| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean yeah. Nothing was as powerful as a Wizard. But banning Wizards would have gotten a hell of a lot more people mad than banning Summoners did. It helped that a Wizard could be built to be more discreet in its OP-ness; an enabler was still a tier 1 character but you could trick the martials into thinking they were doing the work rather than being glorified animal companions.
Yeah I'm still bitter about PF1 full casters
Contributor
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I somehow neglected to actually post in this thread.
Before I go into likes and dislikes, I want to say I love that Mark is reading through this and taking so much to heart.
In 1e, I loved all the weird things you could do with Summoner. The DIY, build-a-bear set up was perfect for making the perfect character to go with a concept. When 2e came out and every character was like that in a way, I was over the moon.
I like that 2e has pulled in the reigns quite a bit in general. Summoner, obviously, would be hit with the nerf bat pretty hard. Not without reason. 1e Summoner was broken and we all know it.
Folding evolutions into feats actually works great for me. It's a built-in way of balancing the character between Summoner and Eidolon; you only have so many feats, so you only have so much to pump up you and your summonbuddy. It naturally leads to good diversity in builds as far as focus goes. Evolutions would need to be stronger or at least scale more.
That said, Eidolons do feel pretty bland. I know there will be plenty more evolution feats, but beyond that we need some more choice at level 1. Your "breed" of eidolon is nice, but I'd like to be able to make two Beasts be notably different without waiting until level 4. If the attack options expand, I think that'd be huge. Something like a list of weapon traits and getting to choose two attacks between a d8 Strike, a d6 with one ability, or a d4 with two. Unarmed Evolution is amazing for this, and I'd love to see more feats early on that offer customization like this by adding more weapon traits to the list (or increasing damage dice in the case of size increase maybe). I think an ability (NOT a feat) at a low-ish level that lets you pick a movement or sense upgrade would be super helpful and flavorful.
I also think each form needs a special action or two. Beast and Dragon are infinitely more interesting in combat if only because they can do more than simple Strikes. Alignment damage and a reaction are nice, but a beastial charge and a draconic frenzy are so much more fun in combat. Unique abilities for every form might be a tall order, but a small pool of them which for forms have options could work. A "Power Attack" ability could work for Beast or Dragon. The "Sudden Charge" thing could be for Beast or Phantom. Sort of like each deity having a selection from the pool of domains. Again, more customization.
Right now, fun in combat is something that the class needs more of. I have full confidence that any class lead by Mark will have its numbers shake out fine, so spicing it up with weird abilities shouldn't make it overpowered like its predecessor.
A major culprit here is the spell casting. I'm glad this 'window casting' got playtested because personally I hate it as is. I'm all for Summoner (and Magus) getting reduced spellcasting for balance, but I have never yearned for level 1 spell slots so much. I think 2/level would still be a big reduction from other spellcasters while having enough to have functional backup/utility/emergency spells.
I really like the idea floating around the forums of the Summoner "paths" being split up among different playstyles. Synthesis/Master Summoner/Eidolon Caller would be such a great way to express everything great about the class without letting someone DO everything at once. Kind of like how Alchemist has Research Field as a focus but you can dip into others. I would love to see a Summoner that doesn't get more a Familiar than an Eidolon and a Summoning Font with a bunch of feats to add effects to summon spells like Ostentatious Arrival. Or one that doesn't conjure things at all but has their otherworldly companion that they can boost up in crazy ways with tons of evolutions.
In the end, I'm excited to see Summoner come back. I hope the final produce is as flavorful and versatile as the original with a better restraint on power level. And that it has more than 4 spells per day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also agree that eidolon evolutions being feats works really well. No disrespect to the many posters with ideas of having an evolution pool to choose from, but I personally feel that having evolutions being feats brings the class more in line with other classes. If I was playing a martial class and another player was playing a summoner that had casting, eidolon evolutions, aaaaand class feats, I might feel a little lame in comparison.
