|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TheGentlemanDM wrote: Verzen wrote: TheGentlemanDM wrote: To expand on my previous post, and drawing from manbearscientist's ideas:
Aberrations gain ELEMENTAL RESISTANCE (acid) at 1st, CONFUSE RAY at 7th?
Angels should still get the good damage as a unique option, and if it stays the quartet of recovery options at 17 is pretty good as a unique option as well. The aura at 7 is unique, but FLANK DEFENSE becomes an option for one of the 'martial' evolution feats.
Beasts still get the charge ability at 1, and an equivalent ability without the circumstance bonus is an optional ability (comparing to Sudden Charge, 4th level seems like a safe place for CHARGE ATTACK). They get IMPOSING PRESENCE (which is a Will save from Summoner DC now) flavoured as a roar at 7, and gain WHIRLWIND STRIKE at 17 (which would otherwise be a capstone level option).
Devotion Phantoms gain REACTIONARY STRIKE way earlier than anyone else at 1st level, with their 7th and 17th level features remaining unique.
Dragons gain a BREATH WEAPON at 1st level which deals more damage than normal. Draconic Frenzy remains a unique ability, as does the upgrade to the breath weapon.
Elementals gain VERSATILE ELEMENTAL STRIKES to all of their attacks at 1st level, and maybe one ELEMENTAL RESISTANCE as well. They'd gain MAGICAL EVOLUTION at 7th and gain an extra cantrip or two above the norm.
Fiends gain one or two ELEMENTAL RESISTANCES at 1st level. AT 7th level I'd like to see a unique corruption-themed ability, and at 17th a quartet of powerful utility spells to mirror what Angels get.
Fey gain a charming ability at 1st level. They'd gain CONFUSE RAY at 7th.
Plants gain something photosynthesis themed at 1st level?
Oh oh I got it! Plants are capable of creating sugars through the use of chlorophyll which assists in carbon fixation! Basically some auto-healing in sunlight (or a nice pile of mulch if you include fungi as a flavour option). It might need to be moved to 7th for power concerns, but it fits very well... ...fungi arent plants. They are closer to animals than plants. =P I remember explaining this to paizo before during pf1 for a druid archetype.
Invictus Novo wrote: Kyrone wrote: An unique focus spell for each type of Eidolon would be cool, the Summoner cast it and the Eidolon deliver it.
Like the Angel one having healing or giving a blessing.
The Phantom causing mental damage in an emanation.
The Dragon activate a fear aura.
And so on.
While truthfully, I like this idea quite a bit, I don't think it is very sustainable. It isn't like Bard, that chooses 1 of 4 things, there are going to be a number of Eidolon options most likely based on just the descriptions in the playtest.
That said, what would be easily sustainable is a unique Conduit Spell for each tradition, as that would always be 4. If it was worded properly, and broad enough, it could be molded thematically to fit most Eidolon types. Hmmm. Divine would probably be some kind of healing option (or you could choose between positive healing/undead damage or negative healing/living damage)?
Arcane... I could see a teleport option for the Eidolon?
Occult would ideally be illusion based. Will save debuff would be nice, but with your slightly worse spell proficiency, illusions are better.
Primal... I'm not sure.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Verzen wrote: ...fungi arent plants. They are closer to animals than plants. =P I remember explaining this to paizo before during pf1 for a druid archetype. As a Biology teacher myself, I understand your pain.
The sacrifices we make for easy reflavouring in our games are not always light, but they are worth it.
Jokes aside...
I'm pretty sure we're getting a Psychopomp Eidolon instead of an undead eidolon, which means that NEGATIVE HEALING is realistically off the table for now. We can save it for later expansions.
Enhanced Maneuver could be a nice higher powered option. If you took UNARMED EVOLUTION to gain grapple, trip, or shove, you gain the monster ability to CONSTRICT, KNOCKDOWN, or PUSH. It's great for monsters with tentacles/claws/horns and humanoid warrior types alike.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TheGentlemanDM wrote: Verzen wrote: ...fungi arent plants. They are closer to animals than plants. =P I remember explaining this to paizo before during pf1 for a druid archetype. As a Biology teacher myself, I understand your pain.
The sacrifices we make for easy reflavouring in our games are not always light, but they are worth it.
Jokes aside...
