|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They've told us it's going to be a spellcaster with spell slots; that's non negotiable.
Er...Mark Seifter specifically discussed, in this thread, removing Summoner's spell slots in favor of an X times per day of max level Summon spells ala Divine Font. He discussed this as a real possibility.
So no, this is pretty clearly not true. Seeing if the 4 slot/9 level casters work was clearly one goal of this playtest, but it's not obligatory on the final Class.
| 3 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.
With all due respect, this is just silly. Nothing is off the table until the book is sent to the printers.
I know emotions have run high, but that's no excuse to characterize options that the developers themselves have proposed, or are variations of existing systems already in PF2 as "out there." You may not like them or favor them, and that's fine, please report as appropriate on the surveys, but the rest of us get our opinions as well.
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.
Okay, that was overly presumptive of me, and I apologise for that.
I think it's highly probable that the Magus and Summoner are going to use the same "martial with 9th level casting" chassis, which will also serve as an important precedent for future classes and class archetypes.
I believe that the basic chassis of a fully functioning martial character with some actual slotted spellcasting on the top is not only the probable result of the class, but one of the best, given that it provides a lot of flexibility and a fair amount of power which can be adapted to the wants of the player with ease. Buffing, blasting summoning, controlling... spell slots enable the Summoner to dabble in whatever specialization as they wish before further degrees of specialization are dictated through subclasses.
It's a minor benefit, but the presence of high level spell-slotted casting enables future development and possibilities for the class whenever new spells are printed, not just whenever they specifically receive new feats/pathways/eidolon types/etc.
The loss of spellcasting on what are meant to be hybrid caster/martial classes would be significant, and I maintain that a 'font' for summoning remains largely unnecessary when the same feature could be provided through focus spells, which also automatically scale and provide multiple uses through the day.
They've told us it's going to be a spellcaster with spell slots; that's non negotiable.Er...Mark Seifter specifically discussed, in this thread, removing Summoner's spell slots in favor of an X times per day of max level Summon spells ala Divine Font. He discussed this as a real possibility.
So no, this is pretty clearly not true. Seeing if the 4 slot/9 level casters work was clearly one goal of this playtest, but it's not obligatory on the final Class.
While he did say it was possible, I didn't take that to mean it was probable unless such as a change was more or less embraced universally by the testing playerbase.
Which... hasn't really happened.
I personally think that having matching spellcasting to my Eidolon ended up being one of the best parts of the session I've gotten so far.
While it is on the table, I'm not betting money on it.
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]
I don’t know that resonance is a great example, considering even the devs said they expected it to get push back, I would have wagered that they had at least more in line for removing it than the case of Summoner/Magus.
The alchemist hit a rough spot due to that and charisma is less core, but overall it lifted out a lot easier than spells would. They’d have to outright create a lot more abilities just to fill the void in this case.
The loss of spellcasting on what are meant to be hybrid caster/martial classes would be significant, and I maintain that a 'font' for summoning remains largely unnecessary when the same feature could be provided through focus spells, which also automatically scale and provide multiple uses through the day.
I think the problem with using a focus spell for summoning is that would preclude you from using an Eidolon buff focus until level 14 or so after your first combat.
It still could be accomplished, but that’s not quite that easy. Making it a font would at least provide a different resource that does not compete with your focus spells.
Not that any of this is likely, but I can at least see the logic of going the font route.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem with using a focus spell for summoning is that would preclude you from using an Eidolon buff focus until level 14 or so after your first combat.
It still could be accomplished, but that’s not quite that easy. Making it a font would at least provide a different resource that does not compete with your focus spells.
Not that any of this is likely, but I can at least see the logic of going the font route.
Remember that creating situations where players must choose between two exclusive benefits are generally treated as a positive thing in game design - unless there's some expectation both will exist at the same time.
Theres a good design reason to make benefits share a resource pool in many cases.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would hope that if we do get a Summoning Font, it would be an opt-in thing via a subclass selection.
The kind of summoner I'm interested in playing would primarily be focused on the eidolon evolutions and some teamwork-style feats, and given how underwhelming summons are most of the time, I'd rather have the option to, well, not have them as an option.
Part of the reason why I'd really like to see summoning via a focus spell is not just for the summoner, but also as a reasonably potent and flexible tool that other classes could dip for if they want to use summoning.
Oooh, I really DON'T want any other classes to get a focus version of summoning spells. That seems a bit too strong to me for a regular class. Edit: Probably because my original imagining of a focus spell summoning, I thought it would replace the signature spell feature, and summoners just wouldn't get that otherwise (we already knew summoners were going to be spont at the time, but this 4 slot set up was not on my bingo card).