I also saw someone in this thread post a suggestion I really liked (I'm sorry this thread is crazy long and I don't remember where I saw it). I think it would be cool to have a feat that lets your eidolon get an ability from another eidolon, like a cross blooded type of deal. Having a beast eidolon get a breath attack, an angel get a charge, etc. Would be cool.
Something else I see as a common complaint (and a complaint from one of my players in our character creation session, play session hasn't happened yet) is that eidolons don't feel unique at level 1 - I do think that summoners should get a level 1 class feat and have a few summoner feats that give evolutions. Only having a vision feat is a little boring. Cross blooded would be awesome here but whatever is here should be cool. Would be a lot better to front load the class at least a little to make each eidolon unique and exciting right off the bat.
I also saw someone in this thread post a suggestion I really liked (I'm sorry this thread is crazy long and I don't remember where I saw it). I think it would be cool to have a feat that lets your eidolon get an ability from another eidolon, like a cross blooded type of deal. Having a beast eidolon get a breath attack, an angel get a charge, etc. Would be cool.
I didn't come up with this, but I did name it. Using the Alchemists' feat that enables them to copy another subclass' perpetual evolutions as the baseline, Esoteric Evolution would come online at 8th level, adn Greater Esoteric Evolution would come online at 14.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having now playtested the Summoner in multiple chapters of Extinction Curse directly next to other classes that took the beastmaster archetype or AC options I am struggling to see the point of the summoner.
Things I like:
Conceptually I like the idea of Eidolon chassis, in practice they mean almost nothing as far as the playtest goes. Right now balance between chassis is poor with dragon being the winner with Beast a close second. The other two really just don't bring enough to the table and also have more limited spell lists.
Things I dislike:
Action economy. It sucks, my summoner operates as a 1 action buff bot in every combat. Its not efficient to cast one of the limited spells I have unless I can do it the round before combat begins as a buff. Otherwise the limitations on Act Together not being able to be nested means that for my summoner to cast my Eidolon is reduced to 1 action, this made it significantly less impactful than just druid + AC.
Eidolons: Eidolons don't bring enough to the table. They aren't as good as a martial, they share a health pool with the summoner so they can't really tank. Their combat presence compared to martial classes on the battlefield is ultimately low as they lack combat feat support that make other martials effective. Even a fighter with MC Sorc has more combat and caster options and can use them more effectively.
Customisation: I know its a play test but the options/evolutions available to eidolon felt more like fixes to try to make them be almost as good as baseline options for normal characters. The mount option being behind a feat at level 6 was also disappointing... doesn't add much and is not useable much of the time.
Spellcasting: not that I had enough actions in combat or enough spells slots out of combat to make this even worth thinking to the point of why even have spells.
Two bodies 1 health pool: I am yet to be sold this is a benefit. I get having some kind of thematic link. I get that its good for balance but the way it is set up I never got a good chance to really use my summoner to do anything other than boost the eidolon else I am losing effectiveness.
Compared to the Druid with AC, Bard with Beastmaster and Fighter with MC sorc I didn't feel like I contributed as much. The bard buffed better while still putting a meatshield that could flank in combat or cast a spell. The Fighter was able to provide a better martial frontline presence, do more damage and control while still being able to cast spells for utility/heals (self or in melee range even!). The Druid was a powerhouse both in spell damage, clutch heals and having an animal companion blocking/flanking on the front line. All of them felt they were able to use their action economy better.
Takeaway was the Eidolon does more damage than an animal companion and is a little more survivable but was hampered by not bringing anyway near as much as a martial does. The summoner package didn't bring as much as a martial with MC spellcasting or a spellcaster with an AC does. Action system was unnecessarily hampering and clunky. A simple you both start with 1 action and have 2 additional actions that can be allocated between the summoner and eidolon is easier and less clunky while allowing the summoner to occasionally spell cast or even cast summon monster without the Eidolon being reduced to not doing anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now balance between chassis is poor with dragon being the winner with Beast a close second. The other two really just don't bring enough to the table and also have more limited spell lists.
