Welcome to the Summoner Class Playtest!

[KrispyXIV]

Moppy wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Everyone acts like Summoners will be standing in the open waiting to die.

How about standing 80 feet back, 3 move actions away from the enemy? Around a corner, outside of line of site? Maybe dont stand side by side when opening doors on the other side of which monsters may dwell?

If you're making it easy for a foe to get to your Summoner, that's on you. Summoners have several ways to contribute from safety as it stands.

This is often difficult in a paizo AP. Their combat maps are really small. I'd pay a lot for AOO on an Eidolon.

Not my experience with them. Theyre often claustrophobic and close packed, with lots of corners, doorways and chokepoints.

Being a single room behind the rest of the party (or the next corner back), just to the side of an entrance or doorway would be a consistent way to remain out of line of sight and completely safe and unnoticed.

Which is discounting entirely that the number of encounters with foes where they'd have some inclination that focusing on the summoner would be a good idea are in the minority to begin with. Its mostly beasts, monsters, cultist minions, mindless undead, golems, etc. Strategic humanoids and educated foes tend to be minibusses or bosses with limited minion support in encounter.

[Verzen]

-Poison- wrote:

Verzen wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Thoughts?

Except for the 1d8/1d4(agile) damage and maybe the choice of elemental, i think this is GREAT

The only reason i discount the 1d8/1d4(agile) is because i'm not sure these are the only attack choices you want. Die size and agile, i think there's a little more room for 2 more possible unarmed attack choices as well.
The choice of elemental might be a bit too generous though, but if you have some giant undead skeleton Eidolon i can understand wanting it to do all negative damage.

My only concern is that if you're TOO versatile then you can bypass literally any resistance and exploit any weakness. It becomes a bit too much. Especially when adding in versatile (energy)

Yeah like i said, that's the only thing i'd be iffy on is the elemental choice of damage for your attacks. I like the idea of a dummy template for an Eidolon that you add flavor to though, very much; i think it's super choice and would satisfy a lot of people's desires.

It would also mean like, if I wanted a dragon from my dummy template though, my dragon would also have weird monster abilities that the normal dragon might not have. Like.. Engulf rather than energy breath. He's just a very hungry dragon.

[Justpassingthrough]

Verzen wrote:

I honestly think Paizo should include an option that allows for more customization. An open ended option that may not be listed under the packages.

This would look like this.

Create-your-own
Choose a creature type from the list
Animal
Astral
Beast
Celestial
Construct
Dragon
Elemental
Ethereal
Fey
Fiend
Fungus
Humanoid
Monitor
Ooze
Plant
Spirit
Undead

Pick a damage type for your 1d8 damage (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Pick a damage type for your 1d4 damage(agile) (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Stats for the Eidolon are as follows, 18/16/14/12/10/8. Arrange them how you see fit.

Level 1 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 1's)

Level 5 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 5's)

Level 10 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 10's)

Level 15 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 15's)

Level 20 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 20's)

And change each package to follow that same level scheme.

I think this would be incredibly balanced and would get what I want while maintaining what you want.

Thoughts?

I actually really like this idea.

My only question would be this...would you get to choose your own school of magic and skill proficiencies as well?

Also I approve of the really hungry dragon :)

[BACE]

Justpassingthrough wrote:

I actually really like this idea.

My only question would be this...would you get to choose your own school of magic and skill proficiencies as well?

Also I approve of the really hungry dragon :)

I imagine your spell tradition would probably be related to the creature type you choose for your eidolon. The skill, though...no idea. Maybe pick 2 from a list?

[manbearscientist]

-Poison- wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Thoughts?

Except for the 1d8/1d4(agile) damage and maybe the choice of elemental, i think this is GREAT

The only reason i discount the 1d8/1d4(agile) is because i'm not sure these are the only attack choices you want. Die size and agile, i think there's a little more room for 2 more possible unarmed attack choices as well.
The choice of elemental might be a bit too generous though, but if you have some giant undead skeleton Eidolon i can understand wanting it to do all negative damage.

Monster abilities would be separate from evolutions right? Such as the 1/7/17 abilities Eidolons currently give, it would be great and add more of the feeling of customization for the actual Eidolon.

A d8 and d4 definitely aren't the only dice sizes you would want, but the problem with changing the dice size is that bigger = better without much subtlety. A d10 without a trait is better than virtually any trait you could put on a d8, for instance. Keeping the dice size is probably necessary to keep the level 1 options as sidegrades.

[Verzen]

Justpassingthrough wrote:

Verzen wrote:

I honestly think Paizo should include an option that allows for more customization. An open ended option that may not be listed under the packages.

This would look like this.

Create-your-own
Choose a creature type from the list
Animal
Astral
Beast
Celestial
Construct
Dragon
Elemental
Ethereal
Fey
Fiend
Fungus
Humanoid
Monitor
Ooze
Plant
Spirit
Undead

Pick a damage type for your 1d8 damage (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Pick a damage type for your 1d4 damage(agile) (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Stats for the Eidolon are as follows, 18/16/14/12/10/8. Arrange them how you see fit.

