What is the narrative justification for the summoner?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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. So what role does the summoner fill? The witch gets magic from a patron; the sorcerer from their magical ancestry; the bard fills the character archetype of the supernatural musician; the barbarian rage gives them superhuman powers. By contrast the summoner seems defined by their mechanics: getting good with summoning and having a magical companion.

What makes them different enough narratively from a witch who says that their familiar is their patron. Why could the class not be achieved by rites of convocation and a few feats that let your familiar be an animal companion or similar as well.

Please explain why this is it's own thing. I recognise that it may have a very different feel to what I described above, but I don't believe that should inform whether it's a class. It might require fairly radical archetypes, but, as I say, I think that that makes more sense than having an entirely new class.

Thanks for any replies,


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Summoner's main thing is having a highly customizable magical pet - one where you get to give it a suite of different abilities and make it your own.

Summoner as it appeared in 1E is a pretty generic class, admittedly, but with how much attention the Godcallers have gotten I will be glad to see summoner get a lot more narrative attention this around.

Indeed, I'd love to see the 2E one have the player be really weak and the pet is the real strong one, mechanically speaking.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

1. Your post presumes the viewpoint that streamlining into as few classes as possible is a good thing, this is not a view that Paizo or it's community shares. To understand why, consider that something that is a part of another class typically gets less support than something that is it's own thing. In this sense a class doesn't have to "justified" as a last resort as it is in 5e, making it a class is just another tool in the toolbox, one that's often right for the job.

2. Its an entirely different type of magic, "god-calling" as it's described in Golarion is very much its own thing to do with calling such entities into existence. In the same way a Sorcerer is different from a wizard, and a witch is different than a sorcerer, a Summoner is different from whatever other class.

3. It's mechanically diverse enough to justify it, with paths based off different types of eidolons, a desire to dial back other parts of the chassis to make the summoned creatures powerful enough to be the meat and potatoes of your budget, and all kinds of crazy feats that allow you to do things like merge with your eidolon for enhanced fighting and casting abilities.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Pokemon, Digimon, Yo-Kai, SCryed, Persona, Xenoblade, FFX, Card Captor, ect. Are just a few very popular games and shows built around the loose concept of the summoner and Golorian has it whole own take on it with the Godcallers and in Numeria there are summoners who build mechanical bodies for their Edilons. There is plenty of awesome narrative depth for the class you just aren't aware of it. Also pet classes are rad and the Summoner is ine where the pet is the focus of the class which is also fun.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Having a permanent Outsider companion is both a mechanical niche and a pretty important thematic one.

'I have a literal angel that follows me around' or 'I have a bound genie' as a primary schtick is not something other Classes really support or allow. Ditto all the other weird pets or companions you can get on a Summoner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That "mechanical" aspect of Summoner had/has very deep lore implications.

* An Eidolon is not some random animal or beast. They are outsiders (as classified in PF1) with a very fluid nature, amd whose power is very deeply linked to the Summoner.

* An Eidolon is very much its own creature with a very strong ego. They dont just follow orders but do what they think its needed.

* An Eidolon is not a god. The God Callers are not quite calling gods but things that have a spark of Divinity. They are called God Callers because of the religion of that area. Aka lots of lore.

* The in lore reason why Summoners get so few spells is that they spend most of their time enhancing, conversing, and otherwise making the Eidolon better. This is why Summoner Archetypes that got a weaker Eidolon got stronger Summoned Monsters and vice versa.

* Finally, Summoner is very much built to be generic so that players/GMs are free to think of any backstory. It was a deliberate move in PF1, and something that many people like about the Summoner.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
notXanathar wrote:
So what role does the summoner fill?

They fill the role of a being entering a mutually benefical pact with an outsider whose identity they know, and empowering themselves and their eidolon both by studying their eidolon and studying magic on their own.

Unlike the witch where the patron clearly has the upper hand in their relationship, there is no power hierarchy in the relationship between an eidolon and their summoner, since the eidolon is only as strong as their summoner.