But I could be wrong. Would you mind going into more detail on how it would work at a table? Maybe if I imagine it in play I'll see your point better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote in another topics, but a Focus spell for summoning would be problematic because of monsters with innate spells, basically giving you infinite spell slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote in another topics, but a Focus spell for summoning would be problematic because of monsters with innate spells, basically giving you infinite spell slots.
That is a fair reason to not have it; I hadn't considered that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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]I don’t know that resonance is a great example, considering even the devs said they expected it to get push back, I would have wagered that they had at least more in line for removing it than the case of Summoner/Magus.
The alchemist hit a rough spot due to that and charisma is less core, but overall it lifted out a lot easier than spells would. They’d have to outright create a lot more abilities just to fill the void in this case.
And they didn't expect push back on a radical new casting system after going to a lot of effort to standardize it? IMO, anything that departs from the norm should be expected to get push back as you'll never now how it will go over.
Paper, you're coming in hot. Krispy wasn't condescending, you're reading into it way too much. Game design is a huge part of decision making process and it's something that's going to come up.
Not reading into anything, really. Whether or not they intended to be condescending (and I rather doubt they did, most people don't), that was the effect when I know nothing about what they think after they're done typing. I can't even know if they think having that trade off is a good thing in their opinion, just that some vague other/s consider it to be good game design.
But, yes, you're correct, so I apologize to everyone for letting my annoyance get away from me. And in my last post I did exactly what I accused them of, to add to my own annoyance.
And they didn't expect push back on a radical new casting system after going to a lot of effort to standardize it? IMO, anything that departs from the norm should be expected to get push back as you'll never now how it will go over.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]I don’t know that resonance is a great example, considering even the devs said they expected it to get push back, I would have wagered that they had at least more in line for removing it than the case of Summoner/Magus.
The alchemist hit a rough spot due to that and charisma is less core, but overall it lifted out a lot easier than spells would. They’d have to outright create a lot more abilities just to fill the void in this case.
You have a point, but I think this might be a "baby and bathwater" scenario.
Do I see them having something they'd be comfortable swapping to in lou of the current Spell Progression? Absolutely.
But I'm pretty doubtful that it'll be full focus casting to resolve that issue. If only for the fact that Magus basically needs Cantrips.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, i'm very sure most of your issues would be eased were there subclasses for Summoner.
A summoner's font for a subclass option dedicated to improving your Summoner at the expense of your Eidolon sounds perfectly reasonable.
(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
And they didn't expect push back on a radical new casting system after going to a lot of effort to standardize it? IMO, anything that departs from the norm should be expected to get push back as you'll never now how it will go over.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]I don’t know that resonance is a great example, considering even the devs said they expected it to get push back, I would have wagered that they had at least more in line for removing it than the case of Summoner/Magus.
The alchemist hit a rough spot due to that and charisma is less core, but overall it lifted out a lot easier than spells would. They’d have to outright create a lot more abilities just to fill the void in this case.
You have a point, but I think this might be a "baby and bathwater" scenario.
Do I see them having something they'd be comfortable swapping to in lou of the current Spell Progression? Absolutely.
But I'm pretty doubtful that it'll be full focus casting to resolve that issue. If only for the fact that Magus basically needs Cantrips.
Oh, I'm not talking about any specific change, just that anything could get push back.
On full focus casting, you could retain cantrips without having spell slots so a magus could go full focus in replacing it's slots and still have cantrips.
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.
Here's a question: if synthesist was an archetype in the past, why are people pushing for it to be a base class option now? Wouldn't it be more prudent to add it as a class archetype, either in this book or in a future one?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question: if synthesist was an archetype in the past, why are people pushing for it to be a base class option now? Wouldn't it be more prudent to add it as a class archetype, either in this book or in a future one?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.
Its come up because its represented by a feat in the playtest - which seems to indicate developer interest in the concept at this point, as opposed to down the road.
Its come up because its represented by a feat in the playtest - which seems to indicate developer interest in the concept at this point, as opposed to down the road.
Sure, but fans of sythesism seem unhappy with how it was presented. It being a class feat that any summoner can take puts limits over how strong it can be. Making it a class archetype brings a higher level of influence over base class features, like how manifesting the eidolon works. I think it's better to wait until it can be done right instead of rushing it out so players can have it asap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also agree Snes. If something does not fit in the book its better for it to be cut and added in later when it can be made properly.
I would not be against Synth being cut from Secrets of Magic in order to be done right in the next book; i think my only real issue is that it's kinda hard to balance Synth if you don't take into account how the finalized version of the class will look like. So they'd always have to be thinking about Synth.
