| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What it reads to me like is that the request is something like “Let me use evolution points to cherry pick and build my ideal monster and then use synthesis to be the monster and completely neglect the summoner, and then make that the class.”
Well that's if you want to go Synthesist, there's a lot of people asking for not just the Eidolon to get buffed but the Summoner itself to have a more active role in both a regular summoner (Eidolon Caller) and Master Summoner type playstyle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the synthesis idea of “being the monster” is a unique and fun class fantasy, but in a class that’s presented in a secrets of magic playtest I would like it to not be the ONLY way to play the class.
Idk if i'm missing comments from somebody or there's some misunderstanding, but Synthesist isn't the only way to play Summoner, it's definitely not viable in the current playtest, and people are advocating for Synthesist and Master (Minion-mancy) to be class paths in the way of subclasses or class archetypes.
Like i don't think you'll find anybody here who will disagree with you that Synthesist shouldn't be the only option you should have to play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the synthesis idea of “being the monster” is a unique and fun class fantasy, but in a class that’s presented in a secrets of magic playtest I would like it to not be the ONLY way to play the class.Idk if i'm missing comments from somebody or there's some misunderstanding, but Synthesist isn't the only way to play Summoner, it's definitely not viable in the current playtest, and people are advocating for Synthesist and Master (Minion-mancy) to be class paths in the way of subclasses or class archetypes.
Like i don't think you'll find anybody here who will disagree with you that Synthesist shouldn't be the only option you should have to play.
i think the sentiment is it was a viable form of play in 1e, and that is was a beloved form of play by quite a few, and now its not, but its not simply omitted, but relegated to a utility/ooc feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My preferred playstyle is what you call Eidolon Caller and that would include more spellcasting for the summoner, but in an ideal world there would be feat trees that enhance Synthesis (Be the Monster), Master Summoner and Eidolon Caller playstyles.My only concern is seeing things like “drop the spellcasting, this is a martial class, and give all the design space to Synthesis only.” This is a sentiment I am giving my voice to, in that it is not my desire and hopefully Mark might see that and make whatever decision he sees fit.
It seems the Summoner is the only place to have a Demonology Warlock style character but also the Ironman/Hulk “I am the monster” playstyle. Hopefully there’s enough design space to share. Not to mention the people who want to focus on summoning things that aren’t specifically their Eidolon (this doesn’t interest me at the moment but that doesn’t mean it never will, and it would be sad if this class fantasy wasn’t supported because I’m not sure another class would come along to fill in that space if it’s not on the Summoner, although I feel the same way for Synthesis.)
Well a feat chain definitely wouldn't be enough to bring Synthesist to where it should be, but i understand what you mean.
I don't think anybody is asking for all the design space to go to synthesist, only that what synthesist is in the playtest is very disappointing and that it does not reflect the desired playstyle for what people feel a synthesist should be, that is more similar to 1e Synthesist.
Synthesist was a VERY popular archetype in 1e that is very near and dear to many people so the fact a lot of the forums is threads, posts, and comments like "Synthesist needs help" is more just to do with how popular Synthesist really is.
Most of the talk regarding competing with martials is talking about the Eidolon itself, not the Summoner gaining strong martial prowess.
I can understand your frustrations, there's a lot of posts saying things like "I wouldn't even care if we lost spellcasting if it helped Summoner be where it should be" and you're someone who quite enjoys spellcasting on Summoner.
I'd say that there's definitely enough room to increase the current Summoner's power and to create class paths (via subclasses or class archetypes) that would satisfy most people's desires; including yours.
Something like this:
(Power Total: 4)
Eidolon Caller (Base Summoner)
Power: 2/2 Equal
Synthesist
Power: 1/3 Leaning toward Eidolon
Master Summoner
Power: 3/1 Leaning toward Summoner
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My contribution is that I would not like to see the Summoner because some sort of Martial Class and lose it’s spellcasting abilities which is something I’ve seen advocated.
I think the synthesis idea of “being the monster” is a unique and fun class fantasy, but in a class that’s presented in a secrets of magic playtest I would like it to not be the ONLY way to play the class.
Keeping and even expanding the spell casting capabilities to have a summoner with just as much agency and ability to contribute in combat as the Eidolon is important to me.