Level 1 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 1's)

Level 5 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 5's)

Level 10 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 10's)

Level 15 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 15's)

Level 20 - Pick a single monster ability from this list (lists monster abilities for level 20's)

And change each package to follow that same level scheme.

I think this would be incredibly balanced and would get what I want while maintaining what you want.

Thoughts?

I actually really like this idea.

My only question would be this...would you get to choose your own school of magic and skill proficiencies as well?

I don't see why not being able to choose your own school of magic.

I mean... there does exist undead druids in lore. So if a druid wanted an undead creature, it would still make sense.

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Siabrae

There are a lot of priests of dragon gods, too. So allowing divine to be part of any of those makes sense.

[Verzen]

Actually, how about this..

Pick a damage type for your 1d8 damage (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Pick TWO damage types for your 1d4 damage(agile) (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

That way I have 3 various ways to deal damage and then I describe HOW my creature deals that damage but only 1 of them is the more powerful option. This might work as well.

[Moppy]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Moppy wrote:

This is often difficult in a paizo AP. Their combat maps are really small. I'd pay a lot for AOO on an Eidolon.

Not my experience with them. Theyre often claustrophobic and close packed, with lots of corners, doorways and chokepoints.

Being a single room behind the rest of the party (or the next corner back), just to the side of an entrance or doorway would be a consistent way to remain out of line of sight and completely safe and unnoticed.

Which is discounting entirely that the number of encounters with foes where they'd have some inclination that focusing on the summoner would be a good idea are in the minority to begin with. Its mostly beasts, monsters, cultist minions, mindless undead, golems, etc. Strategic humanoids and educated foes tend to be minibusses or bosses with limited minion support in encounter.

How was this encounter started? If you are in the next room down, how are you talking to the rest of the party?

I'd agree with some of those foes being tactically naive.

Cultists however can be just as smart as any other humanoid and there's that glowing sigil connected to eidolon rule.

I'd not be sure on magical beasts - it would depend on their exposure to humanoids. The smarter ones have the intelligence to figure out how to use machines, or to direct captive humanoids to do so, and I'm sure they'd ask them how human militaries operated.

There's also the fact that character classes are a thing, and many folk would have a basic idea what they do. They might not be able to tell a wizard from a sorceror, but they'd figure out the summoner-eidolon link for sure.

[BACE]

I do have a question, Verzen. I noticed you mentioned your "Hungry Dragon," and I can't quite see why that would necessarily be an issue. Can you elaborate on why this would happen under your system? It seems like if there were even just 4-5 options at each tier, you would end up largely being able to get something that fits the vision of your eidolon.

[Katrixia]

manbearscientist wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Thoughts?

A d8 and d4 definitely aren't the only dice sizes you would want, but the problem with changing the dice size is that bigger = better without much subtlety. A d10 without a trait is better than virtually any trait you could put on a d8, for instance. Keeping the dice size is probably necessary to keep the level 1 options as sidegrades.

Right, that's understandable.

[Verzen]

I don't understand your question...

I mean

Quote:

Dragon Eidolon

Because dragons have a strong connection to magic,
their minds can often leave an echo floating in the
Astral Plane, extremely powerful but unable to interact
with the outside world on their own. Dragon eidolons
manifest in the powerful, scaled forms they had in life;
most take the form of true dragons (albeit smaller), but
some manifest as drakes or other draconic beings. You’ve
forged a connection with such a dragon eidolon, and
together, you’ll grow to the might of an ancient wyrm,
the mightiest of dragons.
Tradition arcane
Traits astral, dragon, eidolon, and one more (see Breath
Weapon below)
Home Plane Astral Plane
Size Medium
Melee [one-action] primary, Damage 1d8
Melee [one-action] secondary (agile), Damage 1d4
Suggested Attacks claw (slashing), jaws (piercing), horn
(piercing), tail (bludgeoning), wing (bludgeoning)
Str 16, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Skills Arcana, Intimidation
Senses darkvision
Language Draconic
Speed 25 feet
Eidolon Abilities initial: Breath Weapon; eidolon symbiosis:
Draconic Frenzy; eidolon transcendence: Wyrm’s Breath
Breath Weapon
Your eidolon has a powerful breath weapon. When your
eidolon gains this ability, choose a damage type from
among acid, cold, electricity, fire, piercing, or poison,
and choose whether the area is a 60-foot line or a 30-
©2020 Paizo Inc. 20
Secrets of Magic
foot cone. Your eidolon gains the Breath Weapon activity.
It has the trait matching the damage type. Your eidolon
also gains that trait.
BREATH WEAPON [two-actions]
ARCANE EIDOLON EVOCATION
Your eidolon exhales a powerful blast of energy corresponding
to their type. Your eidolon deals 1d6 damage in the area you
chose when your eidolon gained Breath Weapon with a basic
Reflex save against your spell DC. This damage has the type
you chose when the eidolon gained this ability. Your eidolon
can’t use their Breath Weapon again for the next 1d4 rounds.
At 3rd level and every 2 levels thereafter, the damage
increases by 1d6.
Draconic Frenzy 7th
Your eidolon can make a furious assault, potentially
recovering the use of their Breath Weapon. Your eidolon
gains the Draconic Frenzy activity.
DRACONIC FRENZY [two-actions]
EIDOLON
Your eidolon makes one Strike with their primary unarmed
attack and two Strikes with their secondary unarmed
attacks (in any order). If any of these attacks is a critical hit
against a foe, the eidolon instantly recovers the use of their
Breath Weapon.
Wyrm’s Breath 17th
Your eidolon can draw upon the power of wyrms to
enhance their Breath Weapon. Your eidolon gains the
Wyrm’s Breath free action.
WYRM’S BREATH [free-action]
CONCENTRATE EIDOLON METAMAGIC
Frequency once every 10 minutes
Your eidolon concentrates the power of the mightiest wyrms to
make their Breath Weapon more spectacular. If your eidolon’s
next action is to use Breath Weapon, both the damage and
area of the Breath Weapon are doubled.