In 1e, Summoner was released in the Advanced Player's Guide in August 2010.
About 8 months later, came Ultimate Magic which introduced the Synthesist archetype.
Synth is something that's very easy to make mediocre, and nobody wants to see that.
I care more about Synthesist being done right than i do about getting it as soon as possible.
Also agree Snes. If something does not fit in the book its better for it to be cut and added in later when it can be made properly.
I would not be against Synth being cut from Secrets of Magic in order to be done right in the next book; i think my only real issue is that it's kinda hard to balance Synth if you don't take into account how the finalized version of the class will look like. So they'd always have to be thinking about Synth.
In 1e, Summoner was released in the Advanced Player's Guide in August 2010.
About 8 months later, came Ultimate Magic which introduced the Synthesist archetype.Synth is something that's very easy to make mediocre, and nobody wants to see that.
I care more about Synthesist being done right than i do about getting it as soon as possible.
A proper synth would be fun to mcd with. Go into martial artist or monk, and take a few eidolon centric feats. Good fun.
I'd just be happy to see a Synthesist/Summoner that isn't broken to pieces.
Synthesist I don't even think was legal for PFS but maybe I'm misremembering.
The concept itself is a prevalent enough on in pop culture that I think it's perfectly fine to bake into the Class, but the trick is, then it can't really be a Feat if you want it super well done.
What it really needs is a Class Path, but the Eidolon is effectively the Class Path for the Summoner.
And I sort of like that but what about something like this:
Void Caller
Tradition: Occult
Eidolon Bases: Devoted Phantom, Abberative Entity
You gain the Focus Spell "Call from the Void" (which does something)
Synthesist
Tradition: Arcane
Eidolon Bases: Dragon, Golem
You gain the Focus Spell "Synthesize" (synthesis aspect)
____________
And then you have the scaling benefits available to the Class Path be relevant to the Path instead of the Eidolon itself.
Idk just a thought exercise. To be honets, I have a lot less skin in the game for Summoner. Anything playable I'll take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Synthesist I don't even think was legal for PFS but maybe I'm misremembering.
I feel like people really have to stop using PFS as a metric for what is and isn't broken; there was a lot of broken stuff PFS allowed and a lot of stuff that was more mundane that was not allowed.
Synthesist was on the lower end of that.
Synthesist I don't even think was legal for PFS but maybe I'm misremembering.I feel like people really have to stop using PFS as a metric for what is and isn't broken; there was a lot of broken stuff PFS allowed and a lot of stuff that was more mundane that was not allowed.
Synthesist was on the lower end of that.
I mean, as a person that GM'd on the release of the Synthesist unexpecting of what I was about to endure, we'll have to agree to disagree.
The first like 8 levels of that Class are just outright insane. That campaign didn't get past 6/7 I think, and my friend basically carried most combats.
Now that's not unusual for him to be the power gamer, and ultimately, he actually retired it because it became "no fun" to play it (we were in a campaign where we swapped out Characters a lot). It was like watching Icarus fly into the sun, he defeated himself because his AC was absolutely impossible to hit without me throwing hugely above level enemies. Meanwhile my un-optimizer at the other end of the table gets hit with one tentacle and is unconscious...
Anyways, it's probably personal bias, and I agree there's probably a bunch of stuff PFS allowed/didn't allow that was trivial or weirdly in/out by some people's perspectives.
But in my personal perspective, I'm still salty and its been like a decade at this point. Not only was it unbalanced, it was so unbalanced my power gamer was sad it was that easy to be weirdly untouchable and moved on to a new challenge. The character concept was honestly not bad either.
Still was a fun time though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS was wrong on the balance of a lot of things but the Synthesist Summoner definitely wasn't one of them. For one, it was attached to the base Summoner, which meant you got the broken "9th level caster posing as a 6th level" spell list as well as all of the pouncing natural attack abuse the normal eidolon got. The only real argument against it being OP was that getting one creature with perfect stats was still not as strong as playing two creatures and getting two turns every round.
I guarantee you that the legacy of the PF1 Synthesist is the reason why the PF2 feat restricts you from casting at all.
Synthesist I don't even think was legal for PFS but maybe I'm misremembering.I feel like people really have to stop using PFS as a metric for what is and isn't broken; there was a lot of broken stuff PFS allowed and a lot of stuff that was more mundane that was not allowed.
Synthesist was on the lower end of that.