I'm pretty sure we're getting a Psychopomp Eidolon instead of an undead eidolon, which means that NEGATIVE HEALING is realistically off the table for now. We can save it for later expansions.
Enhanced Maneuver could be a nice higher powered option. If you took UNARMED EVOLUTION to gain grapple, trip, or shove, you gain the monster ability to CONSTRICT, KNOCKDOWN, or PUSH. It's great for monsters with tentacles/claws/horns and humanoid warrior types alike. Ah gotcha. Yeah I am a molecular biologist.
So my impression of the summoner is that it's functional but dull. It's basic mechanics are fine but it could do with some spice.
Its pretty middle of the road, it's not obviously problematic like the alchemist but it certainly not one of the more effective classes like the fighter.
If they publish what they have now with a few more options it will work. As much as it not what I wanted that is a good starting point.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: I'm pretty sure we're getting a Psychopomp Eidolon instead of an undead eidolon, which means that NEGATIVE HEALING is realistically off the table for now. We can save it for later expansions. Not necessarily. Just let us have the option with a generic to select Undead as the creature type and allow us to build it how we want. The brilliancy of doing a generic is that it opens up SO MANY MORE OPTIONS and it conserves a LOT of book space.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
siegfriedliner wrote: So my impression of the summoner is that it's functional but dull. It's basic mechanics are fine but it could do with some spice.
Its pretty middle of the road, it's not obviously problematic like the alchemist but it certainly not one of the more effective classes like the fighter.
If they publish what they have now with a few more options it will work. As much as it not what I wanted that is a good starting point.
I find what they published right now to be tediously boring. I dont want all my actions to be, "Boost. Attack twice. Reinforce. Rinse. Repeat." And I don't want my Eidolon to be the same as anyone elses. I play PFS. Kinda destroys the feeling of uniqueness and flavor when multiple people have the same type of Eidolon I have.
Another evolution feature to add to the list.
ANCESTRAL AFFINITY. Your eidolon gains the effects of your 1st level ancestral feat. Scales to provide the bonuses from 5th and 9th level feats as well. (Not being able to get the permanent Aasimar/Tiefling wings or the 13th level through a mid level feat seems an important safety valve)
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.
Yes, Paizo is perfectly willing to give point based system creatures...where those points come from class feats.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TheGentlemanDM wrote: Another evolution feature to add to the list.
ANCESTRAL AFFINITY. Your eidolon gains the effects of your 1st level ancestral feat. Scales to provide the bonuses from 5th and 9th level feats as well. (Not being able to get the permanent Aasimar/Tiefling wings or the 13th level through a mid level feat seems an important safety valve)
I already suggested that. =P
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Verzen wrote: TheGentlemanDM wrote: Another evolution feature to add to the list.
ANCESTRAL AFFINITY. Your eidolon gains the effects of your 1st level ancestral feat. Scales to provide the bonuses from 5th and 9th level feats as well. (Not being able to get the permanent Aasimar/Tiefling wings or the 13th level through a mid level feat seems an important safety valve)
I already suggested that. =P That's ok, the more people asking for it the better. I for one think this is an AWESOME and flavorful way to customize your E in a way that links them in a more direct way to your Summoner and their own capabilities.
I mentioned a Bouncy Dragon E for a Goblin Summoner but this goes a long way towards making each E feel unique to the PC and reinforces the whole "irrevocable link between Eidolon and Summoner" schtick that's baked into the flavor while being absent from the mechanics of the class beyond having a glowing rune on their bodies.
Verzen wrote: TheGentlemanDM wrote: Another evolution feature to add to the list.
ANCESTRAL AFFINITY. Your eidolon gains the effects of your 1st level ancestral feat. Scales to provide the bonuses from 5th and 9th level feats as well. (Not being able to get the permanent Aasimar/Tiefling wings or the 13th level through a mid level feat seems an important safety valve)
I already suggested that. =P In everyone's defense, you've said so much in every thread it's pretty hard to keep track of what you have and haven't said at some point.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
cavernshark wrote: Verzen wrote: TheGentlemanDM wrote: Another evolution feature to add to the list.