Also unlike the relationship between a witch and their patron, the summoner and eidolon have a much closer relationship, with both parties eventually sharing pieces of the same soul between them.

Finally, the summoner's magic power is actually their own, and not something granted by their eidolon, but instead something acquired from their own independant studies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Classes should fill a narrative niche not filled adequately by another class."

I am not an expert but I feel that classes are more for a mechanical role than a narrative role.

When it comes to Summoners I feel there is a lot of options to make it interesting. I am very curious to see what they do. I hope they give options to have a non Eidolon focused summoner though. I love the summon monster spells from 1e and think that should be a viable alternative to having a strong Eidolon.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The God Callers are an established important part of Old Sarkoris, and it's likely that they are not the only people on the planet who figured out how to do this.

It's easier to do things about "your companion is an Agathion who is an armadillo with mirror plates, spikes, and wings" if you don't have to bolt *all* of that stuff onto "Armadillo."

Plus there's all that stuff about "bound genie" magic left over from the Old Jistka imperium and Jalmeray.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

1. Your post presumes the viewpoint that streamlining into as few classes as possible is a good thing, this is not a view that Paizo or it's community shares. To understand why, consider that something that is a part of another class typically gets less support than something that is it's own thing. In this sense a class doesn't have to "justified" as a last resort as it is in 5e, making it a class is just another tool in the toolbox, one that's often right for the job.

2. Its an entirely different type of magic, "god-calling" as it's described in Golarion is very much its own thing to do with calling such entities into existence. In the same way a Sorcerer is different from a wizard, and a witch is different than a sorcerer, a Summoner is different from whatever other class.

3. It's mechanically diverse enough to justify it, with paths based off different types of eidolons, a desire to dial back other parts of the chassis to make the summoned creatures powerful enough to be the meat and potatoes of your budget, and all kinds of crazy feats that allow you to do things like merge with your eidolon for enhanced fighting and casting abilities.

First, I do not feel that it is necessarily better to have fewer classes. I am coming at the question in terms of how you get to it from not having it. I elaborate on this later.

Also, if it relies on a different type of magic, especially one specific to a single setting, perhaps it would be better as an uncommon class. It may not fit so well with lore of other worlds a GM uses, or may be restricted to those whose characters have a specific link to that system. Additionally, that doesn't make it different to the witch in the same way as as wizard or sorcerer is. The difference there is in the source of their magic, given a common set of assumptions about how magic works, ie. in spells. By contrast, what you're suggesting is that the summoner operates primarily on different assumptions about how magic works.

On your final point, I will not dispute it. Equally I will not accept it. I feel, personally, whether you agree or, as in this case, disagree, that mechanical diversity is not reason enough for a class to exist. I feel that character and story should precede mechanics, and that I should naturally find characters of all different classes as a result of thinking about their stories. I will not be persuaded otherwise on this count, just as a person who likes apples will not be persuaded not to by force of reason. In any case, if that were a requirement I would question whether the wizard had enough mechanical diversity, or whether they were better served by a sorcerer who wrote their spells down. However, the fantasy of the mage academic is more significant than fact that, as we can see by feat count, it is hard to think of what you can do as one of them.

I didn't at any point question that it had mechanical justification, but I was hoping that there would be a more natural reason for their existence than an assertion in lore that they do. Thanks anyway.


There are a lot of interesting things you can make with eidolons that cannot be done if they are tied up in stuff.

Also there are a lot of very lore heavy Unchained Eidolon subtypes: Storykin Eidolons are personifications of Harrow Cards; Twinned Eidolon is a partner and functional twin to the Twinned Summoner, one handles magic, the other fighting; Innevitable, lets you get your own construct; Ancestor is very much as the name implies and can have a lot of fun things; and there are many more.

Not to mention that 10000+ people can have the same eidolon. And each eidolon can be entirely different.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
notXanathar wrote:
On your final point, I will not dispute it. Equally I will not accept it. I feel, personally, whether you agree or, as in this case, disagree, that mechanical diversity is not reason enough for a class to exist. I feel that character and story should precede mechanics, and that I should naturally find characters of all different classes as a result of thinking about their stories. I will not be persuaded otherwise on this count, just as a person who likes apples will not be persuaded not to by force of reason.