While my experiences differ from yours on several points, I've covered most of those elsewhere. For the quoted portion though, I don't know that I'd agree at all on the Angel Eidolon.
For one thing, only the Divine Spell List has both Heroism and Heal. That means for Champion type survival Eidolons, they're pretty well independent and hard to match... unless you've got a Bard in your party, at which point Primal probably does have an advantage.
For another thing, while the 7th level ability is only ok and the 17th for Angels comes way too late, the 1st level ability is actually pretty spectacular. When it comes to triggering weaknesses, only the first point of a damage type is really needed anyways and this means that when considering property runes an Angel Eidolon essentially has one more than anyone else. That's no small thing, and while Good damage is online its pretty frightening.
One thing I'm wondering based on peoples feedback is if Summoner's are going to be like Clerics, where the play experience for them is reliant on whether they find a niche in a party. I've seen negative Cleric experiences tied to parties that don't really need a healer, due to sufficient tanking or other reasons. I had a really good time with the session I ran my Summoner in, because I had a clear niche in my party and filled it very well (and that niche was not "replacing a Martial damage dealer").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also saw someone in this thread post a suggestion I really liked (I'm sorry this thread is crazy long and I don't remember where I saw it). I think it would be cool to have a feat that lets your eidolon get an ability from another eidolon, like a cross blooded type of deal. Having a beast eidolon get a breath attack, an angel get a charge, etc. Would be cool.I didn't come up with this, but I did name it. Using the Alchemists' feat that enables them to copy another subclass' perpetual evolutions as the baseline, Esoteric Evolution would come online at 8th level, adn Greater Esoteric Evolution would come online at 14.
I also gave an example of this with the "Templates" allowing beasts to pick up a breath weapon (this person's specific example mentioned that) at 7/15, where Templates lets you grab the 1st level ability of the other Eidolons, and then at 15 you can grab the second iteration of the ability if you grabbed the 1st one at 7th.
Seems to be a pretty commonly shared idea, and one worth doing IMO (though Feats as you've suggested is far more likely implementation).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things I dislike:
Action economy. It sucks, my summoner operates as a 1 action buff bot in every combat. Its not efficient to cast one of the limited spells I have unless I can do it the round before combat begins as a buff. Otherwise the limitations on Act Together not being able to be nested means that for my summoner to cast my Eidolon is reduced to 1 action, this made it significantly less impactful than just druid + AC.
I agree on this, like many others. Playing a summoner shouldn't fall into a standard routine that you repeat every round if you want the eidolon to meaningfully contribute.
If enough people report this, a solution will be found - some are already on the developers' table.Eidolons: Eidolons don't bring enough to the table. They aren't as good as a martial, they share a health pool with the summoner so they can't really tank. Their combat presence compared to martial classes on the battlefield is ultimately low as they lack combat feat support that make other martials effective. Even a fighter with MC Sorc has more combat and caster options and can use them more effectively.
Not agreed. An eidolon shouldn't be as good as a martial, as you have an extra action and another body who can cast spells. And they don't need a separate health pool to tank: every other tanking class takes those hits in the face too. You, as the Summoner, have enough HP and AC (except at some levels, wierdly) to tank quite well with your eidolon body.
The lack of combat feats is a valid criticism, and I hope that there will be more feats available to do some unique things that improve the eidolon's battlefield presence in both effectiveness and variety.Customisation: I know its a play test but the options/evolutions available to eidolon felt more like fixes to try to make them be almost as good as baseline options for normal characters. The mount option being behind a feat at level 6 was also disappointing... doesn't add much and is not useable much of the time.
The size-up feats are a bit strange, but the other evolutions aren't math fixers. The ones that make your attacks better are about giving traits (or range); only Resilient Evolution and the one giving speed could be considered something that raises the baseline.
The others are there to give more options: better senses, a spellcasting line, other forms of movement, amphibiousness, bigger size.Spellcasting: not that I had enough actions in combat or enough spells slots out of combat to make this even worth thinking to the point of why even have spells.
