This is why I'm pushing for the common-sense result of "can it do this to any other class". It's a very easy rule to apply and has no pesky edge cases to fuss out.The "common-sense result" is you're hit twice... The character with an animal companion sees both hit with sequential attacks. "can it do this to any other class" fails out of the gate as you are already dealing with multiple rolls vs different ACs/saves so you start off dealing with it differently.
Dubious Scholar really should have said "Player".
Would any other Player suffer damage twice from Skittering Assault?
No.
Eidolons are a core part of the player character and the Summoner class, unlike Animal Companions which are a feat reward and not a core class feature.
They are "part of" the Summoner, which I know some people don't like - but that's not actually a divergent concept from 1E summoners in my opinion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dubious Scholar really should have said "Player".
Would any other Player suffer damage twice from Skittering Assault?
No.
Eidolons are a core part of the player character and the Summoner class, unlike Animal Companions which are a feat reward and not a core class feature.
They are "part of" the Summoner, which I know some people don't like - but that's not actually a divergent concept from 1E summoners in my opinion.
Idk if you know this but no other player would roll twice and take the worse result either.
Clearly the relationship introduced with the Eidolon is important to recognize in that it is 2 targets draining from 1 resource.Any other class can be struck twice from separate instances of damage, yes.
The reason it is more apparent in the Summoner is because it is 2 targets sharing 1 resource; that doesn't change the fact the Summoner and Eidolon are separate creatures that can each be individually targeted.
The Summoner is not suffering damage twice; the summoner is suffering damage from the melee strike it took and the Eidolon is suffering damage from the melee strike it took.
The Summoner and the Eidolon were not both targeted by one strike, and we've already been over the fact that regardless of the origin of subordinate actions, each strike is recognized as it's own effect by the foundation of 2e's rulesystem.
Again, it seems to me that you have a problem with the shared HP pool. I know you've said otherwise, it just seems that way to me with the issues you have with how the Summoner interacts with other mechanics and rules of the game.
The intent is not to make the Summoner and Eidolon immune from their own separate instances of damage
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eidolons are a core part of the player character and the Summoner class, unlike Animal Companions which are a feat reward and not a core class feature.
They are "part of" the Summoner, which I know some people don't like - but that's not actually a divergent concept from 1E summoners in my opinion.
I would think that anyone who has chosen to have an animal companion would consider it rather core to their character. Especially if they dedicated many of their class feats to it.
I would think that anyone who has chosen to have an animal companion would consider it rather core to their character. Especially if they dedicated many of their class feats to it.Eidolons are a core part of the player character and the Summoner class, unlike Animal Companions which are a feat reward and not a core class feature.
They are "part of" the Summoner, which I know some people don't like - but that's not actually a divergent concept from 1E summoners in my opinion.
And yet Animal Companions are never part of core class progression - they progress through feat progression which is independent of the core Power Progression of your character.
An Eidolon is not seperate from this. Its combat power is part of the classes progression.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would think that anyone who has chosen to have an animal companion would consider it rather core to their character. Especially if they dedicated many of their class feats to it.Eidolons are a core part of the player character and the Summoner class, unlike Animal Companions which are a feat reward and not a core class feature.
They are "part of" the Summoner, which I know some people don't like - but that's not actually a divergent concept from 1E summoners in my opinion.
Exactly this: people used to the status quo are expecting 2 hits as that's what they are used to so when an attack comes around that hits every creature with a single target attack [strike] I can't see it 'common sense' that a shield pops up to protect to protect one from a physical kick but no other creature gets this.
Subordinate actions are not separate effects from the activity. Flurry of blows (and similar effects) are the only thing that should need special handling - strictly RAW the damage outcome is different if the attacks are split or focused, which is why I put forward the question of "what happens for a non-summoner".
This just isn't true: they take place at different times. "The gogiteth Strides three times. Once per Stride, it can attempt a leg Strike against a creature in its reach at any point during the Stride" It makes 3 different moves and during each move it makes a Strike. They are sequential by necessity [there is a move between strikes after all] so it's NOT like an area attack. It's not in my 'common sense' that a kick over there and a kick 30' away are somehow the exact same attack and somehow sharing hp maes me immune to the second [it just bounces off cuz I'm special].
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skittering Assault cannot hit any other class twice.The worst possible outcome for other classes is a single crit. There is no reason it should be worse for summoner, and is clearly contrary to the intent of the rule.
Subordinate actions are not separate effects from the activity. Flurry of blows (and similar effects) are the only thing that should need special handling - strictly RAW the damage outcome is different if the attacks are split or focused, which is why I put forward the question of "what happens for a non-summoner".
