Welcome to the Summoner Class Playtest!

[Temperans]

The fact that they are trying to do that does not mean they should.

Thats the point of the playtest to tell them what we think is wrong. Not to strole their egos and tell them everything is fine.

And currently Eidolons are not fine. I will not sugar coat it and I will not accept the logic of putting the horse before the carriage that you are implying.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

The fact that they are trying to do that does not mean they should.

Thats the point of the playtest to tell them what we think is wrong. Not to strole their egos and tell them everything is fine.

And currently Eidolons are not fine. I will not sugar coat it and I will not accept the logic of putting the horse before the carriage that you are implying.

Its totally valid for you to not like them.

Please don't imply that the only reason for disagreeing with you would be to 'stroke their egos and tell them everything is fine'.

No one's sugar coating anything. The class isn't finished, and needs polishing and some tweaks. But its a totally valid position to acknowledge what we think this build does well, and for some of us apparently what it does well is being a huge departure from the original version of the Summoner.

I'm sorry you don't want that, but for me, its the difference between a class that I'm able to play and one that is instantly banned.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

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.

That interpretation was "thrown aside to rot" with Unchained, so a little late there for protest.

As for "forcing" all casters to be all traditions, no, no one is doing that, and not all casters are all traditions, the Magus in this very playtest disproves that.

But let's look shall we?

Wizard - Arcane
Sorcerer - Pick-a-List
Bard - Occult
Druid - Primal
Cleric - Divine

Oracle - Divine
Witch - Pick-a-List

Magus - Arcane
Summoner - Pick-a-List

So out of the 9 (12 if you wanna count Champion, Ranger, and Monk with their Focus spells) only 3 are Pick-a-Lists.

A third.

A third of all casters are pick-a-lists. And to you that means all casters are being forced to be pick-a-lists? A third of them means all?

[Temperans]

I said people are asking for all casters to be pick a list.

People were asking for magus to be pick a list. People were asking for this to be pick a list. Every new casters except Oracle had people asking for it to be pick a list. Regardles of whether pick a list fit the class.

And pick a list certainly does not fit Summoners who gained no spells from the eidolon what so ever outside maybe a few evolutions.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

And pick a list certainly does not fit Summoners who gained no spells from the eidolon what so ever outside maybe a few evolutions.

I'm not sure how a character whose special ability is their bond with their Eidolon, an honest to goodness magical creature or outsider, doesn't make sense for their magic to reflect that bond.

You seem heavily tied to the First Edition iteration of the Summoner, which is a limitation on what the Summoner could be.

For me, even since 1E, every Summoner I've designed has been a character tied to a type of Outsider... a Demon, Angel, Azata, whatever. The idea that now I get to have magic that reflects that? Amazing - awesome!

To me, that fits way better than "Only Arcane Casters are summoners, because reasons."

Now we're realizing that concept, and its like Christmas.

[Temperans]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

The fact that they are trying to do that does not mean they should.

Thats the point of the playtest to tell them what we think is wrong. Not to strole their egos and tell them everything is fine.

And currently Eidolons are not fine. I will not sugar coat it and I will not accept the logic of putting the horse before the carriage that you are implying.

Its totally valid for you to not like them.

Please don't imply that the only reason for disagreeing with you would be to 'stroke their egos and tell them everything is fine'.

No one's sugar coating anything. The class isn't finished, and needs polishing and some tweaks. But its a totally valid position to acknowledge what we think this build does well, and for some of us apparently what it does well is being a huge departure from the original version of the Summoner.

I'm sorry you don't want that, but for me, its the difference between a class that I'm able to play and one that is instantly banned.

But its doesnt do that well its a mess of a class that in trying to be different ends up with worse mechanics that are more complicated than is needed.

The class following more of a PF1 mechanics will not get it banned because the only reason it was banned before was natural attacks and too many summons at a time. Both feature that PF2 removed.

What you are asking for is killing the lore and mechanics of the class because of dumb overraction at trying to fix the part of the summoner that were not broken.