The narrative is that of the big pet class. Where you are equals with your pet, or perhaps even a secondary power compared to it. None of the current classes have that framework, and trying to bend one of them to fit is running the risk of not providing the feat support and proper balancing that the concept requires to be fully fleshed out.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

“Mechanical diversity” is the definition of character classes. Regardless, having completely different abilities is narrative. Why are a wizard and an alchemist different? They both learned to do stuff! The only difference is their abilities—what the stuff is.

If abilities aren’t narrative and lore isn’t narrative... what is? What is “character and story” if it doesn’t include what the character can do?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Also, Summoners were a really, really popular class in 1e... and honestly that's enough reason for them to exist as a class in 2e. People want them as a class.

Same reason Magus is going to be a full class; it could be an archetype, but people want it to be a class.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Worth also noting that "not a common trope in homebrew settings" doesn't fly in PF2. The rules aren't considered setting-neutral and reflect the specific cultural and mechanical niches of the setting. I think this is a very good thing.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
notXanathar wrote:

I didn't at any point question that it had mechanical justification, but I was hoping that there would be a more natural reason for their existence than an assertion in lore that they do. Thanks anyway.

I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for. You say "narrative justification" but if the narrative enabled by the mechanics doesn't count, and the narrative created by the lore doesn't count, what narrative are you referring to?

notXanathar wrote:
I feel, personally, whether you agree or, as in this case, disagree, that mechanical diversity is not reason enough for a class to exist. I feel that character and story should precede mechanics, and that I should naturally find characters of all different classes as a result of thinking about their stories.

This whole point presupposes that mechanics and character are entirely distinct from each other. With all due respect, that's just fundamentally not true. The two inform each other, which means they're inextricably tied together.


Summoner wouldn't work as a class archetype. You need a class's amount of space to provide the full details on what you summon, unless you want to use the summoning lists. You can't just use the summoning lists, because those don't all start at first level, and they're not resilient enough to stick around effectively.

Moreover, class archetypes in PF2 sound like they are less about getting something, and more focused on what you get rid of. Witches that get something instead of a familiar would make sense (and the archetype would find a good familiar replacement, like a curse doll), or Bards that don't automatically get an uplifting ability like Inspire Courage (and the archetype would find a good Inspire Courage replacement, like some kind of debuff). We don't have any yet, so it's hard to say.

Right now, there are two class features that can keep you company. There are familiars, which are intelligent and sometimes capable of speech, but literally can't fight to save their lives. There are animal companions, which can participate in fights if you keep taking feats for them, but are of broadly animal intelligence can't speak without magical assistance.

Broadly speaking, the narrative niche of Summoner is having a supernatural companion that is both as intelligent as a person and capable of helping out in combat more directly than drawing items from pouches. It's for people who want to make two characters, people who want to play as a "monster", and people who want to play as somebody who can turn into a "monster".

Design Manager

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
notXanathar wrote:

I didn't at any point question that it had mechanical justification, but I was hoping that there would be a more natural reason for their existence than an assertion in lore that they do. Thanks anyway.

I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for. You say "narrative justification" but if the narrative enabled by the mechanics doesn't count, and the narrative created by the lore doesn't count, what narrative are you referring to?

Maybe something like: The summoner is a conduit for a powerful being called an eidolon, allowing that being to manifest physically in the summoner's world and granting the summoner and eidolon a unique relationship in the narrative much different than a familiar and master or conjurer and summoned creature have.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Okay yeah that's wording it pretty well, and pretty much how I feel.

Let me try again (except a lot more gratuitously long winded than mark):
To me personally, Summoner captures the concept of a deep, powerful bond between the player's character and the creature they summon in a way that's a lot more fundamental than a familiar or animal companion can be.