This is the dragon Eidolon, right? Well, at 1st level, what if I wanted Engulf? (This is JUST an example. I'm not sure if Engulf is a little too powerful or not) He doesn't get the dragon's breath attack, but he does get the engulf instead.

But the dragon Eidolon is STILL available as a package for those who want to choose to have the Eidolon. And some of the packages may have abilities that the create-your-own option does not have access to... some unique abilities.. like the Dragonic frenzy, for example... it would stay with the dragon Eidolon package. But I can definitely see how multiple different Eidolons aside from dragons might have a breath attack.

[BACE]

Verzen wrote:

This is the dragon Eidolon, right? Well, at 1st level, what if I wanted Engulf? (This is JUST an example. I'm not sure if Engulf is a little too powerful or not) He doesn't get the dragon's breath attack, but he does get the engulf instead.

But the dragon Eidolon is STILL available as a package for those who want to choose to have the Eidolon. And some of the packages may have abilities that the create-your-own option does not have access to... some unique abilities.. like the Dragonic frenzy, for example... it would stay with the dragon Eidolon package. But I can definitely see how multiple different Eidolons aside from dragons might have a breath attack.

Ah, I misread your original post as saying that a dragon somehow wouldn't be able to get a breath weapon, and might have to pick up something weird like engulf instead. Which didn't make sense in my mind, and now I see that I was just parsing it wrong. Thanks.

[Wind Chime]

As for the dragon eidolon would anyone else prefer that you could use the breath option less and it did a little more damage a 1d6 without a modofer breath weapon is really lame, especially if you have electric arc.If they started with 2d6 and added 1d6 every other level it would feel a lot better.

[Verzen]

Oh one other thing I forgot to add!

"Select a resistance from this list (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Select a weakness from this list
(B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)
Each one is equal to 5 or half your Eidolons level. Whichever is greater."

This has precedence as seen with Tempest Oracle granting 5 fire resistance, 5 electricity weakness right out the gate at level 1.

[Gaulin]

I also very much like your list and suggestion, Verzen. I personally hate dragons, but mechanically I love the way they play. I would love to have an awesome bear owl griffon with a cold breath attack or the like, that's a thousand times cooler and more special to me. Making it so only dragons get a semi spammable area attack is so lame (not to mention I was going through bestiary 1 last night to look at monster abilities, and tooons of monsters have a breath attack. Not just dragons).

One question I have for you in this new setup you've envisioned - half the class feats are eidolon evolutions. What do you think should replace those, or should they simply be more options for the eidolon?

[Snes]

Verzen wrote:

Oh one other thing I forgot to add!

"Select a resistance from this list (B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)

Select a weakness from this list
(B/S/P/acid/electricity/fire/cold/sonic/negative)
Each one is equal to 5 or half your Eidolons level. Whichever is greater."

This has precedence as seen with Tempest Oracle granting 5 fire resistance, 5 electricity weakness right out the gate at level 1.

Tempest oracles only get that weakness and resistance when under the moderate effects of their curse, not all the time. If you give players too many free customization options, especially ones that aren't thematically tied together, you wind up with players only looking to min-max. Every eidolon will have slashing resistance 5, sonic weakness 5. Or as it's also known, slashing resistance 5.

[Verzen]

Gaulin wrote:

I also very much like your list and suggestion, Verzen. I personally hate dragons, but mechanically I love the way they play. I would love to have an awesome bear owl griffon with a cold breath attack or the like, that's a thousand times cooler and more special to me. Making it so only dragons get a semi spammable area attack is so lame (not to mention I was going through bestiary 1 last night to look at monster abilities, and tooons of monsters have a breath attack. Not just dragons).

One question I have for you in this new setup you've envisioned - half the class feats are eidolon evolutions. What do you think should replace those, or should they simply be more options for the eidolon?

Just more options for the Eidolon snd or Summoner. One might be "pick an additional level 1 monster ability from the list" some could change the interaction the eidolon has with the summoner etc.

[Cydeth]

If I were going to give the resistance options out of the gate, it's make them the same as baseline PC options like Arctic Elf. 1/2 level, minimum 1.

[TheGentlemanDM]

This might be a controversial idea, but what if Summoners got subclasses that enabled them to lean in particular directions?

Currently, Summoners don't get a 1st feat. Nor does any caster, for that matter, but they can still come through the structure of subclass options.