I want to playtest this class myself when I get the chance. I will raise a concern I have based on reading other users feedback: I am concerned the Boost Eidolon is something of a Legion Demonology Warlock problem where casting Empower Demon after *every single* summoned demon became extremely boring and unfun. Essentially, instead of using your big, flashy and important damage dealing spells, you interrupted your gameplay after every single complete rotation to cast Empower Demon, and it became the most cast spell of the entire class on a class about having a huge strong demon, and summoning other lesser demons.
Everyone disliked that. I hope there’s a better way to improve the flow of combat aside from, for all Intents and purposes, casting empower demon. (Boost Eidolon).
Oh hey, I remember Legion Demonology. And yeah, it was pretty lame.
I think your criticisms are actually valid and worth discussing; summoner as a "real" caster does seem appropriate, and even as someone who'd like to play a martial summoner I'd say it makes more sense as a class archetype than the base class.
The problem is that, for what you want to be achievable, the eidolon would need to be around the animal companion level of power. I and others wouldn't be happy with that, as we see the summoner's eidolon as a far more central facet of the summoner's toolkit than the druid's companion.
These questions of balancing might and magic are kind of why I was worried about the inclusion of these classes; I thought it pretty likely that satisfaction and balance would be incompatible, especially for the Magus. Kinda seems like I was right...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t see the problem but I am open to explaination.
Spells, by comparison are temporary, limited, consumable on a daily basis, generally mutable in selection based on class, and highly conditional in application.
Generally, a spell is chosen to address a specific instance of a given situation (deal damage to an area, disable a foe, protect me, travel).
They're kindof fundamentally dissimilar from a permanent bonus which is not consumable or expendable over a day or any period.
And you also can’t barter with your spell levels like you could with Evolution Points.
“Hmm I can take this third level spell, or these three first level spells in its place” is not a thing.
Easy enough to prevent that in a point system. As Temperans pointed out, we already have the basic framework with familiars where you get Familiar and Master abilities. The Eidolon abilities could be similarly tiered. Say you get 1 movement, 1 defense, 1 sensory, 1 attack evolution, with the base form locking at least 2 at 1st level (the number of options you get for each category and the options you get to choose from can be upgraded with feats, again just like with familiars).
I don't have a huge problem with the system as presented myself. I don't like it, but it doesn't quite kill the class for me. And while I also don't want to see the point system return fully, but more modularity and a (small, still limited by your base type) menu of options available on the Symbiosis and Transcendence abilities rather than a single option chosen at level 1 would be nice to have. To be clearer, 15-26 points to spend would be a non-starter for me, but 1-4? I could see that.
| 1 person 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...
Well minus the sarcasm this is my thoughts exactly!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easy enough to prevent that in a point system. As Temperans pointed out, we already have the basic framework with familiars where you get Familiar and Master abilities. The Eidolon abilities could be similarly tiered. Say you get 1 movement, 1 defense, 1 sensory, 1 attack evolution, with the base form locking at least 2 at 1st level (the number of options you get for each category and the options you get to choose from can be upgraded with feats, again just like with familiars).
I don't have a huge problem with the system as presented myself. I don't like it, but it doesn't quite kill the class for me. And while I also don't want to see the point system return fully, but more modularity and a (small, still limited by your base type) menu of options available on the Symbiosis and Transcendence abilities rather than a single option chosen at level 1 would be nice to have. To be clearer, 15-26 points to spend would be a non-starter for me, but 1-4? I could see that.
I gotta say that I (and Rysky, I would assume based on her prior posts) really hate the familiar system and see it as a mistake that should not be replicated with the eidolon. It is anti-fun for "bantering with my owl" to compete with "get a free focus point every day".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta say that I (and Rysky, I would assume based on her prior posts) really hate the familiar system and see it as a mistake that should not be replicated with the eidolon. It is anti-fun for "bantering with my owl" to compete with "get a free focus point every day".Easy enough to prevent that in a point system. As Temperans pointed out, we already have the basic framework with familiars where you get Familiar and Master abilities. The Eidolon abilities could be similarly tiered. Say you get 1 movement, 1 defense, 1 sensory, 1 attack evolution, with the base form locking at least 2 at 1st level (the number of options you get for each category and the options you get to choose from can be upgraded with feats, again just like with familiars).