Heck PF2 liked the evolution system enough to use a weaker version for Familiars. There is no reason why Eidolons would need to be treated different. And no the math is notnthe problem because the math can always be fixed. Bad mechanics cannot be fixed.

[Temperans]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

And pick a list certainly does not fit Summoners who gained no spells from the eidolon what so ever outside maybe a few evolutions.

I'm not sure how a character whose special ability is their bond with their Eidolon, an honest to goodness magical creature or outsider, doesn't make sense for their magic to reflect that bond.

You seem heavily tied to the First Edition iteration of the Summoner, which is a limitation on what the Summoner could be.

For me, even since 1E, every Summoner I've designed has been a character tied to a type of Outsider... a Demon, Angel, Azata, whatever. The idea that now I get to have magic that reflects that? Amazing - awesome!

To me, that fits way better than "Only Arcane Casters are summoners, because reasons."

Now we're realizing that concept, and its like Christmas.

For me its the opposite because they are actively destroying things that used to be cannon for a mechanically worse class.

And that is what I have seen happening. The Summoner is losing all its wonderful versatility to try and support pick a list. And falling on its face while at it.

[RexAliquid]

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.

Sure they do. Different kinds of eidolon are attracted to Summoners with different traditions of magic.

Phantoms are attracted to people with high spiritual sensitivity and Occult inclinations, dragon echoes are drawn to people gifted with Arcane abilities. Angels likewise to spiritual Divine energy. And beasts form a connection with those Naturally abundant with Vital essence.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

The class following more of a PF1 mechanics will not get it banned because the only reason it was banned before was natural attacks and too many summons at a time. Both feature that PF2 removed.

No it was also mainly or as equally banned because too many people tried to run with silly and ridiculous eidolons.

Temperans wrote:

What you are asking for is killing the lore and mechanics of the class because of dumb overraction at trying to fix the part of the summoner that were not broken.

No lore is being killed, Summoner's had no Lore (outside of the God Callers) and what Lore they did have was retconned, their mechanics were flat out retconned by Paizo and refined, and that refinement continues.

Temperans wrote:

Heck PF2 liked the evolution system enough to use a weaker version for Familiars. There is no reason why Eidolons would need to be treated different. And no the math is notnthe problem because the math can always be fixed. Bad mechanics cannot be fixed.

The Familiar "pick 2 abilties" system and the Evolution System for Eidolons in P1 are nothing alike, other than the "pick an ability" part, but then it's the same as a feat then, not P1 "Chained" Eidolon specific.

[Salamileg]

I definitely saw people asking for Magus to be pick a list, though not as many as Summoner. I'm personally happy Magus is arcane only, though I hope we get archetypes in the future for occult and primal magi.

[Temperans]

All the games people played with summoners are part of the lore.

One of the key parts of PF2 was being able to tell the same stories. Guess what you are preventing me from telling the same stories. Meanwhile, what I want does not prevent you from telling your stories.

Also silly and ridiculus eidolons are part of what made the class fun to play. Any GM that banned summoner because of silly or ridiculous eidolons is a bad GM in my book.

Paizo straight up preventing me from making those eidolons would ruing the entire fun of the class.

[Rysky]

People asking for PaL casting =/= people forcing them to be PaLs though.

I do rather like the imagery of the Spiritualist archetype from P1 that turned their Phantom into a weapon so wouldn't mind seeing that return as an archetype for either of these classes (or class agnostic archetype).

[RexAliquid]

Rysky wrote:

Temperans wrote:

What you are asking for is killing the lore and mechanics of the class because of dumb overraction at trying to fix the part of the summoner that were not broken.

No lore is being killed, Summoner's had no Lore (outside of the God Callers) and what Lore they did have was retconned, their mechanics were flat out retconned by Paizo and refined, and that refinement continues.

Yeah a lot of people arguing for Summoner forget that PF1 didn’t include lore in the big rulebooks. All the lore books had things like God Callers and Fey Summoners and Spirit Summoner. So this version of the class isn’t throwing out any lore. Instead it is better reflecting the lore than the APG summoner ever did.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

Paizo straight up preventing me from making those eidolons would ruing the entire fun of the class.