You'd have three subclasses. (It would also help if the class name changed to something like the Invoker, in the same way that Paladin went to Champion.)

The Summoner: Gets a focus spell that replicates Summon X spells, akin to Druid Wild shape for polymorph spells. The subclass applies a buff to the summoned creature so it doesn't suck. Means you don't need a font for summoning, and locking the boost to the subclass means you could even make this focus spell available as a 1st level feat, and thus a tool for summoning for any class through Summoner Dedication.

The Amalgamist: Gains an additional Evolution feat at 1st level and 11th level. Pretty straightforward- for those like Verzen who want as much juice and customization for their Eidolon as possible. (Alternatively, instead of an extra feat at 11, have a flexible 1/2-level feat slot like Metamagic Wizard Thesis?)

The Synthesist: Gains the Synthesis 1st level feat, and can still cast cantrips while fused. Gains small bonuses from higher level Synthesis feats that no-one else does. Enables the full transformation to retain a lot of power while preventing everyone from abusing it.

That said, if the class went this way, we might lose some of the initial customization options for the Eidolons for space, complexity, and power issues. This kind of system means that you'd basically be choosing two subclasses- one for your focus on strategy, the other for your eidolon and spell list.

[WWHsmackdown]

I understand a lot a people want a build your own monster type system were you have control over every knob and lever but I'd rather just have a large number of packages that cover a wide array of concepts so that the class as a whole is more easily balanced. If the class as a whole is more calibrated so that the devs have certain expected curves to look at it'll open the door for more interesting features and class feats. I'm just scared that if we have complete control over all aspects of the eidelon then none of those individual levers or knobs are gonna be interesting or engaging due to the tight balance. It's not that I don't want it, it's just that I don't think people are gonna get what they want if it happens

[Squiggit]

A question for Paizo if anyone from there happens to see it:

Are Summoners (and Magi) intended to be able to uses staves normally?

There's been a lot of back and forth arguing over whether or not, for example, an 8th level Magus or Summoner can "cast spells of the appropriate level" or not for the purposes of activating a first or second level spell from a staff and what the intent here is.

[Temperans]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I understand a lot a people want a build your own monster type system were you have control over every knob and lever but I'd rather just have a large number of packages that cover a wide array of concepts so that the class as a whole is more easily balanced. If the class as a whole is more calibrated so that the devs have certain expected curves to look at it'll open the door for more interesting features and class feats. I'm just scared that if we have complete control over all aspects of the eidelon then none of those individual levers or knobs are gonna be interesting or engaging due to the tight balance. It's not that I don't want it, it's just that I don't think people are gonna get what they want if it happens

That is why the Unchained Summoner version is so great.

You have the basic packaged that gived some common abilities. But then you also have evolution points to customize the Eidolon however you want.

Also I think evolutions having a clear cost independent of feats allows for Paizo to have a lot more control over what people can have. Without creating the problem of feat taxes and bottlenecks.

Seriously, its not a complicated I still have no idea why people think its complicated. Specially given the mess that is choosing spells.

[TheGentlemanDM]

Just giving more evolution feats to choose from (most of which don't have prerequisites) does the job.

We don't need a points system for build Eidolons. We have a system in place that manages abilities of different power levels: the class feat system.

[Temperans]

Eidolon evolutions are not class feats. They are an inherent part of the Eidolon.

Also the Familiar Options prove Paizo is perfectly willing to make a point based system creatures.

Because as I have said many many times. Familiar Options are just a super simplofied version of Eidolon Evolutions. Why can't Paizo give Eidolons the system that original belonged to Eidolons?

[shroudb]

Having Evolutions be based on class feats doesnt make them any less "inherent part of the eidolon".

We would need extra feats that we can only spent on them to maximise customisability, but that's no different than rogue and investigator getting extra skill feats.

[Temperans]

It is very different because a class feats by their nature are limited and meant to give versatility and/or power.

Paizo will never give enough class feats to make Eidolon evolutions good enough. Because even fighter is only able to get 2 extra class feats.

Evolutions points on the other hand can be entirely separated from class feats. Without having to give Summoners extra feats.

******************

That is the important part. Paizo is probably never going to give more than 2 class feats. Even if they do make a class worh extra class feats that would take a severe chunk of their ability budget.

[Katrixia]

Temperans wrote:

Eidolon evolutions are not class feats. They are an inherent part of the Eidolon.

Also the Familiar Options prove Paizo is perfectly willing to make a point based system creatures.

Because as I have said many many times. Familiar Options are just a super simplofied version of Eidolon Evolutions. Why can't Paizo give Eidolons the system that original belonged to Eidolons?

I would agree with this; i'd love to see bonus feats only for evolutions or the old 1e system of buying/saving for what you want to return.

I think, a more realistic approach is the idea of bonus evolution feats at odd levels much like the Rogue and Investigator's bonus skill feats as it would save on development to keep evolutions as class feats.

But i would absolutely support the idea of the point-buy evolution system from 1e returning.

[Temperans]

I honestly dont support the feats system because its just mechanically too intensive. The Rogue is able to get away with it because they are getting Skill feats. But even the entire class was balanced around them getting more skill feats.