ANCESTRAL AFFINITY. Your eidolon gains the effects of your 1st level ancestral feat. Scales to provide the bonuses from 5th and 9th level feats as well. (Not being able to get the permanent Aasimar/Tiefling wings or the 13th level through a mid level feat seems an important safety valve)
I already suggested that. =P In everyone's defense, you've said so much in every thread it's pretty hard to keep track of what you have and haven't said at some point. I may be a bit obsessed over the design of the summoner... =P
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
More ideas:
Eidolons want a decent combat reaction. Currently, gaining spellcasting for shield is the only reaction the eidolon itself gets.
Possibilities:
Attack of Opportunity?
Attacking when an ally crits, like a Rogue?
A reaction which doubles any physical or elemental damage resistance they have against an attack? (Probably too good)
Attacking when the Summoner is attacked falls under the purview of the Devotion Eidolon.
A retaliating strike when critically hit?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
How about a reaction in which if it's dealt damage, it can retaliate with its own monster attack? Like a breath attack, grab, some sort of consume ability etc. ;)
Verzen wrote: How about a reaction in which if it's dealt damage, it can retaliate with its own monster attack? Like a breath attack, grab, some sort of consume ability etc. ;) It's probably a too strong, given that things like breath weapons and multiattacks tend to be balanced around multiple actions. Just making a strike when you get crit should be fine, because you just got crit and the fight is turning against you.
That said, if you had grapple or trip or something, having the option of using that instead of just a strike would be interesting.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Xenocrat wrote: 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.
Yes, Paizo is perfectly willing to give point based system creatures...where those points come from class feats. The more I think about it, the more I think that replacing spells with evolutions makes sense. A wizard is a character with two separate progressions . It has spells which it prepares daily and it has feats. An eidolons evolutions could progress just like spell slots. You could select your eidolons kit at the beginning of every adventuring day. When they bring out construct eidolons you could literally be changing out parts. You would get more and more powerful evolutions with leveling just like spell slots.
Meanwhile feats could be devoted to the actual summoner. Giving them more abilities to support their eidolons. You could even add in special feats, let’s call them tactics, that work like the old teamwork feats that the hunter had. Stuff like for example duel trip: you and your eidolon use an action when your flanking an enemy. It pushes while you stand on all fours to trip the opponent.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Physicskid42 wrote: Xenocrat wrote: 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.
Yes, Paizo is perfectly willing to give point based system creatures...where those points come from class feats. The more I think about it, the more I think that replacing spells with evolutions makes sense. A wizard is a character with two separate progressions . It has spells which it prepares daily and it has feats. An eidolons evolutions could progress just like spell slots. You could select your eidolons kit at the beginning of every adventuring day. When they bring out construct eidolons you could literally be changing out parts. You would get more and more powerful evolutions with leveling just like spell slots.
Meanwhile feats could be devoted to the actual summoner. Giving them more abilities to support their eidolons. You could even add in special feats, let’s call them tactics, that work like the old teamwork feats that the hunter had. Stuff like for example duel trip: you and your eidolon use an action when your flanking an enemy. It pushes while you stand on all fours to trip the opponent. This is pretty much more or less I proposed and think is the best solution. And since we are adding in evolutions, we can have wizard spells that might borrow from this list or Archetypes that can as well to make it so more people can get access to them.
Physicskid42 wrote: Xenocrat wrote: 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.
Yes, Paizo is perfectly willing to give point based system creatures...where those points come from class feats. The more I think about it, the more I think that replacing spells with evolutions makes sense. A wizard is a character with two separate progressions . It has spells which it prepares daily and it has feats. An eidolons evolutions could progress just like spell slots. You could select your eidolons kit at the beginning of every adventuring day. When they bring out construct eidolons you could literally be changing out parts. You would get more and more powerful evolutions with leveling just like spell slots.
Meanwhile feats could be devoted to the actual summoner. Giving them more abilities to support their eidolons. You could even add in special feats, let’s call them tactics, that work like the old teamwork feats that the hunter had. Stuff like for example duel trip: you and your eidolon use an action when your flanking an enemy. It pushes while you stand on all fours to trip the opponent. While this addresses a major concern for that approach (the summoner becoming too weak and uninteresting), the other problems I've found with such a design still remain concerns for me:
there won't be room for 100 evolution feats in the 13-16 pages the class gets in the book
the feats wouldn't give more diversity. They'd get broken up out of necessity, turning a single feat for a weapon trait into a bunch of spell replacements over multiple levels
it would force certain feats to be shifted up in levels not for balance, but to fill slots.
it would put the vast majority of customization through levels 2-20, when they really need it at level 1
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
manbearscientist wrote: Physicskid42 wrote: Xenocrat wrote: 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.