You can absolutely make essentially any Eidolon you like, no matter how silly.

But now you'll be making such an Eidolon because you want a silly eidolon, and not because of the associated mechanics - and it will be tied to a base type that ensures that its kept in line with reasonable mechanical expectations.

Thats a major difference.

It means that no one is making an Eidolon for gamey purposes, despite the results being silly.

[Temperans]

Salamileg I have 0 problems with classes getting archetypes that change the tradition.

But building the classes from the start as pick a list draws too much versarility away from the class. Look at witch which prevents you from mix and matching because they are hard l coded. Its much better to just balance for one spells list and then make adjustments as needed via class archetype.

[Temperans]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Paizo straight up preventing me from making those eidolons would ruing the entire fun of the class.

You can absolutely make essentially any Eidolon you like, no matter how silly.

But now you'll be making such an Eidolon because you want a silly eidolon, and not because of the associated mechanics - and it will be tied to a base type that ensures that its kept in line with reasonable mechanical expectations.

Thats a major difference.

It means that no one is making an Eidolon for gamey purposes, despite the results being silly.

I want the mechanics and the look of the eidolon to be linked. Your version stops me from doing that.

This is a game I want to be able to play the game and have my fun. Trying to remove the game from the game is just dumb and the opposite of why I like pathfinder.

I hate 5e because they dont give me the amount of option that Pathfinder gives me to represent my character via mechanics. You are asking for Summoner to have the same dumbed down mechanics as 5e. Just like I hate 5e for it I hate this version of eidolon for it.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

All the games people played with summoners are part of the lore.

No they're not.

Temperans wrote:

One of the key parts of PF2 was being able to tell the same stories. Guess what you are preventing me from telling the same stories. Meanwhile, what I want does not prevent you from telling your stories.

Having Eidolons be whatever out of left field is much lore destroying and preventative for storytelling as it supposedly enables.

Summoners and Eidolons still exist though so you can indeed tell the same stories, stories that supposedly can't be told from Unchained to the Playtest are exceedingly niche upon niche I'd say.

Temperans wrote:

Also silly and ridiculus eidolons are part of what made the class fun to play. Any GM that banned summoner because of silly or ridiculous eidolons is a bad GM in my book.

Sorry that you think I'm a bad GM for not allowing an Eidolon composed of nothing but butts firing breath attacks from its anal cavities in my game.

Temperans wrote:

Paizo straight up preventing me from making those eidolons would ruing the entire fun of the class.

Aside form having fewer types in the playtest (in order to playtest) I'm not seeing much difference from the eidolon allowance between Unchained and now.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

I want the mechanics and the look of the eidolon to be linked. Your version stops me from doing that.

… how?

[Rysky]

Also not having Build-a-Bear Eidolons severely cuts down on "wtf is wrong with you" type of situations from occurring in Society play when randome people group up.

Oh gods, auditing Summoners and their Eidolons in P1 was a right f+%*ing nightmare I bet...

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

I hate 5e because they dont give me the amount of option that Pathfinder gives me to represent my character via mechanics. You are asking for Summoner to have the same dumbed down mechanics as 5e. Just like I hate 5e for it I hate this version of eidolon for it.

I've played 5e.

The current version of Summoner has nowhere near the stripped down, reduced, and minimized options presented in a 5E class.

We're nowhere near that territory even as things stand now - its a hyperbolic comparison.

[Temperans]

The unchained eidolons has a vastly more customizable eidolon that does not force the eidolon to do anything and did not consume the summoners magic or feats to even have.

The Golarions of PF1 is the exact same as the golarion of PF2 according to lore. The stories that were told in PF1 should be able to be told in PF2 and any PF1 story should be able to be continued as a sequal in PF2. However the current summoner makes that impossible.

The PF2 eidolons is not custimizeable enough and the abilities are lame.

