| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing my two cents into the ring since I've read the playtest and built a low-level summoner to include as an npc in my game. I don't have any real play experience, so this is all just theory based on what we have in the playtest document.
I think the idea of sharing actions and health with the eidolon is a cool idea to help tone down the action economy of playing two creatures. I suspect in play that tandem actions will feel a little rigid with just the current options and I'd like to see some feat that allows the summoner to cast a 2 or 3 action spell while the eidolon gets an action or two to work with. Of course we'll probably get more tandem stuff with the official release, just saying I think that's a good place to head with class feats.
I agree, boost eidolon is kinda bad, and I think I know why. On paper the damage boost is more than reasonable for a cantrip that you get automatically, but it costs your tightest resource: actions. You're supposed to be managing two creatures, and the spell is locking damage the eidolon sorely needs behind 1 action a turn. Now this might be controversial based on what you suppose the eidolon's role is, but I think it should fall somehwere around the rogue and monk for damage output and durability, especially since this summoner only gets 4 spells a day and the eidolon is supposed to cover the rest. I really don't think it'll break into their niche without debilitating strike/skills galore or stances/ki.
If that is what it should accomplish, then I really don't think it's there yet. Giving it special access to monster abilities and a wider range of combat options in general will give it its own martial flavor and make it more fun to play in general, since the current eidolon can't do much more than attack and 1-2 limited special abilities from its type. In simple terms, if 1/2-2/3 of the class is martial, that martial 1/2-2/3 should be competent without wasting an action every turn to try and help their sorry dps. And above just basic competency, they should get some of their own wonderful turn-by-turn strategic options that make pf2 martials so much fun.
Evolutions. This is difficult because 1e has such a hideous amount of customization that anything less will feel restrictive to 1e players, but I think the current template system just swings too far into a kind of rigidity that feels very 5e in a game very much unlike 5e. Moreover, making evolutions a class feat thing just feels wrong because every evolution reduces other options like tandem actions and spellcasting options (conduit or otherwise).
I think eidolon building would actually work very well as combat-oriented familiars. The familiar system already has a lot of abilities you might want to put on an eidolon, and all you'd have to do is design a similarly structured Eidolon list with more permanent choices and a growing pool of abilities to buy. Level-lock the choices for balance and that would feel a lot better for those that really want mechanical weight to their build choices. It would also open up class feats for more options to fighting with your eidolon (also a great place for unique, class-defining, extremely fun turn-by-turn martial decisions). You can even keep the base forms like dragon and angel, but just make them "starter packs" of abilities rather than binding multi-level contracts.
Synthesists. I absolutely love the idea of synthesists, and it's kinda unfortunate that they've been reduced to a single 1st level feat. Yeah we'll probably get more synthesist stuff in the final book, but the feat we can see right now is actually mostly useless. You give up all the interesting ways the eidolon and summoner can interact, and you give up spellcasting, and you give up the ability to act as anything but the eidolon (which I'll remind you isn't very strong or very fun at the moment), and the only benefit is that the slightly easier to hit summoner isn't targetable now, which doesn't mean much since they share hit points anyway.
So here's my idea to make the synthesist work: bring back the idea that the melded synthesist is both eidolon and summoner so that the summoner can use their own feats, skills, and class abilities while fused, with the tradeoff that they lose their spellcasting while melded. This is fine and basic for a 1st level feat on a summoner that wants to go full martial in combat, and then you can have class feats later on that make the melding more efficient or open up more options, maybe even bringing back the spellcasting at some point. This would allow a summoner to take a fighter or barbarian archetype and get to go full bio-iron man as it was always supposed to be. Numbers-wise the synthesist would still be in the monk/rogue range and it's still only an archetype so I doubt there's be enough overlap to invalidate any other class. I figure it'd fit a similar niche that the berserker mutagenist alch does.