I don't understand. Casting a max level spell is well worth the cost of not attacking with your eidolon for one round, of more likely attacking without the damage boost.
The other casters do that all the time. You can do it less often, compensating with generally stronger attacks the rest of the time.Two bodies 1 health pool: I am yet to be sold this is a benefit. I get having some kind of thematic link. I get that its good for balance but the way it is set up I never got a good chance to really use my summoner to do anything other than boost the eidolon else I am losing effectiveness.
Not liking the HP sharing is fine, but how is it linked with how you are using your summoner?
Maybe you mean that you don't like sharing actions.Compared to the Druid with AC, Bard with Beastmaster and Fighter with MC sorc I didn't feel like I contributed as much. The bard buffed better while still putting a meatshield that could flank in combat or cast a spell. The Fighter was able to provide a better martial frontline presence, do more damage and control while still being able to cast spells for utility/heals (self or in melee range even!). The Druid was a powerhouse both in spell damage, clutch heals and having an animal companion blocking/flanking on the front line. All of them felt they were able to use their action economy better.
Takeaway was the Eidolon does more damage than an animal companion and is a little more survivable but was hampered by not bringing anyway near as much as a martial does. The summoner package didn't bring as much as a martial with MC spellcasting or a spellcaster with an AC does. Action system was unnecessarily hampering and clunky. A simple you both start with 1 action and have 2 additional actions that can be allocated between the summoner and eidolon is easier and less clunky while allowing the summoner to occasionally spell cast or even cast summon monster without the Eidolon being reduced to not doing anything.
Nothing to say against your playing experience and the feeling you got from it.
I think the Summoner definitely needs something to have more freedom with its action economy; there are a ton of ideas scattered in a dozen threads about how to make it better.For sure, it won't get buffed to the point of having an eidolon that performs as good as a martial, together with full-level spellcasting options.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@megistone
Just one thing
It doesn't have full spell casting options
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@megistone
Just one thing
It doesn't have full spell casting options
Yep, if it did we wouldn't be debating on the four slots...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@megistone
Just one thing
It doesn't have full spell casting options
But it does have the parts of spellcasting you simply can't replicate through multiclassing - 2/3 to 1/2 the top level spell slots of a full caster.
Thats a strong feature that makes you WAY stronger as a secondary caster than anyonr who isn't a primary caster, and in a very significant number of scenarios , just as strong a caster as the full thing.
Its very powerful, and strong enough to play a caster at least part time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
play a caster at least part time.
Yeah, that's EXACTLY the point he made.
It doesn't have full spell casting options
So you both agree. Good to know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having 2 9th level spells and 2 8th level spells doesnt make you better than anyone.
It absolutely makes you a better caster than anyone who is limited to only multiclass spellcasting, who can literally have only a single 8th level spell slot and lower level spells, if i recall.
Because for the exact same investment, the summoner can have exactly the same spellcasting plus two additional 8th and 9th level spells.
Your statement here is objectively false. It relies on assuming that the Summoner isn't free to expend those same resources for the comparison, and ignores that if they make the exact same choices they come out significantly ahead on spellcasting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not false I am comparing the Summoner to other classes. Not the Summoner multiclasses with other classes.
If the Summoner needs to multiclass to be a good caster it has failed somewhere.
The post to which I was responded literally claimed that a summoner was inferior to a multiclassed spellcaster.
It is disingenuous to deny the Summoner access to the same options for the comparison.
You're comparing a multiclassed character - who has, in your comparison, spent half of their career class feats - to a summoner that has spent none.
The summoner should come out behind in that comparison.
Beyond that, its extremely debatable whether any number of lower level spell slots can possibly be as good as 4 higher level slots. Higher level slots are significantly more valuable, and lower level slots are seriously cheap via scrolls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the Summoner. A class that is supposed to be a caster is inferior to a multiclassed caster.
Why should the Summoner fall behind when they are supposed to be a caster?