Yes, Paizo is perfectly willing to give point based system creatures...where those points come from class feats. The more I think about it, the more I think that replacing spells with evolutions makes sense. A wizard is a character with two separate progressions . It has spells which it prepares daily and it has feats. An eidolons evolutions could progress just like spell slots. You could select your eidolons kit at the beginning of every adventuring day. When they bring out construct eidolons you could literally be changing out parts. You would get more and more powerful evolutions with leveling just like spell slots.
Meanwhile feats could be devoted to the actual summoner. Giving them more abilities to support their eidolons. You could even add in special feats, let’s call them tactics, that work like the old teamwork feats that the hunter had. Stuff like for example duel trip: you and your eidolon use an action when your flanking an enemy. It pushes while you stand on all fours to trip the opponent. While this addresses a major concern for that approach (the summoner becoming too weak and uninteresting), the other problems I've found with such a design still remain concerns for me:
there won't be room for 100 evolution feats in the 13-16 pages the class gets in the book
the feats wouldn't give more diversity. They'd get broken up out of necessity, turning a single feat for a weapon trait into a bunch of spell replacements over multiple levels
it would force certain feats to be shifted up in levels not for balance, but to fill slots.
it would put the vast majority of customization through levels 2-20, when they really need it at level 1
That's a fair criticism. I honestly think the Eidolon needs a little bit of front loading of 'flavor' options.
manbearscientist wrote: Physicskid42 wrote: Xenocrat wrote: 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.
Yes, Paizo is perfectly willing to give point based system creatures...where those points come from class feats. The more I think about it, the more I think that replacing spells with evolutions makes sense. A wizard is a character with two separate progressions . It has spells which it prepares daily and it has feats. An eidolons evolutions could progress just like spell slots. You could select your eidolons kit at the beginning of every adventuring day. When they bring out construct eidolons you could literally be changing out parts. You would get more and more powerful evolutions with leveling just like spell slots.
Meanwhile feats could be devoted to the actual summoner. Giving them more abilities to support their eidolons. You could even add in special feats, let’s call them tactics, that work like the old teamwork feats that the hunter had. Stuff like for example duel trip: you and your eidolon use an action when your flanking an enemy. It pushes while you stand on all fours to trip the opponent. While this addresses a major concern for that approach (the summoner becoming too weak and uninteresting), the other problems I've found with such a design still remain concerns for me:
there won't be room for 100 evolution feats in the 13-16 pages the class gets in the book
the feats wouldn't give more diversity. They'd get broken up out of necessity, turning a single feat for a weapon trait into a bunch of spell replacements over multiple levels
it would force certain feats to be shifted up in levels not for balance, but to fill slots.
it would put the vast majority of customization through levels 2-20, when they really need it at level 1
I don’t really think that would be huge problem . Most of the “evolution Spells” would be monster traits like engulf or rock throwing. In a class about building monsters you really should have access to most of the MM monster traits anyway. More germanely, most of that add the associated math is written via the cr system.
What I think is really the Benefit with this system is greater utility not power. Depending on the type chosen your ghost eidolon could have invisibility and intangibility while a beast could have say blindsense and tracking.
The subtypes abilities I think should be something like:
Aberrant: 1st) Bonus skills and bonus vs mind-affecting effects; 7th) Free Blindsense and telepathy; 17th) Transmogrify at will.
Aeon: 1st) Envisaging ability; 7th) free flight;) 17th) Casting Crushing Despair and Good Hope, or Slow and Haste. As an Eidolon Focus Spell.
Angel: 1st) Good damage with attacks; 7th) free flight; 17th) Protective Aura.
Psychopomp: 1st) Immunity to death effects (incredibly flavorful); 7th) Spirit Touch ability (strikes counts as having ghost touch rune); 17th) Invisibility at will as an innate spell.
Protean: 1st) Grab evolution tied to the Eidolons strike (regardless of form); 7th) Constrict evolution; 17th) Amorphous anatomy evolution (immunue to crits and sneak attacks).
Plant: 1st) Change shape into plants; 7th) Speak with plants as a focus spell; 17th) Commune with nature 1/day and Speak with plants at will.