No other class has 2 targets to 1 resource, clearly that is the reason it is more apparent for Summoner.
But if you're asking, yes; a Beastmaster, Animal Druid, Witch's familiar, Sorcerer with a summon, and more can all be hit just as well from Skittering Assault.They have 2 targets you're playing with just like the Summoner, they just don't share the same HP pool.
Again, it seems your problem is with the shared HP pool.
Subordinate actions are separate effects from the activity, there is a reason resistance and weakness are applied to each instance of effect and damage, there is a reason Flurry has a special clause that deviates from the norm.
What happens to a non-Summoner if it gets striked twice? It takes the damage for 2 strikes. It is not immune to the second, separate, strike
What happens to a non-Summoner (Animal Druid, Beastmaster, Witch's familiar, Sorcerer with a Summon) who's creature is also targeted by Skittering Assault? It takes the damage for the strike and the creature also takes it's damage from the strike, they are not both being targeted by 1 strike or an Area of Effect, they are all being targeted by separate strikes and effects.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet Animal Companions are never part of core class progression - they progress through feat progression which is independent of the core Power Progression of your character.
They aren't? *looks at animal druid*: "You also gain the Animal Companion druid feat." Sure LOOKS like you got it though your character without having to spend feats for it... It's being a feat is meaningless when it's a feat granted for free. It's like saying familiar isn't part of your character too because it's a feat then looking at the witch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens to a non-Summoner if it gets striked twice? It takes the damage for 2 strikes. It is not immune to the second, separate, strike
A non-Summoner cannot be struck twice by Skittering Assault. That's the point we're making.
The subordinate strikes created by Skittering Assault are coming from the same source effect. It is a perfectly valid reading of the rules that two identical subordinate actions created by this single effect cannot damage the Summoner+Eidolon unit more than a single time.
A problem with shared hp compromising survivability of the Summoner only exists with your interpretation, which is quite possibly an indication that your interpretation may not be correct .
If something doesn't work, the very first diagnostic step should be turning it off and on again. The second should be determining if you're actually using it as intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet Animal Companions are never part of core class progression - they progress through feat progression which is independent of the core Power Progression of your character.
The class feats you can choose are a core part of each class and each characters identity. If they were not we would just have a big pool of feats anyone can take, not class and archetype specific feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet Animal Companions are never part of core class progression - they progress through feat progression which is independent of the core Power Progression of your character.They aren't? *looks at animal druid*: "You also gain the Animal Companion druid feat." Sure LOOKS like you got it though your character without having to spend feats for it... It's being a feat is meaningless when it's a feat granted for free. It's like saying familiar isn't part of your character too because it's a feat then looking at the witch.
Graystone, class power progression is almost entirely through class features and proficiency progression now - that's not my just my opinion, thats a core part of 2E design.
Animal Companions are outside of that progression. Theyre just feats, which some characters get as bonus feats, and don't affect power progression.
That is fundamentally untrue for Eidolons.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A non-Summoner cannot be struck twice by Skittering Assault. That's the point we're making.
The subordinate strikes created by Skittering Assault are coming from the same source effect. It is a perfectly valid reading of the rules that two identical subordinate actions created by this single effect cannot damage the Summoner+Eidolon unit more than a single time.
A problem with shared hp compromising survivability of the Summoner only exists with your interpretation, which is quite possibly an indication that your interpretation may not be correct .
If something doesn't work, the very first diagnostic step should be turning it off and on again. The second should be determining if you're actually using it as intended.
I understand the point you're making, but again it seems like you have a problem with the shared HP pool.
There are several other examples of classes with minions, animal companions, or summons where clearly each instance of damage is recognized as it's own effect.
You don't want the Summoner to be so vulnerable, i get it, but clearly the intent here was not to make them immune to separate instances of damage that they both are not sharing.
Clearly the intent was for situations in which they both would be subject to the same effect, such as a fireball or a 3-action heal.
The same source effect is not the same effect Krispy, it's already been established that the game recognizes that each subordinate action is it's own effect and instance of damage.
That's not just my opinion, that's a core part of 2e's design.
Krispy, i agree that if your interpretation causes so many issues that maybe it's not the right interpretation.
For instance, how your interpretation literally breaks or creates a need for several exceptions and concessions to so many rules in the game.
Our interpretation doesn't break anything in the game or have needs for concessions or exceptions to be made that's not already found in the playtest material.
Your only problem is the fact it puts a spotlight to Summoner's vulnerability with having 2 targets sharing 1 resource.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a perfectly valid reading of the rules that two identical subordinate actions created by this single effect cannot damage the Summoner+Eidolon unit more than a single time.