Summoners only lack low level spell slots, which are cheap to duplicate or supplement through items or consumables like scrolls.
You don't fall behind anyone - you get the most valuable by far top level spell slots. Everything a multiclass caster gets relative to a summoner is a reasonable amount of virtual cash at the expense of half their feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any character can have access to low level spells via items or feats. Only the magus and summoner have access to high level spells on top of martial proficiencies.
Yes the Summoner. A class that is supposed to be a caster is inferior to a multiclassed caster.
Why should the Summoner fall behind when they are supposed to be a caster?
Summoners only lack low level spell slots, which are cheap to duplicate or supplement through items or consumables like scrolls.
You don't fall behind anyone - you get the most valuable by far top level spell slots. Everything a multiclass caster gets relative to a summoner is a reasonable amount of virtual cash at the expense of half their feats.
I think Krispy is right in that, this is a very fair trade for no investment on your part.
A 4-slots caster is strictly (and vastly) superior to a multiclasser until level 12, where it starts having less total slots (the 'full' multiclasser has 6). Anyway, I'd say that the first one is still ahead at least until level 16, when the difference starts being noticeable (10 slots for the multiclasser) and, if you value utility spells, you may say that they start to overcome the power of the Magus or Summoner top-level slots.
I don't like the fact that, from level 18 on, the 4-slots caster doesn't get anything, and that skews the result if you compare them to multiclassers at level 20. But until the very high levels, saying that a multiclasser has better casting is absurd.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two bodies 1 health pool: I am yet to be sold this is a benefit. I get having some kind of thematic link. I get that its good for balance but the way it is set up I never got a good chance to really use my summoner to do anything other than boost the eidolon else I am losing effectiveness.
While I don't have the time now (at work) to comment on the other pieces, of which I agree with some and not others, I will say on this one that I did see a real strategic use in my playtest.
It was less about what I could do with it aside from position, and more about what others were able to do because of it. I have now experienced 2 unique situations.
1) Cleric wanted to do a 3 action heal to get a group of us, but couldn't get the Eidolon without also getting the boss we were fighting. However, she was able to get the Summoner in the heal without getting the boss, and so it clearly helped matters very much in that instance.
2) There was a case where the Eidolon took damage and another player (again a cleric) was able to do Battle Medicine to heal me and my Eidolon without ever getting close to the frontlines of battle.
Personally I see the benefits and drawbacks to the shared HP and I love the unique playstyle it creates.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@megistone
Just one thing
It doesn't have full spell casting options
But it does have the parts of spellcasting you simply can't replicate through multiclassing - 2/3 to 1/2 the top level spell slots of a full caster.
Thats a strong feature that makes you WAY stronger as a secondary caster than anyonr who isn't a primary caster, and in a very significant number of scenarios , just as strong a caster as the full thing.
Its very powerful, and strong enough to play a caster at least part time.
yes, at the cost of all your utility spells and lower level slots. im not saying its not nothing, its just not as good as you are making it out to be unless you never go beyond 4 encounters per day or are trying to rely on equipment to shore up your weakness, wich doesnt really do anything since casters and multiclass casters can do the same thing, so its not a improvement relative to everyone else.
yes, part time, thats my point, and not enough reason to warrant there balance be done around the notion of them being a caster full time, wich they are not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any character can have access to low level spells via items or feats. Only the magus and summoner have access to high level spells on top of martial proficiencies.
of wich, you mean 3
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're comparing a multiclassed character - who has, in your comparison, spent half of their career class feats - to a summoner that has spent none.
The summoner should come out behind in that comparison.
I disagree. If a summoner bring less to the table than a fighter with MC into a caster than it is a problem and right now it does. The problem is the Summoner + Eidolon isn't comparing to a martial + MC Caster in either combat or spell casting. 2 bodies can be as much a liability as a benefit so its not really a good point. 2 chances to be hit with AoEs. 2 chances to be noticed, 2 bodies to be attacked, 2 chances to crit fail a skill. This is the downside to 2 chances for a skill check.