A familiar is a talking bird on a wizard's shoulder that's cool and interesting, but ultimately ancillary to the wizard herself. An animal companion is a tried and true partner for a ranger or druid (or etc.) but still ultimately secondary too. A ranger's companion is a big part of their character, but the ranger could still exist on their own, too.

A Summoner on the other hand is defined by their eidolon. Their entire narrative is fundamentally shaped around this relationship, not just as a supporting companion, but the crux of how they adventure and the lynchpin of their power.
A witch's familiar is fundamental and the source of their power too, but it's still ultimately the Witch's power at the end of the day. The witch is casting spells and slinging hexes and it's not unreasonable to have the familiar mostly just sit on the sidelines.

The summoner on the other hand is the stand user, the pokemon trainer, where the creature you command and work with is the defining core of your ability and without using it properly, you don't have much.

IMO to try to capture the Summoner's themes with the Witch would be a pretty hard left turn in terms of what the Witch does, and saying the Witch and the Summoner are the same because they both have companions that act as a power source feels like saying the Witch and the Cleric are the same because they both derive their power from some kind of patron. Superficially true, but there's a lot more to the story of each class than that.

Design Manager

27 people marked this as a favorite.

I may have...spent a little time reading up on this. For...reasons... ;)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, one of the most stand-out elements in PF1 was the flavor text of the psychopomp eidolon.

"When the summoner dies, a psychopomp eidolon personally escorts him to the afterlife and serves as an expert witness when it is time for him to be judged."

That one line is enough to inspire a whole lot about the summoner and eidolon.


The pathfinder summoner always made me think of the ps2 rpg of the same name.

"I am Joseph of Ciran. Joseph of Masad. Farmer, cotter, plower... Sahugani. Summoner"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
I may have...spent a little time reading up on this. For...reasons... ;)

We're all looking forward to this reason in the next month or so ; )


AFAIK, an alt-class would "inherit" any Feats (including future Feats yet to be published) that don't specifically require ability it swapped out. Look at Witch Feats and few of them have (swappable) class feature pre-req, yet they are so full of Witch flavor that doesn't seem inherently tied to Summoner. I'm not sure there is any class whose Feat list would be so closely aligned to Summoner, and if nearly every ability would be swapped out I think that's a good sign it should be it's own class and not an alt-class.

I think the OP is assuming the Summoner will be a normal caster of sorts, although I'm not really convinced it necessarily will have spell slots... As such a focused concept, I don't see "modular casting" (i.e. slots) being a necessary component, with Focus spells (including Focus cantrips) seeming pretty solid on their own. To the extent any sub-themes might be inclined to spell slots, that seems handled on an ad-hoc basis, very possibly the Eidolon themself casting those spells (modular or "fixed" natural spells) ...I could even see Summoners getting Cantrips but not "normal" spell slots. EDIT: To the extent using magic items is in their wheelhouse, they can have an ability like Trick Magic Item to use Skill to activate any eligible items.

Maybe on their own, the OP might imagine Summoner being like an alt-Witch or other caster class, still being a slot caster etc. OK, but given we know it isn't an alt-class, seems likely it isn't something that would easily be an alt-class. I might guess that a Spiritualist would probably be viable as alt-class OF Summoner (if it's not baked in option to begin with), since it could probably also dispense with modular/slot caster formula, but might diverge alot in adjacent abilities, "key stat" for class, Feats and so forth.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
notXanathar wrote:

I didn't at any point question that it had mechanical justification, but I was hoping that there would be a more natural reason for their existence than an assertion in lore that they do. Thanks anyway.

I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for. You say "narrative justification" but if the narrative enabled by the mechanics doesn't count, and the narrative created by the lore doesn't count, what narrative are you referring to?

Maybe something like: The summoner is a conduit for a powerful being called an eidolon, allowing that being to manifest physically in the summoner's world and granting the summoner and eidolon a unique relationship in the narrative much different than a familiar and master or conjurer and summoned creature have.

Thanks. That does make a good case for the class. I'm not sure whether that constitutes enough of a difference for my personal preference but it is about as good as I originally felt about the oracle (which I have come to love).