And no silly eidolons dont break the lore. That is what made eidolons fun they were part of the lore no matter how silly they were because you the player created them. Unchained Summoner didnt change that it still allowed me to have complete control over what form, what evolutions, and what abilties the eidolon had. Something that PF2 does not allow.

The difference in allowance is that an Unchained Eidolon costed 0 feats and still allowed you to have full 6th level casting. While also having a ton of cutomization that was meaningful.

PF2 throws all of that aside. Making evolutions cost feats, severly restricting spells to the point they are practically non existent, made the eidolon be noncreatures, and forces me to have a bland eidolon with no mechanics.

[Katrixia]

Rysky wrote:

Also not having Build-a-Bear Eidolons severely cuts down on "wtf is wrong with you" type of situations from occurring in Society play when randome people group up.

Oh gods, auditing Summoners and their Eidolons in P1 was a right f&!~ing nightmare I bet...

I don't hate the subtype packages you guys are arguing for but admonishing the Build-A-Bear portion of 1e Summoners because of society play is very dismissive of literally the biggest thing people loved about Eidolons in 1e; the idea that i can make my Eidolon, my way, and turn the whole thing sideways, how i don't have to be reserved to the highways of how an Eidolon 'should' be. If i want my undead giant skeleton friend to breathe green spectral fire because i invested in it to do so, i should be able to.

Not everything has to be constrained to thematics; 1e Unchained Summoner certainly wasn't, despite the subtypes.

[Temperans]

Exactly Poison.

The entire draw of the Summoner class was being able to make my own eidolon. Not being spoon fed premade eidolons that I dont want.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

Unchained Summoner didnt change that it still allowed me to have complete control over what form, what evolutions, and what abilties the eidolon had. Something that PF2 does not allow.

Uh, yeah, you still have this. Its explicit. Its just on a different schedule, with different mechanics, to reflect this essentially being a different game.

Temperans wrote:

The difference in allowance is that an Unchained Eidolon costed 0 feats and still allowed you to have full 6th level casting. While also having a ton of cutomization that was meaningful.

PF2 throws all of that aside. Making evolutions cost feats, severly restricting spells to the point they are practically non existent, made the eidolon be noncreatures, and forces me to have a bland eidolon with no mechanics.

So, in order -

An effective Eidolon still currently costs zero feats. All of your combat effectiveness is essentially entirely free - which is an improvement, because you used to have to pay for those combat effectiveness Evolutions too. Now, you just get to choose the meaningful customization - as you level up, because no one gets infinite choices at level one.

PF2 was always going to make evolutions cost feats. Feats are the customization-currency in 2E, and PF2 allows you to choose to either use those feats on your Eidolon (if you're that sort of player) or on yourself (if you're happy with the base eidolon). You actually gained freedom here, to choose how to develop your summoner and eidolon. You lost 'power', but that was inevitable.

Summoner Spellcasting took an absolute power reduction, but they gained relatively. Summoner spellcasters are no longer behind in spell progression, no longer limited in spell knowledge or access, and have the ability to do wicked things without impacting their eidolons combat viability like picking up additional spellcasting via multiclassing.

All of which together makes it hard to empathize with your position. From where I'm sitting, Summoners have won out. I don't have to lift a finger to get a viable eidolon and none of my choices reduce my overall viability, I can choose where my class resources go as opposed to being locked into one path, and my spellcasting got better relative to the previous situation, because my options opened up and I no longer have secondary progression.

That all seems like winning to me.

Also, a bland eidolon is subjective. You say its bland, I say all the spice has come from description and not mechanics to begin with, so we're better now than we were in 1E anyway. A ball of tentacles is horribly bland. Whats its name, origin story, motivation, etc? Those are interesting. Its number of attacks and natural armor bonus, and resistances are irrelevant. But you're free to disagree.

[Squeakmaan]

After reading through the class and then reading through this thread I have some thoughts.