Summoners getting free class feats is honestly unthinkable under the current system. Specially when people already complain that a +1 to hit is too much.

[TheGentlemanDM]

Temperans wrote:

Also the Familiar Options prove Paizo is perfectly willing to make a point based system creatures.

Familiar options aren't point based, unless you consider every ability to be worth a single point. Familiar options also don't involve combat abilities beyond a little extra fuel in the tank and having a fragile character carry some things around for you.

Quote:

Why can't Paizo give Eidolons the system that original belonged to Eidolons?

Because that would ignore the design principles established for PF2E.

A points system requires one to attempt to balance abilities by cost, but runs into issues in that the balance between a single high powered ability and a selection of low powered abilities is really hard to do. Especially since there's a lot of abilities which mess with game balance and could be acquired unhealthily early on. Especially flight.

Using the class feat system for evolutions makes perfect sense. The stronger abilities are gated behind higher levels, and one doesn't have to go through the process of doing the math between "well, I'd like acid breath and extra speed, but I also want to fly and can do that next level but would have to trade out everything to do that" and all of that minutiae of optimization that PF2E tries to avoid.

Having a points system also makes everything too complex, given that this is a class which will still have a) spellcasting, b) focus spells, c) class feats, and d) preset collections of abilities depending on eidolon type, and e) maybe also some selection involved for ability scores. That's a lot of decision points, and you would have to nerf the feats into the ground and severely cripple the loadout eidolon abilities so you don't just break the class.

Which is what happened with the original Summoner. In a game with 20th level Wizards and 20th level Druids, the Summoner got banned.

[Temperans]

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Also the Familiar Options prove Paizo is perfectly willing to make a point based system creatures.

Familiar options aren't point based, unless you consider every ability to be worth a single point. Familiar options also don't involve combat abilities beyond a little extra fuel in the tank.

Quote:

Why can't Paizo give Eidolons the system that original belonged to Eidolons?

Because that would ignore the design principles established for PF2E.

A points system requires one to attempt to balance abilities by cost, but runs into issues in that the balance between a single high powered ability and a selection of low powered abilities is really hard to do. Especially since there's a lot of abilities which mess with game balance and could be acquired unhealthily early on. Especially flight.

Using the class feat system for evolutions makes perfect sense. The stronger abilities are gated behind higher levels, and one doesn't have to go through the process of doing the math between "well, I'd like acid breath and extra speed, but I also want to fly and can do that next level but would have to trade out everything to do that" and all of that minutiae of optimization that PF2E tries to avoid.

Having a points system also makes everything too complex, given that this is a class which will still have a) spellcasting, b) focus spells, c) class feats, and d) preset collections of abilities depending on eidolon type, and e) maybe also some selection involved for ability scores. That's a lot of decision points, and you would have to nerf the feats into the ground and severely cripple the loadout eidolon abilities so you don't just break the class.

Which is what happened with the original Summoner. In a game with 20th level Wizards and 20th level Druids, the Summoner got banned.

Familiar options are the equivalent of the 1 point evolutions most of the abilities are effectively the same but adapted to PF2 and what fits familiars.

Also it would not ve ignoring the PF2 design principles give that Familiars are already doing it. Its merely an extension and modification of that already pre-existing system.

There is no reasons why the Evolutions cannot be restricted by levels, other evolutions, or even what subtype you have. In fact this is exactly what Unchained Eidolon evolutions did. Most Unchained evolutions had a subtype or level requirement. With the powerful evolutiond having a higher requirement.

Also no, a point system does mot make it any more complex. Yes you have another point of choice but evolutions themselves are very straight forward: You have X points to spend pick what you want from this list. Exactly the same as familiar options.

And balance is even easier to achieve with a point based system. Which is why they used it for familiars instead of just giving everyone a long list of familiars like in PF1.

Because hey looks: PF1 familiars = list of boring animals with generic abilities. PF2 familiars = versatile create your own.

PF1 Eidolon = versatile create your own. PF2 Eidolon = boring list of things with generic abilities.

Its quite literally just worse.

[Temperans]

* P.S. Summoners specially Master Summoner, Synthesist, and Broodmaster were banned because of action economy.

PF1 natural attacks and summoned momster spells were highly efficient action efficient. With pouncing eidolons out damaging some martials (mostly those that were poorly built). While Master Summoner having a literal army at their beck and call. Master Summoner and Broodmaster specifically had so actions even Paizo gave it a warning label. So GMs just banned the entire class instead of actually talking with the players.

But now both of those problems are gone. Eidolons cannot get multiple natural attacks. While Summoners no longer enjoy having multiple summoned monsters with full action economy.

There were many other classes that got banned because GMs simply did not want to deal with them even if they were perfectly fine. EX: Kineticist.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans, Familiars are not a major element of combat, where the majority of balance concerns and design concerns exist. Whats good and acceptable for a class feature whose existence can be valued in feat expenditure is not necessarily good for a major class defining class feature.

In Pathfinder 2, things that influence combat effectiveness primarily come in the form of class feats. Even for familiars - which you reference - this is true, in that expanding them and making them more powerful requires the expenditure of class feats.