Inevitable: 1st) Counts as a construct and outsider for effects. bonus vs some things that dont affect construct; 7th) Immunity to fatigue, sleep and some some other bonuses; 17th) Immunity to drain and resistance to effects that affect attributes.
Fey: 1st) pick a spell from a list and cast it as an innate spell; 7th) chose a spell from a list and cast it 3/day and pick another spell from the list at given at level 1; 17th) pick a spell from a list cast it 3/day and pick a spell from the level 7 or level 1 spells.
etc.
Do those work?
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
manbearscientist wrote:
there won't be room for 100 evolution feats in the 13-16 pages the class gets in the book
While absolutely true, they can flex things a bit by creating options that work off existing mechanics.
Like if you had an evolution that let you add some existing weapon traits to the eidolon unarmed attacks, that can effectively give you a handful of different choices without having to write a significant amount of new next.
Certainly not peak customization either, but it'd be something.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
KrispyXIV wrote: 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. i flatly disagree, roleplaying is the expectation of every role playing game, one does not do it better than the other, because its entirely up to you the player not the system.
no the role playing games are distinguished by their mechanics, and it is the mechanics we need concerned with, because you can reflavor, refluff, or describe something nearly however your imagination can handle in any ttrpg, but the mechanics make or break it.
and there lies the issue with summoner and you defending role playing perks to diminish giving it actual mechanical benefits beyond skill monkeying 3 skills and being a walking 10ft pole with 100ft range.
Squiggit wrote: manbearscientist wrote:
there won't be room for 100 evolution feats in the 13-16 pages the class gets in the book
While absolutely true, they can flex things a bit by creating options that work off existing mechanics.
Like if you had an evolution that let you add some existing weapon traits to the eidolon unarmed attacks, that can effectively give you a handful of different choices without having to write a significant amount of new next.
Certainly not peak customization either, but it'd be something. This could definitely work. For instance, you have something like the current Unarmed Evolution, except it has
Quote: Special You can select this feat any number of times. Or you could make a higher level feat that does something similar (although maybe with a more spaced out progression), something like (if we assume they use character level as prerequisite)
Quote: Monstrous Combat Evolution 6
Choose Grab(?), Constrict, or Push. The damage entry of one of your eidolon's starting melee attacks gains that effect, and your eidolon can use the corresponding actin.
Special You can select this feat an additional time starting at 10th level, 14th level, and 18th level. Starting at 10th level, add Rend and Knockdown to the list of effects you can choose.
Not saying this is necessarily balanced as-is, but you get the idea. These two evolutions count for up to 18 evolutions, assuming that you can choose a different trait and starting melee attack for unarmed evolution each time.
Now while these kinds of things would help with book space, I feel like giving the eidolon 30 evolutions throughout its lifespan might be excessive, and they might have to be pretty severely weakened for that to happen. Right now, the reason spells sort of "get away" with having so many slots is that they're a resource that you have to expend for effect. Evolutions would, theoretically, be (mostly) things that are always available to you.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
i should mention, i am not against summoner's having designated paths of its eidolons, angle, dragon, etc. because they can release more and more options over time.
but im not certain if i agree with the designated spell choice. what does your eidolon actually have to do with what spells you learn? unless you are learning your spells from your eidolon, then i get it i guess.
why not a divine phantom? or a arcane beast? but i guess someone would tell me to reflavor.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
why not a divine phantom? or a arcane beast? but i guess someone would tell me to reflavor.
One of the coolest things about this setup is that your bond with your eidolon, and its type, determines your spell list.
Its a reflection of how sorcerers work.
Its a perk.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
That is not a perk.
If anything its removing power and book space from classes since each spell list has to be balanced different.
Also Summoners are not Sorcerers why are you making them like sorcerers when they had no connection besides spontaneous casting?
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
KrispyXIV wrote: One of the coolest things about this setup is that your bond with your eidolon, and its type, determines your spell list.
Its a reflection of how sorcerers work.
Its a perk.
For you, perhaps. It's a penalty in my mind. I said as much in my survey, too.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cydeth wrote: KrispyXIV wrote: One of the coolest things about this setup is that your bond with your eidolon, and its type, determines your spell list.
Its a reflection of how sorcerers work.
Its a perk.
