think it will be in the form of a spell slot, but we will see. At most, I can see them getting a 10th level slot they can only use for a summon spell. But even that seems iffy.
I don't get why not having a 10th level spell slot is considered a balancing factor. How many games actually get to the point where that's relevant?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why not having a 10th level spell slot is considered a balancing factor. How many games actually get to the point where that's relevant?
One of the main design priorities of PF2 is making high level play less cumbersome and indeed fast and fun. To date, every six volume AP cycle has had a significant amount of time at level 20 itself, and even more at 18+ when the Wizard first learns "Wish".
I don't get why not having a 10th level spell slot is considered a balancing factor. How many games actually get to the point where that's relevant?One of the main design priorities of PF2 is making high level play less cumbersome and indeed fast and fun. To date, every six volume AP cycle has had a significant amount of time at level 20 itself, and even more at 18+ when the Wizard first learns "Wish".
While true, it doesn't really change Snes' point either.
Not getting a level 19 class feature is only going to be a meaningful balance restriction at levels 19 and 20, which are inevitably going to be a pretty small percentage of total playtime, even if you make some generous assumptions about how often people play high level characters.
An effect on balancing at high level yes.
But at level 5 it doesn't really matter what level 19 feature your class does or doesn't have.
I think that "not getting the very best spells" should be a property of all the magic classes that aren't straight up specialists (since everybody in a given tradition shares spells.)
How this relates to slower progression in levels (and the DCs for spells),I don't know yet.
|
I think 4 actions shared would be great. With Summoner class cantrips costing 1 action (and some also 1 focus point).
I am not sure they will get the Summon spells they had in PF1. The lore we have about the god-callers is all about the Eidolon.
That said, I fervently wish they find a way to bring back the Master Summoner PF1 archetype but I don't think it will happen considering the required balance of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think 4 actions shared would be great. With Summoner class cantrips costing 1 action (and some also 1 focus point).
I am not sure they will get the Summon spells they had in PF1. The lore we have about the god-callers is all about the Eidolon.
That said, I fervently wish they find a way to bring back the Master Summoner PF1 archetype but I don't think it will happen considering the required balance of the game.
If they drop the summoning powers in general, then I hope the Wizard gets a little more support for that theme in their school specialization and Class Feats.
I really hope the new book has niche trait/school investment (aka Polymorph sub-school) where you can almost take like a Wizard specific Dedication for some of that missing specialization.
Differentiating yourself as a Summoning Conjurer instead of say a Creation Conjurer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why not having a 10th level spell slot is considered a balancing factor. How many games actually get to the point where that's relevant?
If it's actually the case…
- Extra pseudo-capstone space. Getting tenth-level spells is treated as a feature. It could be where a delayed master weapon proficiency would go, or it could be a spot where eidolon gets some late-game boost to further distinguish it from an animal companion.- It opens the (unlikely) possibility of every spell level being delayed by two character levels. (Cantrips only to start with, etc.) That'd put the casters squarely between multiclass casting and full casting
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little late to this party, but my TL;DR on this discussion is this: A Summoner and their Eidolon are thematically the class that says "Hey, I have a pet Outsider"; or Immortal as they are known in 2e. Narratively, I feel that in itself is enough of a distinction from other minion to merit a full class. While on the surface, it seems similar to other classes; it is important to consider how the narrative will affect the class mechanically. Compared to the other classes, I'm certain an Eidolon will more present during gameplay, especially combat, than say a Familar or Animal Companion are; which are options rather than set features in most cases. Witch being the exception to that rule. But the crux behind that Witch isn't really the relationship between the Familiar and the Witch, but rather the Witch and their Patron. The Familar only serves as a middleman between the two. Albeit, a middleman which is described as having considerably more options than any other Familiars. But, Familairs, in most cases, rarely see combat for any appreciable measure of time. I'd wager an Eidolon will.
That said, there is quite a substantial amount of Golarion specific lore to draw from where an Eidolon is concerned, if you look deep enough. And in that regard, there is more than enough to justify it imo. I'd go into it, but the post I had drafted up to dove into any of that is entirely too long. Happy to go there tho if anyone is interested. Some of it is based in established fact, but some is assumptions made based off the information given up to this point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, there is quite a substantial amount of Golarion specific lore to draw from where an Eidolon is concerned, if you look deep enough. And in that regard, there is more than enough to justify it imo. I'd go into it, but the post I had drafted up to dove into any of that is entirely too long. Happy to go there tho if anyone is interested. Some of it is based in established fact, but some is assumptions made based off the information given up to this point.
I was already convinced since I absolutely love the unique niche that the Summoner holds in the narrative, lore and mechanics. That said, I personally would love to listen to whatever lore justifications/ideas/theories you might have!
|
|
I must admit that at first the Summoner as an archetype for the Witch felt really fitting. Until a poster showed how a Witch with a pet as powerful as an Eidolon would be unbalanced.
Yes. A new Class is required for the caster whose pet is as powerful as themselves.
So Summoner as a 9th level caster will be by themselves and without the Eidolon weaker than the Witch. I think this entails that Class Cantrips and focus spells will be usually centered on the Eidolon.
Slotted spells will be there to bring a wider range of possibilities depending on the choices the Summoner makes when selecting them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, there is quite a substantial amount of Golarion specific lore to draw from where an Eidolon is concerned, if you look deep enough. And in that regard, there is more than enough to justify it imo. I'd go into it, but the post I had drafted up to dove into any of that is entirely too long. Happy to go there tho if anyone is interested. Some of it is based in established fact, but some is assumptions made based off the information given up to this point.I was already convinced since I absolutely love the unique niche that the Summoner holds in the narrative, lore and mechanics. That said, I personally would love to listen to whatever lore justifications/ideas/theories you might have!