Firstly, I very much enjoy the direction the current Summoner is going, mechanics and flavor and really look forward to seeing what the final product will be. I like that your Eidolon choice plays a role in your magical tradition and I like sharing HP and actions, that to me really ties in the themes of the partnership between the eidolon and summoner. I really like not having to spend points on legs, or tails, or etc, I can describe my eidolon nearly however I wish.

Secondly, I do agree with some of the calls for more unique evolutions, ones that can mimic some of the cool things that monsters can do. Some examples that I came up with: web spitting for something spider or caterpillar themed, temporary HP leeching for something like a parasitic fungus or plant, bonus damage on stealth attacks for stealthy cat or shark-like eidolons, things of that nature. I think bonus Evolution Feats might be the best way to accomplish that, at least I haven't seen a suggestion that I like better.

Third, I'm okay with the limited spellcasting, as my main interest has always been the eidolon. I've never cared about the Summoners ability to use the Summon Monster spell at all, wouldn't even care if they lost it entirely. Spells that can boost your eidolon or provide some offensive power to the summoner would fit right in to me.

In truth, I don't want to go back to the 1e chained version at all, sure it was mechanically powerful, but it also tended to invalidate a lot of the party, and when it didn't I was still taking up nearly double the "screen time" by effectively having two characters. Even the Unchained Summoner ran into problems of limiting eidolon design by having to purchase extra legs. and arms, and whatnot.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

The unchained eidolons has a vastly more customizable eidolon that does not force the eidolon to do anything and did not consume the summoners magic or feats to even have.

You had to spend Evolution points on basic functionality.

Summoners had spells specifically for their Eidolon.

Summoners did not have Class Feats in P1.

Temperans wrote:

The Golarions of PF1 is the exact same as the golarion of PF2 according to lore. The stories that were told in PF1 should be able to be told in PF2 and any PF1 story should be able to be continued as a sequal in PF2. However the current summoner makes that impossible.

No it doesn't not having build-a-bear Eidolons doesn't change/stop the stories being told at all. If it does, name some.

Temperans wrote:

The PF2 eidolons is not custimizeable enough and the abilities are lame.

Aligned attacks, breath weapons, and protective Reactions are lame? What are you after?

Temperans wrote:

And no silly eidolons dont break the lore.

They did, they really did.

Temperans wrote:

That is what made eidolons fun they were part of the lore no matter how silly they were because you the player created them.

No, because that wasn't any Lore for them until the God Callers, and that "lore" did not match the God callers, the actual Lore.

Temperans wrote:

Unchained Summoner didnt change that it still allowed me to have complete control over what form, what evolutions, and what abilties the eidolon had. Something that PF2 does not allow.

They have the same aesthetic customization as Unchained, that hasn't been taken away. You pick the base and design from there, same as it was. There's always rooms for more abilities, that's how Class Feats work.

Temperans wrote:

The difference in allowance is that an Unchained Eidolon costed 0 feats and still allowed you to have full 6th level casting. While also having a ton of cutomization that was meaningful.

They didn't spend feats (that they didn't even have), they spent Evolution Points, most of which went towards basic functionality and number boosting.

Temperans wrote:

PF2 throws all of that aside. Making evolutions cost feats,

Feats they never had in P1, instead of Evolution points (which don't exist anymore)

Temperans wrote:

severly restricting spells to the point they are practically non existent,

I'm ambivalent on the spellcasting for the moment, but I like having less spells for more Eidolon focus in the final version.

Temperans wrote:

made the eidolon be noncreatures,

This is a hangup of your own construction, it's a falsehood.

Temperans wrote:

and forces me to have a bland eidolon with no mechanics.

This is also a falshehood. Your opinion is not universal fact.

You don't care the Eidolons, fine. Claiming they're noncreatures with no abilities is spreading falsehoods.

[Rysky]

-Poison- wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Also not having Build-a-Bear Eidolons severely cuts down on "wtf is wrong with you" type of situations from occurring in Society play when randome people group up.

Oh gods, auditing Summoners and their Eidolons in P1 was a right f&!~ing nightmare I bet...