I don't see it as really valid without a specific proviso covering it as every other interaction treats them are separate attacks. They use different rolls, have different successes, independent resistance/vulnerability checks, damage rolls, ect.
Let me ask it another way: lets say you and your Eidolon are fighting another summoner and you use Act Together so both you and your Eidolon attack the enemy summoner. If they both strike, are you saying that only one attack counts as they both come from Act Together even though they are 100% completely different creatures and attacks because they came from the same effect?
Graystone, class power progression is almost entirely through class features and proficiency progression now - that's not my just my opinion, thats a core part of 2E design.
Sure, and animal companion is part of those CLASS features for the druid: they get it AS A FEATURE.
Animal Companions are outside of that progression. Theyre just feats, which some characters get as bonus feats, and don't affect power progression.
When does a feature stop being a feature just because it grants you a feat?
That is fundamentally untrue for Eidolons.
They are exactly the same : granted by a feature. Why does it matter if there is a step in between [feature->feat-> animal companion]? When does it stop being given automatically from the feature?
Graystone, you do understand that the class feature that grants a Druid an animal companion is just a thinly veiled way of restricting the Druids options for their first level class feat, right?
Its why many Martial Classes get a 1st level feat, but most casters don't - they get a class feature that dictates what their 1st level class feat is for them, instead of having free choice?
Animal Companions are never part of the base power progression of any class.
That's all tied up in proficiency and stuff that adds extra damage, like sneak attack - or spellcasting.
Or Eidolons, because theyre a fancy way of adding more proficiencies with restrictions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone, you do understand that the class feature that grants a Druid an animal companion is just a thinly veiled way of restricting the Druids options for their first level class feat, right?
Do you understand that it's an actual feature right?
Animal Companions are never part of the base power progression of any class.
It sure IS as it replaces other options you could have. A martial class that gets Shield Block is part of the base power even though the feature just gives a feat.
Or Eidolons, because theyre a fancy way of adding more proficiencies with restrictions.
I don't see any significant difference between the two: getting one through a feature vs getting another through a feature still seems like both get one through a feature. The feat step is meaningless to me. The animal companion feature might not be as strong as the Eidolons feature but relative strengths don't factor into whether it is indeed part of the class progression.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet Animal Companions are never part of core class progression - they progress through feat progression which is independent of the core Power Progression of your character.They aren't? *looks at animal druid*: "You also gain the Animal Companion druid feat." Sure LOOKS like you got it though your character without having to spend feats for it... It's being a feat is meaningless when it's a feat granted for free. It's like saying familiar isn't part of your character too because it's a feat then looking at the witch.Graystone, class power progression is almost entirely through class features and proficiency progression now - that's not my just my opinion, thats a core part of 2E design.
Animal Companions are outside of that progression. Theyre just feats, which some characters get as bonus feats, and don't affect power progression.
That is fundamentally untrue for Eidolons.
They are feats in order to facilitate other characters outside of that subclass picking up that option. That's the reason some classes have feats to access their 1st level focus spells, and some get it as a class feature. The budget for casters is relatively consistent when you count features that are equivalent to feats as worth as much as feats.
Which is a long winded way of saying that the Druid's power budget definitely factors in that 1st level bonus feat. If they didn't want orders to be able to cross powers, they would have made them class features for exactly the same mechanic weight.
Edit: Here, I'll just link the analysis I did when I was trying to figure out how classes stacked up against each other.
It's a downloadable PDF ignore the Magus and Medium, those are my homebrew.
Edit edit: Webpage version
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a bit of fun playtesting the the summoner and I have found its not for me, it seems to feel like the alchemist to me it has a lot of moving parts but none of them load bearing. I will return to playing the player handbook classes which I find simpler and more elegant.Imo the Eidolon doesn't have anything that really makes them stand out or exciting to play like PF1 did. Now I am not saying I want the brokenness of pf1. But I am saying that it should be similar and rebalanced to offer a similar feel of uniqueness.
Uniqueness, yes this is something I want to see more of. I also have faith that there will be more of it. I see this playtest as testing out the things they wanted to see most, and that is the chassis. And with a few tweaks ("act together" changes, more/better summoning, etc.) it will work out great.
What I hope to see are things that other martials can't do/get to make up for what the Eidolon misses out on that they get. Monster type abilities like grab, swallow whole (admittedly high level), trample, various auras effects, etc. as well as more abilities simulating weapon abilities.
I believe those will come with the larger version of the class though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the Flurry of Maneuvers example. I understood "affected by anything that would change a creature's actions" as anything that affects the number of actions. The example given in the PDF is slowed, and that's the kind of condition that this is talking about - prone is something that would be resolved individually, your eidolon can be prone while the summoner isn't. Flurry of Maneuvers is two separate trips that have two separate results, there is no "take worse" here because you're not sharing the result.