The difference is, instead of a class feat giving you a big old pile of evolution points, they provide you packages - packages like 'Grab' or at least the Eidolon equivalent.

This prevents all sorts of manipulation power gaming.

In a system that is concerned with allowing players to build monsters, class feats are all you need. A 'point based construction system with no restrictions' is what you need if you want to build the mechanically best and most synergistic eidolon possible for power reasons.

I'd much rather have a system that produces eidolons roughly equivalent in power, than one that lets people assemble eidolons that are more powerful... which is what a point based system that lets you eschew flavorful evolutions in favor of JUST the powerful ones does.

[Temperans]

The Familiar being a small part of other classes has nothing to do with the viability of the system for Eidolons. And point based systems are not focused on synergies and power. They are focused on having the most flexible control.

All the feats do is have a bottle neck of abilties that prevent players from creating the Eidolon they want.

Also Unchained Eidolons had packages and still were able to use evolutions. Packages and Evolutions are not mutually exclusive and their is no reason to make them mutually exclusive.

I would rather have a system that lets me properly build eidolons. A point buy systems lets me get the flavor I want with the mechanics I want. None of that meaningless roleplay with a mannequin in a different hat.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

None of that meaningless roleplay

Seriously, this right here is the issue.

Pathfinder is a roleplaying game.

It is extremely inappropriate to try and excise the roleplaying from it - the roleplaying is literally its greatest strength.

It being a roleplaying game means it doesn't need a detailed, point by point progression like a video game or something, because the players can provide the details and finer points themselves by roleplaying.

Roleplaying is an advantage to be leveraged, not something to be held up as meaningless, or dismissed in favor of more math.

[Katrixia]

I have to agree with Temperans here (except for what was said about roleplay) about the mechanical satisfaction of playing the game, the idea that optimization does not occur or isn't present in what 2e already offers is completely tone-deaf.
1E Summoner can almost be adapted 1:1 into 2e with no abuse popping up, there's no reason to lay fake fear simply at the request of more satisfying customization.

Natural attacks/making unarmed attacks 11 times with no MAP? Not possible.
Advanced spell list with things such as Haste a spell level earlier? Not possible.
A horde of many creatures that trivialize encounters? Not possible.

These are all things that are foundationally adverse to what is possible in 2e.
Natural attacks do not exist as they did in 1e.
Spellists are not class-specific.
Minion rules establish a maximum of summons.
All the things that made the Summoner class broken or unpleasant to play with in 1e, are not possible in 2e.

All the things that made Summoner a joy to play? Are what people are asking for when they say they want more customization out of the current rendition of the Summoner's Eidolon.

I'm not saying we need the old evolution point system back, there might be a better alternative, but the current system is clearly lacking and we shouldn't hand-wave away everything 1e Summoner had that was clearly good.

[Temperans]

Roleplay is something that requires no rule book.

Pathfinder is not a rules lite game like 5e were you can just have the same class and imagine its working entirely different than what it says.

That is not why people play pathfinder.

People play Pathfinder because Paizo are great at mixing both complex rules and narrative in such a way that you can make infinite characters each mechanically unique and still be relatively simple.

A Pathfinder rulebook doesn't tell me how to roleplay it tells me what my character can do. But all you are pushing for is a boring character that does nothing interesting because "mechanics are bad". Specially the idea that wanting customizeable Eidolons are all about power when all I want is to mechanically represent the Eidolons I want without having to jump through hoops.

Because thats what divorcing evolutions from feats does. Its lets the player be free to pick whatever they want from the list that Paizo.

[KrispyXIV]

-Poison- wrote:

I'm not saying we need the old evolution point system back, there might be a better alternative, but the current system is clearly lacking and we shouldn't hand-wave away everything 1e Summoner had that was clearly good.

You mean like a system where at level one you choose a base archetype from those available in the most common Settings, like Fiend, Construct, Fey, or Abberation? And those receive a series of thematic bonuses like aligned damage or auras?

And then you customize and choose what attacks this eidolon has, at level 1?

And then you have some sort of resource you gain throughout progression, lets call them Achievements, that you assign for abilities?

We already have this system. Its the one that exists right this second.

What it needs is more choices (which are coming, we know this), and it likely needs them more often at less expense to core class functionality (like, on the schedule of skill feats).

Do this, and there's no leg to stand on for the whole 'point buy' scenario, because we accomplish the same thing, within the paradigm of PF2E.

[TheGentlemanDM]

We'd also still have the problem that with a points system, there's too much going on with the class.

We'll work with the underlying (and important) assumption that the Eidolon is going to continue to have martial proficiencies, with decent enough damage and durability. We can also reasonably assume, based upon the general consensus of the feedback, that there's going to be more than 4 spell slots.

So in our power budget, we have:
- martial proficiencies and HP
- a reasonable amount of spellcasting
- potentially eidolon focus spells as well
- two distinct sets of ability scores to use skills with in combat
- functionally four actions per turn
- 10 class feat slots
- subclasses with specific abilities for eidolons

Adding on evolutions as a separate pool on top of that, in a format that PF2E design specifically tries to avoid, would result in:
- the usage of more page space in the book than is ideal
- heavy nerfing of the class feats to maintain power balance
- pretty much all of the class feats being about the Summoner, since otherwise the associated ability should be an evolution
- a lot of awkwardness for new players having to balance the point cost for their evolutions
- having to sort all of the abilities by cost and appropriate level

Now, I agree that we want more evolution options. But class feats are a far simpler way to present and select them, which remains in line with how literally every other class in the game works.