4 high level slots is ok its nice they can get what an MC caster has but it doesn't give you the breadth or range of options of an MC caster. An Eidolon starts with less than a martial so needs their class feats a heck of a lot more to improve the eidolon to try to play catch up - the summoner cannot as easily afford to spend 5 feats to MC into caster as a fighter, its pretty much forced to spend everything it can on evolution feats or feats to fix the clunky action economy. If Evolution feats were separate and in addition to class so the Summoner could afford MC caster feats I wouldn't have the issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're comparing a multiclassed character - who has, in your comparison, spent half of their career class feats - to a summoner that has spent none.
The summoner should come out behind in that comparison.
I disagree. If a summoner bring less to the table than a fighter with MC into a caster than it is a problem and right now it does. The problem is the Summoner + Eidolon isn't comparing to a martial + MC Caster in either combat or spell casting. 2 bodies can be as much a liability as a benefit so its not really a good point. 2 chances to be hit with AoEs. 2 chances to be noticed, 2 bodies to be attacked, 2 chances to crit fail a skill. This is the downside to 2 chances for a skill check.
4 high level slots is ok its nice they can get what an MC caster has but it doesn't give you the breadth or range of options of an MC caster. An Eidolon starts with less than a martial so needs their class feats a heck of a lot more to improve the eidolon to try to play catch up - the summoner cannot as easily afford to spend 5 feats to MC into caster as a fighter, its pretty much forced to spend everything it can on evolution feats or feats to fix the clunky action economy. If Evolution feats were separate and in addition to class so the Summoner could afford MC caster feats I wouldn't have the issue.
So, we are comparing a fighter with half their class feats to a summoner with none of theirs? What opportunities is the fighter giving up to become a better caster? Why is the summoner not taking things to become a better fighter or caster? It feels disingenuous to limit the summoner only its chassis in comparison to a class that spent feats on being better. I'm not saying the class could or could not use a boost, this is a bit of a false equivalent, personally.
|
“The Summoner spent their class feats on making themselves and their Eidolon better” isn’t a negative, since that’s what they’re there for.
A Fighter that gives up half or more of their class tests to gain a few spells will really fall behind in combat due to loss of their combat abilities. The spells help cover that lagging, of course, but that would be very fight dependent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For another thing, while the 7th level ability is only ok and the 17th for Angels comes way too late, the 1st level ability is actually pretty spectacular. When it comes to triggering weaknesses, only the first point of a damage type is really needed anyways and this means that when considering property runes an Angel Eidolon essentially has one more than anyone else. That's no small thing, and while Good damage is online its pretty frightening.
One thing I'm wondering based on peoples feedback is if Summoner's are going to be like Clerics, where the play experience for them is reliant on whether they find a niche in a party. I've seen negative Cleric experiences tied to parties that don't really need a healer, due to sufficient tanking or other reasons. I had a really good time with the session I ran my Summoner in, because I had a clear niche in my party and filled it very well (and that niche was not "replacing a Martial damage dealer").
The problem with good damage is its not all that relevant a lot of the time, its way to campaign specific. If it did 1 point of good and counted as silver or something. Right now its too niche if that is how its being balanced against abilities that are on demand.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
“The Summoner spent their class feats on making themselves and their Eidolon better” isn’t a negative, since that’s what they’re there for.
A Fighter that gives up half or more of their class tests to gain a few spells will really fall behind in combat due to loss of their combat abilities. The spells help cover that lagging, of course, but that would be very fight dependent.
My experience says otherwise. Fighters still hit as hard/accurately, still take damage as well (based on weapon choice). Their action economy fixes are easily accessible. Fighters still function well as fighters with minimal class feats. I cannot say the same about play test summoner. Not to mention the playtest summoner as written cannot effectively use a lot of class MC archetypes as the eidolon cannot benefit from combat abilities/feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, we are comparing a fighter with half their class feats to a summoner with none of theirs? What opportunities is the fighter giving up to become a better caster? Why is the summoner not taking things to become a better fighter or caster? It feels disingenuous to limit the summoner only its chassis in comparison to a class that spent feats on being better. I'm not saying the class could or could not use a boost, this is a bit of a false equivalent, personally.