Sorry for a actual wall of text, half of this is just me trying to get my ideas out of my head. I have big hopes for this class and I really hope the final version captures the wonderful feel of the 1e summoner without being so ridiculously broken. As I test out the class some of these criticisms might fall away, but I'm fairly confident in this assessment.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, boost eidolon is kinda bad, and I think I know why. On paper the damage boost is more than reasonable for a cantrip that you get automatically, but it costs your tightest resource: actions. You're supposed to be managing two creatures, and the spell is locking damage the eidolon sorely needs behind 1 action a turn. Now this might be controversial based on what you suppose the eidolon's role is, but I think it should fall somehwere around the rogue and monk for damage output and durability, especially since this summoner only gets 4 spells a day and the eidolon is supposed to cover the rest. I really don't think it'll break into their niche without debilitating strike/skills galore or stances/ki.
Yeah, and this is kind of a huge issue with the Eidolon at the moment. They're probably on par in terms of AC with the Rogue (and significantly behind the Monk) from 3rd level on, which is fine (being way behind everyone at 1st and 2nd is not so fine), and behind both in terms of Saves (though not vastly).
But let's talk damage.
At 9th level, a level I will note strongly favors the Eidolon and their starting 16 Str, the Eidolon is doing 2d8+6+1d6, or 18.5 damage per hit...22.5 if the Summoner uses Boost Eidolon.
A Rogue, meanwhile is doing 5d6+6 on a sneak attack for 23.5 and more damage plus debuff effects, while a damage focused Monk is doing 2d10+6+1d6 or 20.5, but is doing so with an extra attack, meaning his DPR is still gonna be superior, and his defenses and mobility are so much better it's not even funny.
Their to-hit is identical at that level, but the Eidolon falls behind one the next level and stays there for most of their career thereafter. Combined with mediocre damage at best, that's not good and does not really result in an Eidolon feeling fun or powerful.
The spells the Summoner gets are okay utility, and even have potential in combat, but there are only 4 of them, so a lot of the time they're probably no better than the Focus Spell combination a Monk can put together. Which makes the Summoner/Monk comparison look really dicey for the Summoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warden I agree with most of your points. The points were I disagree:
1) Shared HP: Right now the eidolon doesn't feel like a creature and more like its just a part of the Summoner. And that is not how the Eidolon should feel given its meant to be its own creature. I agree that its an interesting concept. But it shouldn't be used for the Summoner and their connection to the Eidolon.
I would very much like to see the concept of shared HP reworked to where the Summoner has more survivability and the Synth getting temp HP, yeah
Warden I agree with most of your points. The points were I disagree:
1) Shared HP: Right now the eidolon doesn't feel like a creature and more like its just a part of the Summoner. And that is not how the Eidolon should feel given its meant to be its own creature. I agree that its an interesting concept. But it shouldn't be used for the Summoner and their connection to the Eidolon.
That mechanic seems to be a much better fit for something like Possession abilities. Where the caster enters and becomes part of the creature. It also makes sense for the Synthesist as mechanically they are meant to be a single creature. Heck that was effectively what the PF1 Eidolon did (except PF1 used addition instead of just making their HP equal).
2) Action Economy. I understand why they are trying to share action economy. But as it stands it doesn't feel like they are both important. Instead it feels like the Summoner is controlling a puppet. This is another place were the mechanics don't properly show that both are different creatures.
Its like saying that you and another creature must share the same action pool because you are working together. How does working together lead to less actions? The same thing is happening here. They are meant to be different creatures, but somehow are getting less actions.
But both of those things feel like there are in place to intentionally limit the class. You still have spells and powerful ones at that (though limited) and a martially viable second character. If they were to seperate health pools AND actions then the eidolon would have to drop to around the effectiveness of an animal companion (or less given they have their own 3 actions? Or more given they are part of the class power budget? Either way, definitely weaker than a purely martial character.)
In addition, the class would be significantly more complex, as now that player has twice the number of actions to fill, twice the number of hit point pools to calculate. Effectively, you're giving them two PCs for the price of one. There is no way that both of these should happen. I get that it feels like the eidolon is a puppet, but for game balance it kinda needs to be. And personally the lore they've presented behind it makes sense, it sets a premise and reasoning behind why the two share a health pool and why they share actions.