You mean the one archetype that was regularly used as the poster child for 'broken abilities'? Synthesist did have some checks and balances but most were easily overcome allowing you to completely ignore (or mostly within reason) ignore your physical stats. It'd probably play very differently in PF2 but PF1 Synthesist was definitely not 'on the lower end of mundane.' I mean powerful archetype on an already powerful class (say what you will about PFS, but the summoner was the only base class to get banned period in exchange for the unchained version).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the one archetype that was regularly used as the poster child for 'broken abilities'? Synthesist did have some checks and balances but most were easily overcome allowing you to completely ignore (or mostly within reason) ignore your physical stats. It'd probably play very differently in PF2 but PF1 Synthesist was definitely not 'on the lower end of mundane.' I mean powerful archetype on an already powerful class (say what you will about PFS, but the summoner was the only base class to get banned period in exchange for the unchained version).
Synthesist was not the poster child of broken, that went to Arcanist.
Synthesist was powerful, i'm not saying it wasn't.
The majority of Synthesist Summoner's power came from what Summoner had, not the Synthesist archetype itself.
The regular playstyle of a Synthesist was nowhere near the levels of what almost literally any other full 9th-level spellcaster could do in 1e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you got the broken "9th level caster posing as a 6th level" spell list as well as all of the pouncing natural attack abuse the normal eidolon got. The only real argument against it being OP was that getting one creature with perfect stats was still not as strong as playing two creatures and getting two turns every round.
I guarantee you that the legacy of the PF1 Synthesist is the reason why the PF2 feat restricts you from casting at all.
Yeah the Summoner spell list was insane, Haste at 2nd level spells? Wild.
Natural attacks were a problem but again, the playstyle absolutely wasn't anywhere near the level of what any full spellcaster could do and yet they were well-accepted.
You can also get spellcasting on your Synth in 2e, if you didn't know; but i am glad it's more restricted to magical evolutions. I think that's better balance.
I am very willing as a Synth player to compromise on a lot of what 1e Synth had:
Spellcasting needing an evolution? Sure, i think that's fair; spellcasting wasn't something inherently basic to be able to use.
No access to your own mental stats? No problem, Eidolon gets boosts of it's own anyways; it barely would make a difference to the playstyle or effectiveness.
I think a lot of us just want to retain that same spirit and playstyle where we get to feel like a powerful monster; nobody wants to simply be equal to the Wildshape druid that gets full 10th-level spellcasting and gets to be a solid martial.
You give up a lot of shenanigans a 10th-level spellcaster could do in order to go Synth, and it'd be good to see that sacrifice or exchange of power go well-rewarded.
Arcanist is strong, but after errata, they're pretty MAD and no more worse than most other 9th level casters, personally. Never really saw it banned much myself either.
Synthesist, however, only really cared about 3 stats on the base character and three stats on the eidolon. Personally that was pretty powerful by itself.
Synthesist was not the poster child of broken, that went to Arcanist.Synthesist was powerful, i'm not saying it wasn't.
The majority of Synthesist Summoner's power came from what Summoner had, not the Synthesist archetype itself.
I agree on both these points, but what a Summoner usually IME, if they are not a Synthesis is that is, helps the team with Haste, Slow, Conjuration battle field Control, as well as kick ass with the Eidolon.
The party feels like they are accentuated, most of the time at least.
Synthesist basically told the other 4 classes their roles were irrelevant because they got this.
So while 1 was broken, the latter felt worse.
______________________________
On the arcanist bit:
Dimensional Slide (next to Emergency Force Sphere and Summoner as a whole and Antagonize un-errata'd) is maybe one of, if not the most, busted mechanic to me personally.
But it's still a no contest, Summoner was the only class to straight up get nerfed globally and for good reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's still a no contest, Summoner was the only class to straight up get nerfed globally and for good reason.
I wouldn't say it got nerfed globally, Unchained Summoner took a hit to it's spell list (rightfully so) and it gained subtypes instead of only blank evolutions (you still invested evolution points to get evolutions)
A lot of these subtypes were so front-loaded, you actually had more evolutions and more powerful Eidolons than Chained Summoner because you were given basically more evolutions than a Chained Summoner could have.Pounce was a really good evolution to pickup but if that were ported straight to 2e, i can't imagine it'd look like anything else but something like Monk's Flying Kick or Barb's Sudden Charge.
Mobility+Attack.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've played with like 3 different Arcanists in 1e and all of them outshined anything below Tier 1, it was insane to me.
I love Arcanist casting but yeah, that's a real Tier 1 class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference with the Arcanist is that banning it meant it was kinda hard to justify not banning the Wizard, which was just as overpowered for many of the same reasons. Summoner was pretty distinct in the way it made the rest of the table feel like they don't matter so they could be shoved out as an exception.