I am saying that a fighter that gives up half its class feats for MC caster performs as a better caster and as a better martial than a summoner does in either of those 2 roles which is fair. Its not a false equivalence if I can build a concept that outperforms a summoner easily. An Eidolon cannot compete with a martial, a summoner cannot compete with a caster and the Summoner + Eidolon cannot compete with a fighter with MC caster as either a martial or a caster. A summoner with MC caster comes out ahead as a caster over a fighter/MC caster but loses way more martial ability than the martial does to do so while being stuck with a clunky action economy.
The playtest I did was specifically to test how the summoner performed against class combinations that were built to be similar (gish or caster + pet) and it fell behind in all cases and that is a problem. Not disengenious to compare it to characters that are built to cover similar concepts at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with this is that none of the feats improve the power of the Eidolon. All they do is increase the versatility of the Eidolon. Like.. I can get aquatic traits, climbing, faster Eidolon, etc. Nothing that really improves -power-Just spitballing here but as it’s been discussed, under the assumption there are 3-4 different playstyles such as Paladin, Redeemer or Liberator for the Champion might it be wise to take a leaf out of the Rangers book?
I don’t know the playstyles but throwing spaghetti on the wall would having something similar to flurry for the Eidolon Caller make sense where, because both you and your Eidolon are expect to contribute DPR via your magical might (cantrips and spells) and the Eidolons damage in melee you’d be penalized less? Perhaps?
OTOH do Synthesists want one big hit? Maybe it shouldn’t be tied to what playstyle you want? Maybe the synthesist also favors multiple attacks per round as being the monster..
I’m not sure exactly how it works out, but I wonder if there’s anything to learn from the ranger about picking a certain way of approaching and having that remain for the duration of your career... the 3 Hunter’s Edge effects, or Paladin/Redeemer/Liberator thing.
Also for the guy who wants the master blaster playstyle maybe the evolutions for the Eidolon aren’t locked specifically to Synthesist. Maybe you just only pick feats that improve your Eidolon exclusively, to buff only your Eidolons combat capabilities much like how I imagine a Synthesis user would whereas an Eidolon Caller May go for 50/50 and a Master Summoner might lean into only feats that improve the summoner and the Eidolon is completely left alone.
Class feats in general do not increase Power significantly above baseline. Thats now how 2E works.
So, we are comparing a fighter with half their class feats to a summoner with none of theirs? What opportunities is the fighter giving up to become a better caster? Why is the summoner not taking things to become a better fighter or caster? It feels disingenuous to limit the summoner only its chassis in comparison to a class that spent feats on being better. I'm not saying the class could or could not use a boost, this is a bit of a false equivalent, personally.I am saying that a fighter that gives up half its class feats for MC caster performs as a better caster and as a better martial than a summoner does in either of those 2 roles which is fair. Its not a false equivalence if I can build a concept that outperforms a summoner easily. An Eidolon cannot compete with a martial, a summoner cannot compete with a caster and the Summoner + Eidolon cannot compete with a fighter with MC caster as either a martial or a caster. A summoner with MC caster comes out ahead as a caster over a fighter/MC caster but loses way more martial ability than the martial does to do so while being stuck with a clunky action economy.
The playtest I did was specifically to test how the summoner performed against class combinations that were built to be similar (gish or caster + pet) and it fell behind in all cases and that is a problem. Not disengenious to compare it to characters that are built to cover similar concepts at all.
The idea that a Multiclass anything caster can compete with two top level spells is ridiculous. The Summoner's spell allotment is easily the equal of everything a Multiclass caster gets, and scrolls of top level -2 spells are cheap - there's nothing a multiclass caster gets that compares with having spells of a relevant level.