And I don't know if the eidolon and PC are meant to be seperate characters. Entities? probably. Personalities? Almost definitely! Characters/creatures? I don't know.
I would very much like to see the concept of shared HP reworked to where the Summoner has more survivability and the Synth getting temp HP, yeahWarden I agree with most of your points. The points were I disagree:
1) Shared HP: Right now the eidolon doesn't feel like a creature and more like its just a part of the Summoner. And that is not how the Eidolon should feel given its meant to be its own creature. I agree that its an interesting concept. But it shouldn't be used for the Summoner and their connection to the Eidolon.
Session I played tonight had every attack that could be reasonably be directed at my Eidolon targeting my Eidolon. It got hit and crit.
This was nothing but a benefit to my Angel Summoner who had a terribly convenient time healing herself.
I am not inclined to count shared hp as a true liability at this time.
No one at the table had any issue with the identity of the Summoner and Eidolon as two separate creatures, either.
One more attempt at Act Together fix. Change it to be 1-3 actions, and add the clause:
For each additional action spend on Act Together, you or your eidolon may take an additional action. Actions from Act Together may be combined to perform activities.
Don't make it cost anything but make it a feature:
Act Together: The summoner and the eidolon share 4 actions, though neither one can spend more that 3 of those action in a turn. This stops having to spend actions to get actions and gets you the same effect.
Warden I agree with most of your points. The points were I disagree:
1) Shared HP: Right now the eidolon doesn't feel like a creature and more like its just a part of the Summoner. And that is not how the Eidolon should feel given its meant to be its own creature. I agree that its an interesting concept. But it shouldn't be used for the Summoner and their connection to the Eidolon.
That mechanic seems to be a much better fit for something like Possession abilities. Where the caster enters and becomes part of the creature. It also makes sense for the Synthesist as mechanically they are meant to be a single creature. Heck that was effectively what the PF1 Eidolon did (except PF1 used addition instead of just making their HP equal).
2) Action Economy. I understand why they are trying to share action economy. But as it stands it doesn't feel like they are both important. Instead it feels like the Summoner is controlling a puppet. This is another place were the mechanics don't properly show that both are different creatures.
Its like saying that you and another creature must share the same action pool because you are working together. How does working together lead to less actions? The same thing is happening here. They are meant to be different creatures, but somehow are getting less actions.
Well the main reason I'm willing to make those concessions is because action economy is extremely valuable and just giving the summoner double the actions a normal character gets would make them very difficult to balance. The current system kinda makes sense with the 2e summoner being a conduit for the eidolon spirit that they share stamina in a way. I think it looks worse than it is and with class feats focusing more on tandem actions this could work much more smoothly than is currently does.
The linked health pools I'm a bit more iffy about, less because of flavor and more because the summoner is either an eidolon's Achilles heel (when they already struggle enough to make it in combat), or else a bonus reward for focusing the eidolon down.
I think it would be nice to have some class feats that over the levels make an eidolon more independent of the summoner's health resources in the same way tandem actions do for action resources. Like somewhere along the line, the summoner could take a feat that separated the health pools, allowing the summoner to only take half damage from any damage the eidolon takes and vice-versa, all the way up to level 20 capstones that totally separate the two resources, so your eidolon is either completely health independent or completely action independent at the maximum.
2) Action Economy. I understand why they are trying to share action economy. But as it stands it doesn't feel like they are both important. Instead it feels like the Summoner is controlling a puppet. This is another place were the mechanics don't properly show that both are different creatures.
Its like saying that you and another creature must share the same action pool because you are working together. How does working together lead to less actions? The same thing is happening here. They are meant to be different creatures, but somehow are getting less actions.
The action sharing mechanic eidolons and animal companions use is not just "working together", it's an abstraction for following orders to keep multiple-characters-to-one-player balanced. If Leadership were to return and you could get a Fighter minion I would fully expect that to work the same way.