For you, perhaps. It's a penalty in my mind. I said as much in my survey, too. Based on how Witches ended up, I seriously doubt that there's any chance that if your Eidolon doesn't determine your Spell List, we'll get any choice at all.
Not having that association probably leads to having access to only one spell list.
No one gets to just choose a spell list without a thematic justification.
Thats not a win.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So I finally actually did some playtesting and it's not bad. I played an Angel Summoner through one session of plaguestone and I didn't get to use my spell our paladins lay on hands did all the healing we needed.
The damage my eidolon did was alright and given everyone but the champion was ranged the existence of me as melee character (I was a cloistered cleric before) helped him get more use out of his reaction.
Luckily the gm mostly chose to target the shield paladin so my Angels low AC wasn't such a problem and the bards inspire courage and flanking meant she was hitting reliably.
Things I liked
I had some fun with my Angel Angela 312 the youngest member of a particularly large family and created by a particularly absent minded God. She was particulary unhappy to be tied to such an incompetent cleric who couldn't even channel energy. My gm let me go with my own fluff here under the assumption whilst it probably was awful in lore terms it didn't really matter.
My role playing may have made me come off as unhinged, as I started interrupting my own sentences to tell myself what I was saying was rubbish in mid-sentence. I had fun at least.
I liked having a decent number of skills and two bodies on the field.
Things that irked me,
The Angels +1 good damage is an irritating feature, I know it can trigger vulnerablity with some demons and undead. But it didn't in plaguestone and because it was 1 damage that didn't always apply I forgot I had it a lot of the time. I am hoping my gm remembered but i didn't notice either way. I would much rather have had an active ability.
I didn't like that the inspire courage damage didn't stack with boost, so it was a choice to spend an action to get a +1 damage. But on the positive side it meant I used recall knowledge which I rarely leave the actions to do in usual play.
I would have preffered a few more options for my summoner but I know their are some I can grab at later levels and I didn't choose battle medicine (because I wanted to use the missionary background for the AP). Most of the time it felt like my only viable choices where recall knowledge, boost or movement.
I tried varying up my method (using an inate electric arc with my summoner) but that still ended up with my summoner having an extra action where the options were the same.
I found with one spell slot I was loath to use it incase I needed to pull my eidolon or the champion back from unconsciousness. This ended with me not using the spell at all.
Overall I had fun, I don't feel it's a great chassis but the bones are there.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
siegfriedliner wrote:
The Angels +1 good damage is an irritating feature, I know it can trigger vulnerablity with some demons and undead. But it didn't in plaguestone and because it was 1 damage that didn't always apply I forgot I had it a lot of the time. I am hoping my gm remembered but i didn't notice either way. I would much rather have had an active ability.
Paladins have a similar ability, and one of my players in one of my Age of Ashes campaigns took it.
Its... hard to remember in all cases, especially since that one applies to other party members.
We've been playing in Roll20, so eventually I just the paladin's aura range for that effect visible and extremely obnoxious so we wouldn't forget it.
When it comes up though and you're fighting things with Weakness to Good, those effects are extremely potent though!
I like the description of your character. I'm hoping my Monday evening session goes as planned, so I can play my version of it at level 6. With the extra spell slots, I won't have to be so conservative with them!
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
KrispyXIV wrote: Based on how Witches ended up, I seriously doubt that there's any chance that if your Eidolon doesn't determine your Spell List, we'll get any choice at all.
Not having that association probably leads to having access to only one spell list.
No one gets to just choose a spell list without a thematic justification.
Thats not a win.
Is that what I said? No. I said that it's a penalty in my mind. And that I said as much in the survey. Please don't place your assumptions in my mouth, because it's things like that that make this board a very hostile place to be.
What I said in the survey was that the forms were currently far too limited, and that at least some forms should be available to multiple traditions. For instance, someone who wants a fire dragon shouldn't be forced into the arcane sphere, the primal sphere should be an option.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cydeth wrote:
Is that what I said? No. I said that it's a penalty in my mind. And that I said as much in the survey. Please don't place your assumptions in my mouth, because it's things like that that make this board a very hostile place to be.
What I said in the survey was that the forms were currently far too limited, and that at least some forms should be available to multiple traditions. For instance, someone who wants a fire dragon shouldn't be forced into the arcane sphere, the primal sphere should be an option.