Like, I want to be able to have some degree of control over my Eidolon's ability scores, ideally through the selection of a template which comes with a few attached attacks.

But if we somehow ended up with a points system for evolutions, they'd have to remove that to literally fit the class into the book.

Then there's the issue that no other class in the game uses such a points system.

Every class and every character draws from the following pools and gets the following improvements:
- class feats
- ancestry feats
- general feats
- skill feats
- ability boosts
- skill improvements
- subclass selection at 1st level

As well as maybe access to the following subsystems:
- spellcasting from slots
- spellcasting from focus points
- the familiar system
- the animal companion system

Giving a new class an entirely separate pool of abilities to select from breaks the framework of the game. It's akin to a class getting a double loadout of class feats.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

That is not why people play pathfinder.

Maybe your table does not play this way, but my group has since Pathfinder First Edition launched.

If an option did not exist, you relabel something that does.

If that option is printed later, either explicitly or better? You change to that.

Stop claiming to speak for all people with statements like this - what makes PF2E appealing to new players in my area is the fact that it has all the best parts of Pathfinder 1, DND 4E, and DND 5E where it has narrative freedom AND crunch.

Without the narrative aspects, the system is unappealing to these players.

Things like Backgrounds, Hero Points, Exploration mode narrating your activities, Downtime mode providing structure for you doing what you like with your time, etc. are all ways to take narrative and fit it into the gameplay... they're really silly if you just look at them as mechanics.

[Verzen]

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

Just giving more evolution feats to choose from (most of which don't have prerequisites) does the job.

We don't need a points system for build Eidolons. We have a system in place that manages abilities of different power levels: the class feat system.

Not really. In fact they don't do the job at all. You get too few class feats to make customizing an Eidolon more interesting. My dummy template system would actually use up less space and you could make a very balanced Eidolon without even needing the evolution system but you still gain that customization to build a monster.

[KrispyXIV]

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

Giving a new class an entirely separate pool of abilities to select from breaks the framework of the game. It's akin to a class getting a double loadout of class feats.

For what its worth, I think you can make a double loadout of class feats work if -

The bonus feats are inherently limited in some way, like being restricted to just Evolution Feats which enhance only part of the character instead of the whole thing - and these feats also still have to cover things like skill enhancements for this part of the character (Spoilers: the part of the character is the Eidolon :) )

and

This is an alternative to doing something like introducing an unnecessary new subsytem.

[Katrixia]

Verzen wrote:

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

Just giving more evolution feats to choose from (most of which don't have prerequisites) does the job.

We don't need a points system for build Eidolons. We have a system in place that manages abilities of different power levels: the class feat system.

Not really. In fact they don't do the job at all. You get too few class feats to make customizing an Eidolon more interesting. My dummy template system would actually use up less space and you could make a very balanced Eidolon without even needing the evolution system but you still gain that customization to build a monster.

I'd be more in favor of the dummy template idea simply because it would save on page-space, yes.

You'd actually be able to gain even more roleplay flavor and mechanical satisfaction from it as well.

[Temperans]

Well let me tell you how you open up more power to the class.

Summoning your Eidolon requires is a 10 minute Focus spell. If the Eidolon dies or is dismissed it cannot be summoned again for 24 hours. Now the Eidolon is not a constant part of the summoner but only a part of what they can do if they are not careful. Which is exactly how PF1 treated Eidolons.

Summoners needed it a spell to be able to resummon the eidolon but even then it only lasted a minute.

Lowering the HP of Summoner and making it so that the Eidolon gets dismissed if the Summoner goes unconscious also adds more area for power. And again its what PF1 did.

And of course there is no problem with Eidolon being 2 levels behind a martial if they are able to get special abilties and enough actions to use those abilites.

So:

* Prevent Eidolons from being resummoned over and over.
* Seperate Summoner HP from the Eidolon and make the Eidolon get dismissed when the Summoner goes unconcious.
* Its okay of its weaker of it has full actions and special abilites.

[Verzen]

to the people worried about balance concerns... you guys do realize MAP and 3 action economy solves that.. right? A point based system with that in place will prevent the abuses of the pf1 summoner. Plus no way to earn more natural attacks through tentacles or limbs.

The system itself solves that balance issue.

Now give us back our customization!

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

Well let me tell you how you open up more power to the class.

Summoning your Eidolon requires is a 10 minute Focus spell. If the Eidolon dies or is dismissed it cannot be summoned again for 24 hours. Now the Eidolon is not a constant part of the summoner but only a part of what they can do if they are not careful. Which is exactly how PF1 treated Eidolons.

Summoners needed it a spell to be able to resummon the eidolon but even then it only lasted a minute.

Lowering the HP of Summoner and making it so that the Eidolon gets dismissed if the Summoner goes unconscious also adds more area for power. And again its what PF1 did.