I don't hate the subtype packages you guys are arguing for but admonishing the Build-A-Bear portion of 1e Summoners because of society play is very dismissive of literally the biggest thing people loved about Eidolons in 1e; the idea that i can make my Eidolon, my way, and turn the whole thing sideways, how i don't have to be reserved to the highways of how an Eidolon 'should' be. If i want my undead giant skeleton friend to breathe green spectral fire because i invested in it to do so, i should be able to.

Not everything has to be constrained to thematics; 1e Unchained Summoner certainly wasn't, despite the subtypes.

It's not the crux of the argument, it's something that I just thought of that seemed pertinent (I played all of 1 game of PFS1, and it didn't involve a Summoner).

Lot of people loved the build-a-bear style of the Eidolon, and a lot of people hated it, for mechanic and thematic reasons.

[Salamileg]

Temperans wrote:

The Golarions of PF1 is the exact same as the golarion of PF2 according to lore. The stories that were told in PF1 should be able to be told in PF2 and any PF1 story should be able to be continued as a sequal in PF2. However the current summoner makes that impossible.

A bit tangential, but I feel like the devs stating this (assuming they did, I've heard people say they said it but never saw it myself) was one of the biggest mistakes of PF2. I feel like it set the wrong expectations for a lot of people for what the system was going to be, when it's very different from PF1. I'm not saying they should have done what D&D does and have a world-shattering event that changes things, but I think acting like everything's the same was the wrong move.

[Squeakmaan]

Then specifically what do you mean as balanced?

[Temperans]

PF1 Summoner had feats that supported eidolons. They had traits that supported eidolons. They had the 10 feats that could be used for anything from supporting summoned spells (aka eidolon) to making themselves better. Saying that Summoners didnt have class feats is a blatant lie.

I never said my opinions were universal facts. So I dont see how me having opinions on what I see as critical is bad.

Eidolons are a non creature. Do they have their own actions/reactions? No. Do they have their own abilities? No. Do they have their own HP? No. PF2 has made eidolons into noncreatures.

PF1 Eidolons Had 8 feats, 15 evolution points, and at least 6 tiers of subtype upgrades. PF1 Summoners had 10 feats, Summon Monster SLA == 3+Cha, all the class abilities, and 6th level spells. Yes I dont expect them to have everything, but eidolon needs to keep their evolutions otherwise they are not eidolons.

Silly Eidolons do not break lore. You might not like them but they did not break lore.

What do you mean that the lore did not match the God Callers when the lore were was made post summoner. The creator of the God Callers had access to the summoner lore and made the God Callers from there. Not to mention that the great beauty of PF1 Summoner was that PF1 let GMs create the specific lore behind summoners. So two different tables could have completely different theories behind the Eidolons and both would still be correct.

And as currently done Eidolons have no mechanics. Their only mechanic are 3 meh abilities that are boring and non customizable. Eidolons in this editions are more blobs of stats than any eidolon in PF1. Despite all the misinformation you try to spout about them.

[Temperans]

Salamileg wrote:

Temperans wrote:

The Golarions of PF1 is the exact same as the golarion of PF2 according to lore. The stories that were told in PF1 should be able to be told in PF2 and any PF1 story should be able to be continued as a sequal in PF2. However the current summoner makes that impossible.

A bit tangential, but I feel like the devs stating this (assuming they did, I've heard people say they said it but never saw it myself) was one of the biggest mistakes of PF2. I feel like it set the wrong expectations for a lot of people for what the system was going to be, when it's very different from PF1. I'm not saying they should have done what D&D does and have a world-shattering event that changes things, but I think acting like everything's the same was the wrong move.

I agree that they messed up by making PF2 in the same world and not have any reason as to why things are different. I think part of the problem is that they wrote themselves into a corner because of how the wrote the GAP. But they could had just as well just said that PF2 happens in an alternate universe or something and everything would had technically worked.

[Kyrone]

My group is liking the summoner direction, we had fun with it yesterday, the shared action economy, HP and the tradition being the same as the Eidolon felt very flavorful.