Design Manager

12 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:

To me, one of the most stand-out elements in PF1 was the flavor text of the psychopomp eidolon.

"When the summoner dies, a psychopomp eidolon personally escorts him to the afterlife and serves as an expert witness when it is time for him to be judged."

That one line is enough to inspire a whole lot about the summoner and eidolon.

It's all about the relationships. While Jason was the lead overall on unchained summoner, when I did my pass on it, I tried to add in all those little lines to the different subtypes like the one you quoted.


A witch is trained by their familiar. To use TVTropes, this is the Mentor Mascot (1) Trope, except with some bigger power behind the Mentor Mascot.

A summoner generally either learns with or trains their Eidolon. This is nearer a pokemon trainer with only one pokemon, or maybe even the Dividual (2), or The Adventure Duo (3). If you want to play the Hyper-Competent Sidekick (4) in PF2, this is the only class that has a change of coming anywhere even close to it - though we will have to wait and see if the PF2 version goes so far as that.

Witch
1) Mentor Mascot (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MentorMascot)

Summoner
2) The Dividual (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDividual)
3) Adventure Duo (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdventureDuo)
4) Hyper-Competent Sidekick (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HypercompetentSidekick)


Summoning is fun. I've always loved summoning creatures to fight for you.

The Summoner needs it's own class because there are a ton of different creatures to master summoning. It's cool if summoners can specialize in different types of creatures. At least that's what I'm hoping for.


To echo what other people are saying here, the summoner has always felt fundamentally different from the witch to me. It's a much more symbiotic relationship than a witch and their patron, or a cleric and their god, which are more like employer and employee rather than mutual partners. I like playing characters who are a significant part of my class chassis, and while I wouldn't have any problem letting a GM play my familiar and patron, I'd be pretty irked at them playing my eidolon because it feels more like an extension of the character.

Wind Chime wrote:

The pathfinder summoner always made me think of the ps2 rpg of the same name.

"I am Joseph of Ciran. Joseph of Masad. Farmer, cotter, plower... Sahugani. Summoner"

I forgot this game existed and now I'm sad because I loved it.

Grand Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quandary wrote:

AFAIK, an alt-class would "inherit" any Feats (including future Feats yet to be published) that don't specifically require ability it swapped out. Look at Witch Feats and few of them have (swappable) class feature pre-req, yet they are so full of Witch flavor that doesn't seem inherently tied to Summoner. I'm not sure there is any class whose Feat list would be so closely aligned to Summoner, and if nearly every ability would be swapped out I think that's a good sign it should be it's own class and not an alt-class.

I think the OP is assuming the Summoner will be a normal caster of sorts, although I'm not really convinced it necessarily will have spell slots... As such a focused concept, I don't see "modular casting" (i.e. slots) being a necessary component, with Focus spells (including Focus cantrips) seeming pretty solid on their own. To the extent any sub-themes might be inclined to spell slots, that seems handled on an ad-hoc basis, very possibly the Eidolon themself casting those spells (modular or "fixed" natural spells) ...I could even see Summoners getting Cantrips but not "normal" spell slots. EDIT: To the extent using magic items is in their wheelhouse, they can have an ability like Trick Magic Item to use Skill to activate any eligible items.

Maybe on their own, the OP might imagine Summoner being like an alt-Witch or other caster class, still being a slot caster etc. OK, but given we know it isn't an alt-class, seems likely it isn't something that would easily be an alt-class. I might guess that a Spiritualist would probably be viable as alt-class OF Summoner (if it's not baked in option to begin with), since it could probably also dispense with modular/slot caster formula, but might diverge alot in adjacent abilities, "key stat" for class, Feats and so forth.

As mentioned during GenCon, Magus and Summoner are both « 9th level casters ».

At least, they will be presented as such in the playtest starting soonish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RPGnoremac wrote:

"Classes should fill a narrative niche not filled adequately by another class."

I am not an expert but I feel that classes are more for a mechanical role than a narrative role.