I don't have a huge problem with the system as presented myself. I don't like it, but it doesn't quite kill the class for me. And while I also don't want to see the point system return fully, but more modularity and a (small, still limited by your base type) menu of options available on the Symbiosis and Transcendence abilities rather than a single option chosen at level 1 would be nice to have. To be clearer, 15-26 points to spend would be a non-starter for me, but 1-4? I could see that.
Which is why I would want a bit more delineation. Instead of Focus competing with speech, Speech would compete with, idk, Cat fall, and the focus point would compete with Magical Evolution.
I do rather like the system. If the base Eidolon doesn't get some sort of system along those lines, I would at least enjoy seeing it become a synthesis to choose, so that those that do like more modularity can have it. At a bit of a power cost, of course.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speech vs cat fall feels kinda bad too.
I like modularity, but imo if they do add some to the class it really needs to emphasize expanding upon a chassis that's already functional, rather than buying necessary things.
That's just a basic tenant of PF2's design anyways. A Fighter who just strikes things can hit reliably for good damage, but hey maybe picking up some of these feats will add onto how you can do it and make your character better overall, without necessarily just being raw bonuses.
Same approach needs to be taken with the Summoner, adding options. Options are what the class needs anyways, more meat to its attack routine and combat capabilities.
Speech vs cat fall feels kinda bad too.
It was just the first skill related trick I could think of, lol.
I like modularity, but imo if they do add some to the class it really needs to emphasize expanding upon a chassis that's already functional, rather than buying necessary things.
More or less agreed. I like how attacks are set up on the Eidolon, where you can have basically anything there. Codify that a little more, and expand the thinking to other aspects of the Eidolon, and I'd be happy.
|
I gotta say that I (and Rysky, I would assume based on her prior posts) really hate the familiar system and see it as a mistake that should not be replicated with the eidolon. It is anti-fun for "bantering with my owl" to compete with "get a free focus point every day".Easy enough to prevent that in a point system. As Temperans pointed out, we already have the basic framework with familiars where you get Familiar and Master abilities. The Eidolon abilities could be similarly tiered. Say you get 1 movement, 1 defense, 1 sensory, 1 attack evolution, with the base form locking at least 2 at 1st level (the number of options you get for each category and the options you get to choose from can be upgraded with feats, again just like with familiars).
I don't have a huge problem with the system as presented myself. I don't like it, but it doesn't quite kill the class for me. And while I also don't want to see the point system return fully, but more modularity and a (small, still limited by your base type) menu of options available on the Symbiosis and Transcendence abilities rather than a single option chosen at level 1 would be nice to have. To be clearer, 15-26 points to spend would be a non-starter for me, but 1-4? I could see that.
Yeah, I'm not really a fan of all the fun options having to compete with "Get extra Focus pew pew".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that a lot of the more 'out there' ideas that people are offering (including the evolution points ideas and the no-spells iedas) are going to run up against the fact that the Summoner is going to be printed in a book called Secrets of Magic, where it and the Magus are going to serve as the precedent for whatever '9th level spellcasting' ends up looking like.
They've told us it's going to be a spellcaster with spell slots; that's non negotiable. You can argue for Class Archetypes which explore more outlandish ideas, sure, but the core of the class will include spellcasting.
At the same time, they're both martial classes. 5/13 proficiencies, proper AC, proper saves.
The distinction between the two and which way the Summoner plays should primarily depend on your feat selection and your tactical decisions in combat.
If you pick mostly evolution feats, you lean more martial, and we should be focused on ensuring that the baseline for that is sufficient. 18 STR, enough HP, interesting and useful combat evolutions.
If you pick mostly summoning feats, you're leaning a bit more into casting, and we should ensure that the resources to enable that are sufficient.
The Synthesis line should be the 'gish' option, where they get the martial prowess (which should be numerically in line with the Magus's 18 STR and medium armour), and they gain the ability to use some magic along the way.
They've told us it's going to be a spellcaster with spell slots; that's non negotiable.
I don't know that that's true. Taking resonance out of the game at the last minute was more work than switching summoner or magus to focus spells IMO. It might be unlikely, but impossible? I think with enough results in the survey, it could happen. [I wouldn't bet money on it though]