The summoner and eidolon share actions even more strictly than animal companions to justify the eidolon being stronger, and to make it so that the eidolon can act three times if it wants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One more attempt at Act Together fix. Change it to be 1-3 actions, and add the clause:
For each additional action spend on Act Together, you or your eidolon may take an additional action. Actions from Act Together may be combined to perform activities.Don't make it cost anything but make it a feature:
Act Together: The summoner and the eidolon share 4 actions, though neither one can spend more that 3 of those action in a turn. This stops having to spend actions to get actions and gets you the same effect.
Not having to spend an action is definitely better than the current version give its puts them in the same spot as an Animal companion. Its still questionable. I guess you can later add a feat that gives them an extra action so they get 5 actions making both even more independent.
But not having to spend an action for Act Together is definitely a start.
In another thread Mark has specifically mentioned that allowing the summoner to take 2 different 2 action actions (good grief there has to be a better way to put that) is something they are trying to avoid, given that the design behind such actions is generally you aren't able to do more than one a turn. They tend to be your extra action granting things like the beast eidolon's charge, or powerful effects like spells. Additionally, giving the Summoner 4 inherent actions a turn without any restrictions or limitations is pretty powerful, diminishes every other character's 3 actions a turn and would definitely break some of the base rules assumptions of the game.
One more attempt at Act Together fix. Change it to be 1-3 actions, and add the clause:
For each additional action spend on Act Together, you or your eidolon may take an additional action. Actions from Act Together may be combined to perform activities.Don't make it cost anything but make it a feature:
Act Together: The summoner and the eidolon share 4 actions, though neither one can spend more that 3 of those action in a turn. This stops having to spend actions to get actions and gets you the same effect.
Not having to spend an action is definitely better than the current version give its puts them in the same spot as an Animal companion. Its still questionable. I guess you can later add a feat that gives them an extra action so they get 5 actions making both even more independent.
But not having to spend an action for Act Together is definitely a start.
You'd still have Tandem Move for an extra move action.
You are looking for 2 different 2 action activities.
Also if there is any class that should be able to make 2 different 2 action activities is the Summoner. Which is the class that gets the strong companion that can rival a weak martial.
It really would break anything specially if like Graystone mentioned they could only get 3 action max for 1 character mentioned they could only get 3 action max for 1 character.
That means its 2 actions for the summoner and 2 actions for the eidolon. Exactly the same as an animal companion without caving to spend an action commanding them.
Thank you, I thought activities sounded odd, but I guess it's the right term here.
I can understand if you feel that the summoner should be able to do 2 2-action activities, but an INHERENT 4 actions is balance breaking. The game assumes 3 actions generally, if something applied Slow 1 each hit, and then capped it at Slow 2 would not be anywhere near as debilitating for the summoner. If something stated it petrifies you at Slowed 3 then there would be so many people arguing 'I still have actions. Why am I petrified?' There are too many things that would get warped or messed up with a base 4 actions.
Effectively, you're giving them two PCs for the price of oneYou mean.... like Animal companions?
So, let's balance them against Animal companions? Cause animal companions are significantly weaker martials than dedicated martial classes. The animal companion is an option but they aren't super powerful. The designers could readily tone down the power levels of the eidolon to be near or slightly better than an animal companion and power up the summoner to be a better caster, but I don't know if that's what people are wanting from the summoner class.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, if you put together what people are asking to 'fix' the summoner, you would have a class that would be unbalanced even when played by two players together.
The eidolon would have to get its independent three actions, or it would seem like a puppet; full martial prowess and defenses, because you can't let a monster be inferior to those puny humanoids; all the monster-only perks like full-time flight, special attacks and immunities, because it wouldn't feel real if it didn't have them; and of course all of this should be completely freeform, or you would be limiting fantasy.
What about the summoner themselves? As it is, they would be a joke and look like the eidolon's puppet instead; so you have to give them at least full casting to make it useful; but we know casting is weak in this edition, so they would definitely need something more.