When it comes to Summoners I feel there is a lot of options to make it interesting. I am very curious to see what they do. I hope they give options to have a non Eidolon focused summoner though. I love the summon monster spells from 1e and think that should be a viable alternative to having a strong Eidolon.

I wouldn't say that, since some classes in PF1e overlapped in both. I still get the feeling that shifters as 'druids, but with less going on', both in terms of their position and mechanics. They are 'extras', and have numbers that match that.

But summoners? That is a highly specific role that isn't well filled right now. We have animal companions, but their power level is set at "that thing that druids and rangers use their third action for". We don't really have a full on dedicated beast or monster user yet. Nothing worthy of being a main line beat stick.

I would imagine the summoner's routine will be "spend actions to give the eidolon actions, and then maybe throw out a single action/focus buff spell as an extra".


Elfteiroh wrote:
As mentioned during GenCon, Magus and Summoner are both « 9th level casters ».

Thanks for the update, I didn't follow the GenCon announcements specifically.

If that is the plan for Playtest, hard to see them changing it, since feedback would all be for Full Caster version.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Elfteiroh wrote:
As mentioned during GenCon, Magus and Summoner are both « 9th level casters ».

Thanks for the update, I didn't follow the GenCon announcements specifically.

If that is the plan for Playtest, hard to see them changing it, since feedback would all be for Full Caster version.

Well, not necessarily. 9th level isn't quite full caster, since it loses out on 10th level spells and at least in the case of Magus (I'd bet the same is true of Summoner) they have less spell slots per level as well.

So going up or down from that in spellcasting very much seems possible. I wouldn't expect Magus to go down, but depending on Summoner's action economy, if a lot of people react with 'I literally never cast a spell'...I could see it happening for them. I don't think it's super likely, but it doesn't seem impossible.


They are guaranteed to not get less then 8th level spells due to how Archetypes work.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
They are guaranteed to not get less then 8th level spells due to how Archetypes work.

Well, in the case of Summoner they could just not be a spell slot caster at all, with a Focus Spell for 'Summon Monster' stuff ala a Druid's Wild Shape, an Eidolon, and additional Focus Spells available to heal and buff said Eidolon, their thematic bases are actually well covered.

That doesn't seem to be the route they're going down, but it's one they could if they felt like.


Oh I agree there are a few ways to do it. But it does seem like previously 6th level casters are getting something like 9th level.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Oh I agree there are a few ways to do it. But it does seem like previously 6th level casters are getting something like 9th level.

I mean, clearly it depends. Bard got the full 10 levels, while Alchemist and Investigator stopped being casters at all. But yes, I'd expect that to be decently common.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

"Classes should fill a narrative niche not filled adequately by another class."

I would say classes should fill narrative and mechanical niches not filled adequately by another class.

If there's a character concept that the current mechanical framework can't allow, then it's quite possible a new class is in order. I absolutely do not mind slight variations on one theme if they allow people to be more creative with their character concepts.

Summoner has such a different mechanical chassis they really do require a new class. Personally, I don't care if they are considered wizards or sorcerers in the lore as long as the character plays like the player wants it to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I suspect we will probably not ever get a casting class that gets less than 9th level casting.

The system and spell balance seems built around that idea. In particular, a theoretical 6th level caster would get no use from Incapacitate spells and very limited use from damage spells, which heavily limits the roles such a caster could fill. That's fine for a multiclass character, who has a whole class of other features to make up for it, but for a class that casting is supposed to be a primary feature it's going to feel bad. And even multiclass characters get up to 8, which is about the absolute lowest limit I'd ever expect to see.

For reasons of the Incap trait alone, I suspect that Summoner and Magus will have at least one 10th level slot, even if they have no 10th level spells. I could be wrong, though; Paizo might decide that Incap spells falling off at the highest levels is okay. Would still surprise me a little.

Shadow Lodge

The crb already had 5 classes that could fill the role of the warrior and another 5 that could be the mage. Classes in pf2 are not general, they're very specific, narrow sets of abilities for playing one predefined character archetype (using the word, not the game term).