I will attempt to keep this short, as the original post was roughly around 7 to 8 paragraphs long; 3 to 4 of which were just the lore implication and explination. But essentially Golarion's cycle of creation begins in the Malestrom. From there, the Potentiality of all of reality exists and is dispersed throughout the Multiverse. As it does, it becomes Essence, which are the building blocks of reality. Essence breaks down into four categories; Matter, Mind, Spirit, and Life. Anyways, when this Potentiality or Essence is filtered through the Positive Energy Plane, it creates a Soul. Souls are then released into the Multiverse through the various different Planes, but usually coalesces into a Mortal being; ignoring some exceptions. As these beings live and die, their Souls travel to the Outer Spheres, where they are judged, sent to their final reward as Petitioners, and eventually fuse with the Quintessence, the substance and energy for which the Planes are made, to become an Immortal. When an Immortal dies, it breaks back down into the Planes Quintessence, which eventually returns back to the Malestrom and repeats the cycle anew. This is the basic premise of creation implied by the lore.
Now, unlike most other Immortal beings, Eidolons are not born from this cycle. Instead, they rely on a Summoner to exist. I recall reading somewhere once, not sure where, something that basically implied that a Summoner takes the raw, unfiltered Potentiality or Essence and funnels it through themselves; resulting in the creation of an Eidolon. So, unlike a Familiar, in most cases anyways, an Eidolon relies on the Summoner to physically exist. Without one, they simply do not. It is likely through this process by which the Eidolon is eventually capable of sharing a portion of the Summoners own Soul; and it is likely that an Eidolon is simply a Summoner's Immortal form without the influence of the Planes. The exact process by which this all happens hasn't been definitively talked about, and is left up to interpretation. Which is probably why 2e Summoners have been implied to be able to choose their Tradition based on what their Eidolon is and how exactly it was created. If Traditions are the combination and manipulation of Essence to become magic; than I'd say and Eidolon is the combination of said Essence to become life essentially.
That is the short version. The original post was just a bit longer and more in-depth. But this is essentially the reason I believe Summoners can exist as a standalone class, using the lore; and lore is an important factor in Pathfinder imo. I think people tend to forget that Paizo is creating a game that, to some degree, is meant to facilitate that universe they've created; in much the same way that say World of Darkness does this. Paizo simply chooses to make the games mechanics, largely, lore-neutral in order to allow people to use them in their settings. Whether this was thought about during the initial drafting of the class is probably unlikely. It is more likely that these are simply the ravings of a madman and the discussion was more around the lines of "How do we give players access to an Outsider/Immortal as a pet?"
Now, if we want to discuss a class as far as it's narrative inclusion, I'd like to discuss the Arcanist in this regard. The whole "I have magic blood, but not magical enough to use without academic acumen" is one I've never liked, or been able to wrap my head around as a standalone concept. It just seemed strange to me, and is one of the few classes I do not see making the transition to 2e without a drastic overhaul to its narrative and possibly its mechanics. Perhaps that's just me. Personally, I think there is room for the Arcanist as a caster who utilizes and fuses two traditions, taking a page from the Magaambya and their practice of Halcyon magic; described as the combination of Arcane and Primal traditions. Given that the term Arcanist usually comes up when discussing the Magaambya, I think there is some solid premise for the idea.
|
|
I will attempt to keep this short [...]That said, there is quite a substantial amount of Golarion specific lore to draw from where an Eidolon is concerned, if you look deep enough. And in that regard, there is more than enough to justify it imo. I'd go into it, but the post I had drafted up to dove into any of that is entirely too long. Happy to go there tho if anyone is interested. Some of it is based in established fact, but some is assumptions made based off the information given up to this point.I was already convinced since I absolutely love the unique niche that the Summoner holds in the narrative, lore and mechanics. That said, I personally would love to listen to whatever lore justifications/ideas/theories you might have!
Ooo, fascinating stuff! I would dispute that Eidolons cannot exist without a Summoner, given the existence Unfettered and how Padrig called upon Balazar first... But the rest of this checks out rather well. I really like the idea that the Eidolon and Tradition define and adapt to one another.
While I have no particular problem with the lore of the Arcanist, partially because I've always seen it as "could have been a sorcerer, chose to get studying" (basically an in-universe minmaxer), I do agree that the canny interlinking of two different spell lists is an incredibly cool niche to have. It fits well with the Magaambya, as well as the original concept (Occult/Arcane) and getting to play a true equal-in-both Mystic Theurge (at the expense of never quite cracking Arcana as well as a Wizard MC Cleric). Occult/Primal would be a very fun option for anyone who wants to feel like a master of body and mind... or just wants to be Loki for a hot sec.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is probably why 2e Summoners have been implied to be able to choose their Tradition based on what their Eidolon is and how exactly it was created. If Traditions are the combination and manipulation of Essence to become magic; than I'd say and Eidolon is the combination of said Essence to become life essentially.
Interesting, I had not heard that they were a choose your tradition caster.
I wonder how the essences will tether to the Eidolon itself if that is the case, because I would expect some type of anchoring to exist in the same way the Witch/Sorcerer have powers tethered to the tradition.
Where did they imply it was a potential choose tradition? I had always heard the theory that Summoner was to be the "Spontaneous Arcane" caster, but perhaps that's not the case.
Maybe these "further reduced casters" will be getting their own set of each tradition + casting type (and these will be the new "gish" classes). If they land well, we might expect the Inquisitor to be in the same vein and a brand new Class takes the role of Spontaneous Arcane (if that ever becomes a thing).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dig cross-tradition magic as a niche to park the arcanist in. I also like the Arcanist as the spontaneous Arcane caster, but that might be the mechanical hook for it.