We wished that had more tandem options, not for more actions but like flavorful "meta" strikes, like the summoner distracts the enemy for the Eidolon to strike and stuff like that.

Looking forward to more options for each tradition, maybe will have a plant there.

[Martialmasters]

Kyrone wrote:

My group is liking the summoner direction, we had fun with it yesterday, the shared action economy, HP and the tradition being the same as the Eidolon felt very flavorful.

We wished that had more tandem options, not for more actions but like flavorful "meta" strikes, like the summoner distracts the enemy for the Eidolon to strike and stuff like that.

Looking forward to more options for each tradition, maybe will have a plant there.

how did it feel about having to give up your damage in order to do a basic action such as demoralize or recall knowledge?

[KrispyXIV]

Martialmasters wrote:

how did it feel about having to give up your damage in order to do a basic action such as demoralize or recall knowledge?

Ok, hold up.

Everyone reduces their damage to do things like this. Its universal - any action not spent on damage is one that 'reduces your damage'.

The Summoner is impacted objectively less, because they have an extra action that isn't limited in what it can be like it is for other classes with companions.

A Summoner can Demoralize, and his Eidolon can Strike three times with Martial Proficiency without any buffs like Haste, etc.

Its literally and objectively better for a Summoner than any other class.

[Temperans]

A Summoner that is not using Boost Eidolon is losing damage. So idk what you are talking about.

[Martialmasters]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

how did it feel about having to give up your damage in order to do a basic action such as demoralize or recall knowledge?

Ok, hold up.

Everyone reduces their damage to do things like this. Its universal - any action not spent on damage is one that 'reduces your damage'.

The Summoner is impacted objectively less, because they have an extra action that isn't limited in what it can be like it is for other classes with companions.

A Summoner can Demoralize, and his Eidolon can Strike three times with Martial Proficiency without any buffs like Haste, etc.

Its literally and objectively better for a Summoner than any other class.

only if you consider 3 attacks as a valid tactic, wich i do not unless you have specialized for it via specific fighter/ranger builds, so far thats it.

as such, the only time a fighter has to make that choice, is when they have to move, wich is a round to round decision.

there is no round to round decision for summoner beyond how do i get my eidolon into position and boost him while he gets 2 attacks.

[Katrixia]

Temperans wrote:

A Summoner that is not using Boost Eidolon is losing damage. So idk what you are talking about.

One of the few times i agree with Krispy, Boost Eidolon is EXTRA damage. Summoner rolling to demoralize is the same as a Fighter using an action to demoralize. The Eidolon still gets it's own Weapon specialization damage; the Summoner in playtest has great action economy.

[Martialmasters]

-Poison- wrote:

Temperans wrote:

A Summoner that is not using Boost Eidolon is losing damage. So idk what you are talking about.

One of the few times i agree with Krispy, Boost Eidolon is EXTRA damage. Summoner rolling to demoralize is the same as a Fighter using an action to demoralize. The Eidolon still gets it's own Weapon specialization damage; the Summoner in playtest has great action economy.

its only extra damage if its something you can do on top of the things you are already planning to do.

instead its something you do instead of the other things to keep your eidolon damage below par.

you could remove it, or bake it into the class, without imbalancing a single thing, but opening up the summoners round to round activities hugely, resulting in more varied and interesting gameplay for the class.

example: the fighter feat where you do more damage to a frightened target, that is *extra* damage when you are a intimidating strike build.

boost eidolon is a required action tax.

[Kyrone]

Martialmasters wrote:

Kyrone wrote:

My group is liking the summoner direction, we had fun with it yesterday, the shared action economy, HP and the tradition being the same as the Eidolon felt very flavorful.

We wished that had more tandem options, not for more actions but like flavorful "meta" strikes, like the summoner distracts the enemy for the Eidolon to strike and stuff like that.

Looking forward to more options for each tradition, maybe will have a plant there.

how did it feel about having to give up your damage in order to do a basic action such as demoralize or recall knowledge?