Sarcasm off.
Chassis for eidolons are going to stay, clearly more of them compared with what we have now; what we can realistically have are feats to 'steal' some abilities from other forms so we can mix and match (like some fellow forum user suggested).
I can't see how we could have an evolution point-based eidolon, given the fact that class feats already offer a modular structure that can be used for the same goal.
More evolutions are very likely to be available at launch; anyway they will be balanced with what other classes are able to do around the same level.
The eidolon will remain below martial classes, because it has to account for the summoner's magical abilities. It can probably be balanced to the point of not needing a constant buffing to perform decently, but that means freeing up actions that can be used for more attacks, or for spells. You have to keep this into account.
Actions are definitely going to be shared. You can't give a single player two independent characters unless the others get the same treatment. Options about giving more freedom as how the shared actions can be spent are already being considered; we know however that just having four general actions to split as we like is not on the table.
Sharing HP is something that could go away, but I'd rather keep this mechanic that is so different from the others: it can work, the playtest will tell to what extent it actually is a liability, so that countermeasures can be applied (like, cheaply, more HP).
The summoner part can use some help, but I don't know in which direction I would go for that - some lower level slots, better proficiencies, better summoning options?
The synthesis feat definitely needs something more.
The fundamental thing here is that if you are playing a class with two bodies, those two bodies have to be less powerful than other options. All the 'I want this' and 'I like that' and 'it was different' mean nothing when they are in opposition to this principle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is the point: it's not two characters, it's one.
If being a summoner means effectively controlling two full-strength PCs, then change the name if you want, it's not going to exist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Literally every thing that makes a Summoner is gone. Everything.
You are not even summoning the Eidolon, if everything stays as they are they might as well change the name of the class. Because this is not the summoner class.
And yet not everyone agrees with this extremely subjective assessment.
The 1E Summoner is gone, and it is not coming back in the form it left in - it was, at best, a failed experiment that satisfied some but which by and large left a bad taste in the mouths of many players and GMs. New Summoner distancing itself from that is not a "bug".
Instead we have a new setup, with an expanded deeper relationship between the Summoner and Eidolon - along with mechanics that make the class more flexible in general (thanks core evolution surge) with greater freedom to make the Eidolon the player wants without being shackled to a point buy system for features.
The class also now allows for a wider build variety, because you're able to access multiple spell lists and the best goodies available therein. Healing, Illusions, mental control and blasting damage are all viable options, either on par with others or behind by a margin smaller than what others can achieve via multiclassing.
Its a new Summoner, sure, but so far I've not seen anything but "improved" that comes with those changes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly the biggest issue I feel like I'm having with the summoner at the moment is a combination of Boost Eidolon and shared MAP.
Boost Eidolon being so necessary for the Eidolon remaining relevant is only half the reason people feel like they have to cast it every round. The other is you just don't have much else to do.
If you do anything that causes MAP (Spell attacks and Cantrip attacks, Martial melee or ranged abilities) you and your eidolon get in each others ways. Either the Eidolon is going to miss because no boost and MAP, or you're going to miss because weaker proficiencies and MAP.
And you have a very limited spell use for an adventuring day. Most of which will often have 3-5 combats, so you can'ta fford to use more than one spell a combat.
So that really just leaves you with Electric Arc, Daze, or casting Boost. So most people stuff the summoner in back, have them spam boost, and treat the eidolon like a 3-action martial.
------
Now I love the flavor of the summoner and the concept for the mechanics, but as is mechanically I just don't see a point to them. I can play a 3-action martial that has more options and does things better than the eidolon.
And if I want to do the team stuff with a pet, druid just does that better. They don't share MAP so if they want to use a spell attack spell, they can. Or they can take on a battle form and get into the fight.
So I'd like to see an interpretation of the summoner with independent MAP and see how that plays out (too strong, too weak, unnecessary.) That would at least give the option to say, step into melee and swing to some potential benefit. You might not be boosting, but giving yourself flank makes up for a lot of that and if you hit you can make up the damage.