Personally I don't like this direction, I would have preferred a system with extremely broadly defined classes that allowed much more choice to make unique characters instead of the package deals that pf2 has. The way it is, I'd have to write a new class for every pc to actually have them be the character I wanted. So the more classes, the less compromises I have to make to fit a character concept to one of them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
gnoams wrote:

The crb already had 5 classes that could fill the role of the warrior and another 5 that could be the mage. Classes in pf2 are not general, they're very specific, narrow sets of abilities for playing one predefined character archetype (using the word, not the game term).

Personally I don't like this direction, I would have preferred a system with extremely broadly defined classes that allowed much more choice to make unique characters instead of the package deals that pf2 has. The way it is, I'd have to write a new class for every pc to actually have them be the character I wanted. So the more classes, the less compromises I have to make to fit a character concept to one of them.

Really? I've found the opposite - with the archetype and subclass systems, not to mention class feats, classes in 2e have a lot of room to fit different archetypes.

For an example, I am currently helping one of my players build a full plate-wearing high Str, low Dex rogue who is basically a soldier who learned to fight dirty - and I'm quite surprised by how well-supported that build is. Ruffian racket, Sentinel Dedication, and you are basically good to go for a character that is completely opposite to how you are "supposed" to build a rogue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Is that really opposite though? The ruffian racket is specifically built for high strength, medium armor rogues... all you've really done here is bump up the armor to the next level and you're still using the weapons Ruffian tells you to use. That seems more like a little nudge than a complete shift.

But if you wanted to give your new rogue a big axe instead of a longspear... suddenly your class' combat mechanic turns off, because Paizo says that's not how you're supposed to play a Rogue.

I feel like that's more in line with what gnoams is talking about. There are a lot of hard and soft walls in PF2, for better or for worse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
notXanathar wrote:

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. So what role does the summoner fill? The witch gets magic from a patron; the sorcerer from their magical ancestry; the bard fills the character archetype of the supernatural musician; the barbarian rage gives them superhuman powers. By contrast the summoner seems defined by their mechanics: getting good with summoning and having a magical companion.

What makes them different enough narratively from a witch who says that their familiar is their patron. Why could the class not be achieved by rites of convocation and a few feats that let your familiar be an animal companion or similar as well.

Please explain why this is it's own thing. I recognise that it may have a very different feel to what I described above, but I don't believe that should inform whether it's a class. It might require fairly radical archetypes, but, as I say, I think that that makes more sense than having an entirely new class.

Thanks for any replies,

A very common power fantasy is the pet controller. A person whose main power is they can summon a very large very nasty pet that does the work for you. The current classes can have some pet options but the pet has to be pretty under powered due to how the balance works. A summoner is somebody willing to give up some personal power so they can command a more powerful entity. This trope shows up in almost every MMO and pretty common in various fantasy series.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Squiggit wrote:

Is that really opposite though? The ruffian racket is specifically built for high strength, medium armor rogues... all you've really done here is bump up the armor to the next level and you're still using the weapons Ruffian tells you to use. That seems more like a little nudge than a complete shift.

But if you wanted to give your new rogue a big axe instead of a longspear... suddenly your class' combat mechanic turns off, because Paizo says that's not how you're supposed to play a Rogue.

I feel like that's more in line with what gnoams is talking about. There are a lot of hard and soft walls in PF2, for better or for worse.

Without getting too far off topic - The original argument was that classes are very mechanically narrow.

My counterpoint is that rogues alone support "pure" Dex rogues, heavy armor rogues, caster rogues of four flavors, "investigator-lite" rogues, and more besides - and most of that is before you add archetypes into the mix.

Compared to 1e, I feel like classes have more versatility, not less. It's been very rare that I come up with a character concept that I can't find a way to mechancially represent.

Yes, you can't sneak attack with a greataxe, but considering the wide breadth of options you do have, that seems an odd hill to die on. And unlike 1e, rogues can fight effectively when not getting sneak attack; their accuracy isn't so bad that they are useless without it.