It felt fine, I could basically demoralize and make the eidolon move with act together and then boost plus strike with it.

Spellcasting turns I could demoralize with the summoner + trip with the eidolon and then cast the spell.

[Martialmasters]

Kyrone wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Kyrone wrote:

My group is liking the summoner direction, we had fun with it yesterday, the shared action economy, HP and the tradition being the same as the Eidolon felt very flavorful.

We wished that had more tandem options, not for more actions but like flavorful "meta" strikes, like the summoner distracts the enemy for the Eidolon to strike and stuff like that.

Looking forward to more options for each tradition, maybe will have a plant there.

how did it feel about having to give up your damage in order to do a basic action such as demoralize or recall knowledge?

It felt fine, I could basically demoralize and make the eidolon move with act together and then boost plus strike with it.

Spellcasting turns I could demoralize with the summoner + trip with the eidolon and then cast the spell.

so you gave up your second attack. ok.

[KrispyXIV]

-Poison- wrote:

Temperans wrote:

A Summoner that is not using Boost Eidolon is losing damage. So idk what you are talking about.

One of the few times i agree with Krispy, Boost Eidolon is EXTRA damage. Summoner rolling to demoralize is the same as a Fighter using an action to demoralize. The Eidolon still gets it's own Weapon specialization damage; the Summoner in playtest has great action economy.

Thank you.

A Summoner using Boost Eidolon is no different than an Investigator using an action for Studied Strike, or a Rogue using an action to move into flanking. Most martial classes have some sort of action cost for turning on their bonus damage. Some are cheaper than others, or more persiStent than others.

But the fact is, in any round when players are establishing their bonus damage, a Summoner comes out one action ahead.

Not over time, yes. Rage is persistent. Flanking is somewhere in rhe middle - it lasts until an opponent moves. Studied Strike is more similar - it has to be repeated each round, like Boost Eidolon.

But summoners in general have a fantastic action economy.

[Martialmasters]

KrispyXIV wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

Temperans wrote:

A Summoner that is not using Boost Eidolon is losing damage. So idk what you are talking about.

One of the few times i agree with Krispy, Boost Eidolon is EXTRA damage. Summoner rolling to demoralize is the same as a Fighter using an action to demoralize. The Eidolon still gets it's own Weapon specialization damage; the Summoner in playtest has great action economy.

Thank you.

A Summoner using Boost Eidolon is no different than an Investigator using an action for Studied Strike, or a Rogue using an action to move into flanking. Most martial classes have some sort of action cost for turning on their bonus damage. Some are cheaper than others, or more persiStent than others.

But the fact is, in any round when players are establishing their bonus damage, a Summoner comes out one action ahead.

Not over time, yes. Rage is persistent. Flanking is somewhere in rhe middle - it lasts until an opponent moves. Studied Strike is more similar - it has to be repeated each round, like Boost Eidolon.

But summoners in general have a fantastic action economy.

really? the investigator can make it free with proper play, the rogue after he has moved into flank, doesnt have to again in later rounds necessarily.

until boost eidolon is removed, their improved action economy is an illusion.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

The fact that they are trying to do that does not mean they should.

Thats the point of the playtest to tell them what we think is wrong. Not to strole their egos and tell them everything is fine.

And currently Eidolons are not fine. I will not sugar coat it and I will not accept the logic of putting the horse before the carriage that you are implying.

Its totally valid for you to not like them.

Please don't imply that the only reason for disagreeing with you would be to 'stroke their egos and tell them everything is fine'.

No one's sugar coating anything. The class isn't finished, and needs polishing and some tweaks. But its a totally valid position to acknowledge what we think this build does well, and for some of us apparently what it does well is being a huge departure from the original version of the Summoner.

I'm sorry you don't want that, but for me, its the difference between a class that I'm able to play and one that is instantly banned.

... thats a false dichotomy. We can have an interesting eidolon design without resorting to "omg so op ban it!" The map snd 3 action economy does enough to prevent it from being banned.