I didn't imply you said anything.
I stated my assumptions based on how another class where picking one's tradition was very important to players, and about what probably happens if your tradition isn't tied to your Eidolon.
In your example, it sounds like you're talking about a Elemental that has a dragonlike shape - but honestly, having some forms have more than one option isn't offensive to me or anything.
I don't expect it, but it wouldn't bother me if it happened.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
No one gets to just choose a spell list without a thematic justification.
Maybe they should, though.
It feels bad to be stuck with Discern Secrets because I wanted to play an Arcane Witch and it feels bad here too.
I mean, this is exactly what you were complaining about earlier about not wanting to feel like mechanical choices are restricting your flavor, isn't it?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote: KrispyXIV wrote:
No one gets to just choose a spell list without a thematic justification.
Maybe they should, though.
It feels bad to be stuck with Discern Secrets because I wanted to play an Arcane Witch and it feels bad here too.
I mean, this is exactly what you were complaining about earlier about not wanting to feel like mechanical choices are restricting your flavor, isn't it? I don't see it as any different from a Sorcerer. If your magic is from your bond to an Angel, it follows that you're going to be casting Divine spells.
I've never implied that mechanics should be completely loose, or freeform. All I've said is that you don't need mechanics for every little thing for things to be viable, and for things to be customizable.
I'm not against people having more mechanics or choices. I just personally don't see it happening based on the stated goals of the playtest, precedence set by other classes 2E, and the fact that Paizo has strict limits on how many pages they can devote to the class.
And since resources are limited, I'd rather see those resources spent on more options within the limits that already exist, freeing Paizo from the need to design entirely new subsystems or overcomplicate first level character creation.
|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Martialmasters wrote: Squiggit wrote: KrispyXIV wrote:
No one gets to just choose a spell list without a thematic justification.
Maybe they should, though.
It feels bad to be stuck with Discern Secrets because I wanted to play an Arcane Witch and it feels bad here too.
I mean, this is exactly what you were complaining about earlier about not wanting to feel like mechanical choices are restricting your flavor, isn't it? Krispy's only goal is to be the hype man in attempt to balance out the naysayers. and uses abstract roleplay and kind gm scenarios to push there point and keeping the actual mechanical benefits down.
its perplexing but ive come to accept it. Ad hominem is uncalled for.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
KrispyXIV wrote: Cydeth wrote:
Is that what I said? No. I said that it's a penalty in my mind. And that I said as much in the survey. Please don't place your assumptions in my mouth, because it's things like that that make this board a very hostile place to be.
What I said in the survey was that the forms were currently far too limited, and that at least some forms should be available to multiple traditions. For instance, someone who wants a fire dragon shouldn't be forced into the arcane sphere, the primal sphere should be an option.
I didn't imply you said anything.
I stated my assumptions based on how another class where picking one's tradition was very important to players, and about what probably happens if your tradition isn't tied to your Eidolon.
In your example, it sounds like you're talking about a Elemental that has a dragonlike shape - but honestly, having some forms have more than one option isn't offensive to me or anything.
I don't expect it, but it wouldn't bother me if it happened. To be fair dragons are pretty diverse and Primal dragons that use Primal Spells are a thing ie. Magma Dragons , this probably wont be a huge issues for creature types outside of dragons tho tbh
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The summoner's magic does not come from their Eidolon. The magic never came from their Eidolon until now when Paizo is trying to force it.
Originally Summoner was an Arcane caster who spent more time investigating the Eidolon and summoning magic than studying spells. They were a specialist among specialist when it came to summoning magic. But their magic was never that of the Eidolon.
***********************
* P.S. In fact the the only reason that Eidolons have the shape they do is because of the Summoner.
Pathfinder Wiki Eidolons wrote: An eidolon always appears as a fantastical creature and bears a glowing rune that also appears on its summoner's forehead while summoned.[1]
Until an eidolon is first summoned, it has no physical form or body.
The summoner is who decided what the Eidolon will be. Not the other way around.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans wrote: * P.S. In fact the the only reason that Eidolons have the shape they do is because of the Summoner.
Pathfinder Wiki Eidolons wrote: An eidolon always appears as a fantastical creature and bears a glowing rune that also appears on its summoner's forehead while summoned.[1]
Until an eidolon is first summoned, it has no physical form or body.