Bringing this back around to "why summoner", I feel like Summoner does represent a concept that is not currently easy to do. Like others have said, the "Pokemon trainer" or "character with a bound devil" type concept. So in that I agree with gnoams - Summoner does represent new territory, even more so than Magus.

I just don't feel like the existing classes are so narrowly limited; not when Strength wizards and druid/rogues and other such "out there" concepts are viable out of the gate, unlike 1e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Is that really opposite though? The ruffian racket is specifically built for high strength, medium armor rogues... all you've really done here is bump up the armor to the next level and you're still using the weapons Ruffian tells you to use. That seems more like a little nudge than a complete shift.

But if you wanted to give your new rogue a big axe instead of a longspear... suddenly your class' combat mechanic turns off, because Paizo says that's not how you're supposed to play a Rogue.

I feel like that's more in line with what gnoams is talking about. There are a lot of hard and soft walls in PF2, for better or for worse.

Without getting too far off topic - The original argument was that classes are very mechanically narrow.

My counterpoint is that rogues alone support "pure" Dex rogues, heavy armor rogues, caster rogues of four flavors, "investigator-lite" rogues, and more besides - and most of that is before you add archetypes into the mix.

Compared to 1e, I feel like classes have more versatility, not less. It's been very rare that I come up with a character concept that I can't find a way to mechancially represent.

Yes, you can't sneak attack with a greataxe, but considering the wide breadth of options you do have, that seems an odd hill to die on. And unlike 1e, rogues can fight effectively when not getting sneak attack; their accuracy isn't so bad that they are useless without it.

Bringing this back around to "why summoner", I feel like Summoner does represent a concept that is not currently easy to do. Like others have said, the "Pokemon trainer" or "character with a bound devil" type concept. So in that I agree with gnoams - Summoner does represent new territory, even more so than Magus.

I just don't feel like the existing classes are so narrowly limited; not when Strength wizards and druid/rogues and other such "out there" concepts are viable out of the gate, unlike 1e.

Yeah, I don't feel that PF2 classes are mechanically narrow at all. In fact, I wouldn't mind *more* built in class things instead of everything being a class feat. The class feat structure already gives lots of different options.

*My* problem with PF2 classes is that you don't get enough class feats to select the breadth of options I would like to have, and jumping to Archetypes tends to water down your original class significantly.

Back to the topic at hand, summoner may be *more* narrow than other classes, simply by the virtue of having a big eidolon sucking up the power budget of the class. I don't see it as a problem, especially since it's a follow-on class after the CRB. Some mechanical concepts require a narrow class chassis, just to keep things in control, and that's fine. That's one of the strengths of a class based system.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

If the lore is something like "the bond between the summoner and the eidolon allows the summoner to invest part of their essence into allowing the eidolon to manifest" then this tracks.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.

I would be surprised if a system as crunchy as evolution points came back.

Honestly, I think the way familiars work is probably a great roadmap for what Eidolons will look like; I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them have an animal companion style "base framework" combined with a familiar style "list of abilities".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A question that kind of follows on from this is: in what sense is the summoner a summoner in the literal sense of the term. Instead of summoning your eidolon as your main means of having them about, which would seem a much more hierarchical, it seems that the summoner has more of a symbiotic relationship with them, and is more of a conduit, by which means they are able to manifest. I recognise that originally they had summoning spells built in, but I would question whether that was necessary for the key idea of the class.

Perhaps, it would be better to have it as something like a paladin or monk. Their key mechanism of power might be their eidolon, with a bunch of focus spells and pseudo-magical abilities focused on enhancing that. This might perhaps work better with the idea that they focus more on god-calling (in golarion at least). That also would give them the power budget to have a really powerful eidolon.

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. It is not dissimilar to calling a class the polymorpher. While it might reasonably be written as a class, it might require a slight departure from being only 'the person who casts spells that change their form' to allow for more distinct stories (IDK, they cut off ties with their identity and original shape), and yet at the same time may be constrained by it(why do they actually need to cast spells).

1 to 50 of 171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What is the narrative justification for the summoner? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.