This is a non-starter in 2E. Its too easy for anyone, even a Champion, to get knocked unconcious in 2E if things go against them. For the majority of characters, you're a heal and a treat wounds from being back in the fight. You'd create a situation where a Summoner is the only one who has to be worried about being crippled in this situation, for the rest of the day.

No thanks.

Quote:

And of course there is no problem with Eidolon being 2 levels behind a martial if they are able to get special abilties.

This is absolutely an issue in 2E due to how the math works. No amount of abilities will allow an Eidolon to function as a combatant at 2 levels behind.

See also, no one uses Wizards as primary combatants, which is mostly due to a -2 penalty to hit.

This is also why animal companions are a decent feat expenditure and not a primary combat option.

[Katrixia]

Temperans wrote:

And of course there is no problem with Eidolon being 2 levels behind a martial if they are able to get special abilties.

No actually i'd be upset if the Eidolon could not keep up with a standard martial; it doesn't need to be Fighter-levels of effective but it does need to meet some basic martial requirements.

Unless you're suggesting bringing back the Ability Score Increase evolution (Which i think is one of the very few Evolutions most of us don't care to come back), ontop of the ability boosts the Eidolon receives when the Summoner levels, you introduce a math problem that needs to be fixed.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

I'm not saying we need the old evolution point system back, there might be a better alternative, but the current system is clearly lacking and we shouldn't hand-wave away everything 1e Summoner had that was clearly good.

You mean like a system where at level one you choose a base archetype from those available in the most common Settings, like Fiend, Construct, Fey, or Abberation? And those receive a series of thematic bonuses like aligned damage or auras?

And then you customize and choose what attacks this eidolon has, at level 1?

And then you have some sort of resource you gain throughout progression, lets call them Achievements, that you assign for abilities?

We already have this system. Its the one that exists right this second.

What it needs is more choices (which are coming, we know this), and it likely needs them more often at less expense to core class functionality (like, on the schedule of skill feats).

Do this, and there's no leg to stand on for the whole 'point buy' scenario, because we accomplish the same thing, within the paradigm of PF2E.

I for one do NOT want more choices of what paizo thinks I want. Imagine PF2 wa a built in such a way that it only ONLY allowed you to play pregens. Thats what Eidolons are. A bunch of boring pregens!

[Temperans]

Kripsy people want to play Pathfinder because it has crunch. But the fact you are asking for Summoner to have less crunch to fit pure narrative is not what Pathfinder is about.

I am not speaking for everyone because I dont know everyone. But I do know that of someone wants to just play with narrative there are a lot more famous systems that appeal to those players. The people who like pathfinder like it for both its narrative and crunch. And destroying the crunch of the Summoner serves no one.

Bonus class feats in the magnitude needed to properly customize Eidolons wont ever be given to any class by default. That just wont happen. The system is built in such a way that giving bonus class feats is just too costly.

And a point systems is not unnecessary or new. The game already has a point systems that they actively support. And as far as I am aware its the only way we will be able to get enough customization to actually make Eidolons interesting. I see the customization of the Eidolon as its very essence. Regardless of how much power they have, an Eidolon that cannot be customized freely is not an eidolon.

[Verzen]

-Poison- wrote:

Temperans wrote:

And of course there is no problem with Eidolon being 2 levels behind a martial if they are able to get special abilties.

No actually i'd be upset if the Eidolon could not keep up with a standard martial; it doesn't need to be Fighter-levels of effective but it does need to meet some basic martial requirements.

Unless you're suggesting bringing back the Ability Score Increase evolution (Which i think is one of the very few Evolutions most of us don't care to come back), ontop of the ability boosts the Eidolon receives when the Summoner levels, you introduce a math problem that needs to be fixed.

I wouldn't mind if it was a built in feature. Rather than expert in attack, they get a +4 str bonus. It would make Eidolons seem more monstrous.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

Kripsy people want to play Pathfinder because it has crunch. But the fact you are asking for Summoner to have less crunch to fit pure narrative is not what Pathfinder is about.

Correction time - no one is saying no crunch, and no customization.

We're saying that in addition to describing its form, mind, behavior, ideology, basic nature, etc. you already also get to pick its base type and natural attacks, both of which are aspects with significant mechanical repercussions and crunch. Hell, simply getting to choose and describe the natural attacks replaces all of the natural weapon options evolutions in PF1E in an instant!

PF2E is not set up for any class making significantly more class choices at level one than Summoners already make. Many classes get to choose, from their class and not ancestry etc. which Summoners also get, a single Class Feat to Start.

Spellcasters generally get to choose a school and a couple/few spells.

A first level summoner is unlikely to get several times the choices of everyone else at first level for class options.

I think it is a much more reasonable goal, then, to make sure those choices are as impactful as possible.

Thats why I think choosing a base form and customizing my attacks is already pretty good - its a very impactful choice compared to other classes.

Because Summoners still get Spellcasting. They still get proficiencies, skills, an Background.

There's simply not a lot of 'balance' room left at level 1. It seems like there's some, but not enough for a full fledged, multiple choices out the gates point buy system as opposed to something simpler, like what we've got.

A first level feat choice instead of no first level feat choice seems like a good deal.