The summoner is who decided what the Eidolon will be. Not the other way around.
That doesn't seem to be the case in this playtest, based on the eidolon descriptions.
Angel Eidolon wrote: Your eidolon is a celestial messenger, a member of the angelic host with a unique link to you, allowing them to carry a special message to the mortal world at your side. Beast Eidolon wrote: Your eidolon is a manifestation of the life force of nature
in the form of a powerful magical beast that often has
animal features, possibly from multiple species of animals.
Devotion Phantom Eidolon wrote: Your eidolon is a lost soul, unable to escape the mortal world due to a strong sense of duty, an undying devotion, or a need to complete an important task. Dragon Eidolon wrote: 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. All of them have a very specific origin that is intrinsically tied to the type of magic they're associated with. And while the summoner still gives them their shape, there's no indication that they get to decide what form it takes. For all we know, the summoner just wills the eidolon to take the form it was always meant to have.
Yeah, I would much rather partner with a being that Gaza personality than be Fegan Floop with his pet Foogly monster.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
How balazar found his eidolon
His eidolon has nothing to do with any specific origin.
No eidolon ever stated their origin because Paizo never said where eidolons came from. Summoners just manage to summon them some how. Left to the player and GM to decided.
At least that was until now where they are forcing it down our throats in the playtest.
edit: I need sleep, I am confusing words.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
RexAliquid wrote: Yeah, I would much rather partner with a being that Gaza personality than be Fegan Floop with his pet Foogly monster. Eidolons have a personality but they have nothing to do with the type of magic Summoners are able to cast.
And the summoner has full control over how they look.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans wrote: RexAliquid wrote: Yeah, I would much rather partner with a being that Gaza personality than be Fegan Floop with his pet Foogly monster. Eidolons have a personality but they have nothing to do with the type of magic Summoners are able to cast.
And the summoner has full control over how they look. That was because 1st edition didn't have such clearly defined sources of magic like PF2 does. It didn't have druids and sorcerers potentially sharing the same magic. It's a new edition, and things are bound to change and adapt to fit the new paradigm.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Salamileg wrote: Temperans wrote: RexAliquid wrote: Yeah, I would much rather partner with a being that Gaza personality than be Fegan Floop with his pet Foogly monster. Eidolons have a personality but they have nothing to do with the type of magic Summoners are able to cast.
And the summoner has full control over how they look. That was because 1st edition didn't have such clearly defined sources of magic like PF2 does. It didn't have druids and sorcerers potentially sharing the same magic. It's a new edition, and things are bound to change and adapt to fit the new paradigm. I would also say that the idea of Eidolons as 'Formless beings who only have a shape because the Summoner gives them one' was at least partially retconned away as of Unchained, and possibly even more so at this point.
Is pretty clear that as of now, Eidolon's are independent creatures manifested by the Summoner in a linked form/body.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Because its a new edition doesnt mean the lore of the old edition should be throw down aside to rot. That is what people are doing by forcing all casters to be all traditions.
It made sense for Sorcerers. It kind of makes sense for witch in a round about way. But people are making all the new classes be all the tradition while Paizo give that a large value which takes away from what the class can give.
It physically pulls the classes apart by not giving enough support for any of the traditions. Specially with something like summoner which needs a huge amount of options to be fully fleshed out.
Temperans wrote: How balazar found his eidolon
His eidolon has nothing to do with any specific origin.
No eidolon ever stated their origin because Paizo never said where eidolons came from. Summoners just manage to summon them some how. Left to the player and GM to decided.
At least that was until now where they are forcing it down our throats in the playtest.
edit: I need sleep, I am confusing words.
That was retconned in P1 itself more or less with the introduction of the Unchained Summoner and Eidolon.
And notice that Balazar is no longer the Iconic Summoner.
From Unchained, which Paizo officially went with till P2, flat out retiring the "Chained" Summoner and Eidolon, to now with the Playtest Summoner and Eidolons, those are specific creatures and groups, not whatever your imagination can conjure out of left field.
Temperans wrote: RexAliquid wrote: Yeah, I would much rather partner with a being that Gaza personality than be Fegan Floop with his pet Foogly monster. Eidolons have a personality but they have nothing to do with the type of magic Summoners are able to cast. Where does it say this?
|