Its easy to determine, too - a Summoner can spend a small amount of gold and duplicate any low level casting a MC spellcaster can do, but the MC caster can't do the same without dropping a significant portion of their total character wealth per cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did like a suggestion that was posted about being able to specialise the eidolon (and its role/niche) early. Being able to set it up or choose from level 1 whether it is tank/melee or ranged damage/or support would be nice and might allow the Eidolons to be differentiated more or allow them a trade off for more damage or less damage but more staying power etc. I know the evolutions give a few tanking options but they kick in way too late. The juggling conduit cantrips feels semi mandatory and not like a choice for optimal play, which makes it feel like picking up the defensive cantrip is also mandatory and not a choice. Spending 2 of my 4 actions to make the eidolon catch up to weaker martials doesn't feel good nor does it make me feel the summoner is really contributing if the optimal strategy is the same round after round after round. May as well just buff the eidolon to include the conduit cantrip buffs and say the eidolon only gets 2 actions a round and the summoner none. My experience with other classes felt like while there was some pattern to optimal play it was more open (2 attacks + a move, 2 attacks + raise shield, cast and move, cast and skill check, occasionally move in strike and move out). I felt like I had a lot more flexibility, maybe it was an illusion but right now I didn't feel that way with the 3 summoners I have now tried out (attempting to get a decent number of games per summoner eidolon type).
I do struggle with the fact that right now there is not much 'summoner' in summoner/eidolon duo and by that I mean the summoner is just a 1 action buff bot of a movement overhead a lot of the time once combat starts. I would like it if the summoner had a more active role but 4 spells a day (its almost never worth it to cast a cantrip) and a mandatory buff to spam each round is not really much of a role.
As others have said they don't really do any 'summoning' anymore although in PF2e I am not seeing that as much of a loss as summoning is borderline pointless or a poor option most of the time being low enough of a threat that they are ignore-able by GMs running combats most of the time (mostly just good for providing flanking if needed) is sad but a whole different issue.
I understand that others have had different experiences. I didn't play a summoner in PF1 but I did GM for quite a few. While I agree some builds were brokenly powerful after the first couple I just started limiting what evolutions could be bought together/more than once. It fixed a lot of the problem and I still felt like the summoner (not just the eidolon) was an active participant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Summoner is supposed to be a utility/support caster. Getting 4 spells slots is not utility and barely qualifies as support.
I disagree partialy with this; Summoner has never been the utility caster, Summoner has traditionally taken up the role of "Buffer" not as a healer or utility caster. You leave that to the full 10th-level prepared casters like Cleric, Druid, or Wizard who have the spell slots to spend.
That said i do understand the frustration with Summoner's casting abilities not being so ideal, even in the role of a party "Buffer" it does feel a bit lacking.
The Summoner is supposed to be a utility/support caster. Getting 4 spells slots is not utility and barely qualifies as support.I disagree partialy with this; Summoner has never been the utility caster, Summoner has traditionally taken up the role of "Buffer" not as a healer or utility caster. You leave that to the full 10th-level prepared casters like Cleric, Druid, or Wizard who have the spell slots to spend.
That said i do understand the frustration with Summoner's casting abilities not being so ideal, even in the role of a party "Buffer" it does feel a bit lacking.
PF1 was a perfectly fine utility/support caster. Insect Spies alone makes it utility for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys using the insane spell list or the Unchained spell list?
https://aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?Class=Summoner (Unchained)
You guys using the insane spell list or the Unchained spell list?
https://aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?Class=Summoner (Unchained)
I'm using the summoner list. A quick look at unchained and I see pretty much the same for utility. Identifier's Eye, Aquatic Cavalry, Ant Haul, Communal mount, Unseen Engineers, Conjure Carriage, fly, Insect Spies, Minor Creation, Speak with Plane, Urban Step, Trade Items, Tongues: that;s just a quick look at levels 2 and 3 unchained.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, i guess you guys are right, those are a number of utility spells; i must really be misremembering the kinds of spells Summoner mostly used