Or being able to pull out a bow or use produce flame if you want as options.
So yeah, there's my big thought for the moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would very much like to see the concept of shared HP reworked to where the Summoner has more survivability and the Synth getting temp HP, yeahWarden I agree with most of your points. The points were I disagree:
1) Shared HP: Right now the eidolon doesn't feel like a creature and more like its just a part of the Summoner. And that is not how the Eidolon should feel given its meant to be its own creature. I agree that its an interesting concept. But it shouldn't be used for the Summoner and their connection to the Eidolon.
Session I played tonight had every attack that could be reasonably be directed at my Eidolon targeting my Eidolon. It got hit and crit.
This was nothing but a benefit to my Angel Summoner who had a terribly convenient time healing herself.
I am not inclined to count shared hp as a true liability at this time.
No one at the table had any issue with the identity of the Summoner and Eidolon as two separate creatures, either.
That's great your Angel Eidolon was able to heal itself and have better survivability, a large portion of us who have playtested have noticed getting hit and crit fairly often and going down much too easily than should be warranted thanks to two targets sharing the same HP pool and having disadvantage in numerous encounters.
My group didn't have a problem with seeing the Eidolon as a separate creature either. So i don't believe the HP pool would affect people's perception one way or another.
For many of us, it's been the case it really is a liability that needs more support or to be reworked somehow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is the point: it's not two characters, it's one.
If being a summoner means effectively controlling two full-strength PCs, then change the name if you want, it's not going to exist.
I honest to god have no idea how you can look at the Summoner without the Eidolon and think it counts as even 1 full-strength PC
That's great your Angel Eidolon was able to heal itself and have better survivability, a large portion of us who have playtested have noticed getting hit and crit fairly often and going down much too easily than should be warranted thanks to two targets sharing the same HP pool and having disadvantage in numerous encounters.My group didn't have a problem with seeing the Eidolon as a separate creature either. So i don't believe the HP pool would affect people's perception one way or another.
For many of us, it's been the case it really is a liability that needs more support or to be reworked somehow.
Serious question - why are you being attacked more because of two bodies?
Are you playing your Summoner aggressively, and on the front line?
I'm playing a published adventure, and in no encounters for an entire session did an encounter contain more than 3 threatening foes - most had 2 significant enemies or one scary threat and multiple minor ones.
Further, I was easily able to stand where it would take two actions for foes to reach my summoner, meaning doing so was a bad trade for the enemy.
At no point, even if the GM had decide to go all in to gank my character, did I feel like my Summoner was in signficant danger.
The players simply have too much control over positioning and the situation for that to be a real concern.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are you even talking about the PF1 Summoner is the entire reason this playtest exists in the first place. If people didnt like the Summoner so much paizo wouldn't even have bothered to make the class yet and focused on any of the other classes that they can make.
But nope they chose this class that had a very specific playstyle that fans of it were very dedicated to. And you are telling me to throw it away because its a "failed experiment"?
Are you serious? Even when they took the system to make familiars options.
How is it possible that a class whose number 1 attraction was customization is better when everything that made that class was removed?
You know what I can't any more. If the rest of the playtest will just be arguing with people that the current version has just and literally only the names incommon there is no point responding to any of your messages. Clearly you guys dont care about the summoner and just your weird mechanics.
It's a really strange claim to make, yeah; almost everyone i knew loved Unchained Summoner for it's extremely rich flavor and Build-A-Bear Monster feature
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, let's balance them against Animal companions? Cause animal companions are significantly weaker martials than dedicated martial classes. The animal companion is an option but they aren't super powerful. The designers could readily tone down the power levels of the eidolon to be near or slightly better than an animal companion and power up the summoner to be a better caster, but I don't know if that's what people are wanting from the summoner class.Effectively, you're giving them two PCs for the price of oneYou mean.... like Animal companions?
I'd personally be good with that, but I also recognize that I am likely in the minority here.
I'd personally be good with that, but I also recognize that I am likely in the minority here.So, let's balance them against Animal companions? Cause animal companions are significantly weaker martials than dedicated martial classes. The animal companion is an option but they aren't super powerful. The designers could readily tone down the power levels of the eidolon to be near or slightly better than an animal companion and power up the summoner to be a better caster, but I don't know if that's what people are wanting from the summoner class.Effectively, you're giving them two PCs for the price of oneYou mean.... like Animal companions?
The Beastmaster archetype already wonderfully supports that dynamic at that power level/ power split.
While it doesn't have full creature support, I dont feel theres a lot of need for a full class to explore that niche...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a really strange claim to make, yeah; almost everyone i knew loved Unchained Summoner for it's extremely rich flavor and Build-A-Bear Monster feature
Unchained? We met different people. Most people that I knew wouldn't touch Unchained Summoner because it took away the "fun" (broken) toys of Chained.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd personally be good with that, but I also recognize that I am likely in the minority here.So, let's balance them against Animal companions? Cause animal companions are significantly weaker martials than dedicated martial classes. The animal companion is an option but they aren't super powerful. The designers could readily tone down the power levels of the eidolon to be near or slightly better than an animal companion and power up the summoner to be a better caster, but I don't know if that's what people are wanting from the summoner class.Effectively, you're giving them two PCs for the price of oneYou mean.... like Animal companions?The Beastmaster archetype already wonderfully supports that dynamic at that power level/ power split.
While it doesn't have full creature support, I dont feel theres a lot of need for a full class to explore that niche...
Honestly, if beastmaster let me have more fantastic creatures than just animals and customize them a bit, a la evolutions, I would be exceptionally happy.
Edit: And summon / banish it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Serious question - why are you being attacked more because of two bodies?
Are you playing your Summoner aggressively, and on the front line?
I'm playing a published adventure, and in no encounters for an entire session did an encounter contain more than 3 threatening foes - most had 2 significant enemies or one scary threat and multiple minor ones.
Further, I was easily able to stand where it would take two actions for foes to reach my summoner, meaning doing so was a bad trade for the enemy.
At no point, even if the GM had decide to go all in to gank my character, did I feel like my Summoner was in signficant danger.
The players simply have too much control over positioning and the situation for that to be a real concern.
So, i plan to make my own thread about Summoner but i'll break down what i've learned after a few playtest sessions about this specific topic.
It's important to note my group is playing through an AP at mid-high level.
I have to keep saying this but:
Summoner is prone to being hit more.
That is NOT me saying enemies gain extra actions to attack.
What makes Summoner's survivability much lower than any other class is the Summoner does get hit more and it rolls disadvantage often.
For my regular Summoner, i was playing behind the party in most scenarios that i could; i wasn't trying to tag-team or anything.
The part you seem to mistake is that ranged enemies exist and the minor enemies are nothing to slouch for 2 targets; not every encounter can i start behind the party, most encounters are not designed in such a way where you can tell "Oh yeah there's a fight right around the corner, let me just get 80ft. behind the party" and just a few times i did try to preemptively position myself without any hint of encounter, or even within a fight, there came situations where i had actually secluded myself to an ambush. The extra damage your Eidolon takes matters to the HP pool.
It is not that simple where Summoner doesn't suddenly ignore the challenges of a ranged caster, except it has the extra challenge of taking in more damage.
It's a really strange claim to make, yeah; almost everyone i knew loved Unchained Summoner for it's extremely rich flavor and Build-A-Bear Monster featureUnchained? We met different people. Most people that I knew wouldn't touch Unchained Summoner because it took away the "fun" (broken) toys of Chained.
All Unchained really did was create subtypes for pre-consolidated Evolution points (which you were still free to spend as you like even if the growth was less) and nerf the spell list; that's basically it.
It didn't take away any of the fun (or as you call broken) toys or things that make Summoner an awesome and fun experience to play; 1e Unchained Summoner still felt good to play.