Basically my impression is that the link only comes into play when you would lose or gain actions (so you can't double dip on Haste) or when you would lose or gain HP. The latter is an abstraction to avoid giving the Summoner an overinflated HP pool or a separate bar, one of which would be necessary if rolls like Sweep were resolved individually.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're going on a month into the playtest and only now are people misunderstanding how the linked HP and actions work? What have you been running at your tables until now?
It's been said time and time again, but it seems like the rules need clarity for this reason. It seems to me (Rules As Intended) that the "affected by anything that would change a creature's actions" is a way to keep the summoner from double-dipping haste or being double penalized from slow or stun. If anyone can point out a more logical reason why that wouldn't be, I'm all ears.
If an eidolon gets paralyzed, their summoner shouldn't. Why would that make any sense? If an eidolon is dropped prone, the summoner shouldn't fall prone. If an eidolon is petrified, their summoner shouldn't turn to stone.
Only the most pedantic reading (of which we here on the forums are experts in) would put those together. The summoner and the eidolon combine to create one character within two bodies. These rules exist to balance that aspect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because you understood it to mean "affects the number" does not mean it only applies to those. Nothing in that besides the example says that its only about abilities that add or remove actions.
Slow is just the easiest example to demonstrate how it works. Exactly because it affects only a single action.
Surely you recognize that the summoner and the eidolon don't share ankles. If that's actually the intention then I'll be spending the rest of the playtest telling Mark to change his mind. I think it more likely that the wording gets changed to make my reading explicit, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the Flurry of Maneuvers example. I understood "affected by anything that would change a creature's actions" as anything that affects the number of actions. The example given in the PDF is slowed, and that's the kind of condition that this is talking about - prone is something that would be resolved individually, your eidolon can be prone while the summoner isn't. Flurry of Maneuvers is two separate trips that have two separate results, there is no "take worse" here because you're not sharing the result.
Thank you, that's what we've been saying; it makes no sense that the Summoner and Eidolon would share everything when it comes to things that resolve individually; effects that do not both target the Summoner and Eidolon at once.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Common sense. Skittering assault hits both targets.
But cool they you are digging this deep to rule out common sense.
And if, IF, you are right. That needs revision, because he's gamey as hell, non intuitive, and makes no logical or common sense. It will be ran incorrectly by huge swaths of players because they won't ever even think that it would work differently.
This needs some revision, because me hitting the eidolon, moving, hitting the summoner is just a broken up version of that skittering assault, so for one to not work and one to work makes so little sense regardless of whether or not it's accurate
A fireball also hits both targets, and yet it doesn't damage both normally. I see a very similar situation in Skittering Assault.
It's one of the many abstraction you make when playing a game, expecially one with magic.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A fireball also hits both targets, and yet it doesn't damage both normally. I see a very similar situation in Skittering Assault.
It's one of the many abstraction you make when playing a game, expecially one with magic.
Fireball happens all at once it's an explosion.
Unless, narratively, you say skittering assault is so fast it basically breaks the sound barrier and hits all its targets within a fraction of a second?
But no, it's an activity version of moving and striking multiple targets. Sequentially. Not simultaneously.
Whether or not the game makes that distinction is of value, but less than many think, since most players will never think to look this up and will just run it under the, apparently, incorrect thinking of common sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fireball also hits both targets, and yet it doesn't damage both normally. I see a very similar situation in Skittering Assault.
It's one of the many abstraction you make when playing a game, expecially one with magic.Fireball happens all at once it's an explosion.
Unless, narratively, you say skittering assault is so fast it basically breaks the sound barrier and hits all its targets within a fraction of a second?
But no, it's an activity version of moving and striking multiple targets. Sequentially. Not simultaneously.
Whether or not the game makes that distinction is of value, but less than many think, since most players will never think to look this up and will just run it under the, apparently, incorrect thinking of common sense.
Its literally Simultaneous and covered by the rules for Simultaneous actions. Those are a real thing, and apply in this case.
Skittering Assault is Simultaneous, presumably every bit as much as fireball.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A fireball also hits both targets, and yet it doesn't damage both normally. I see a very similar situation in Skittering Assault.
It's one of the many abstraction you make when playing a game, expecially one with magic.Fireball happens all at once it's an explosion.
Unless, narratively, you say skittering assault is so fast it basically breaks the sound barrier and hits all its targets within a fraction of a second?
But no, it's an activity version of moving and striking multiple targets. Sequentially. Not simultaneously.
Whether or not the game makes that distinction is of value, but less than many think, since most players will never think to look this up and will just run it under the, apparently, incorrect thinking of common sense.
Its literally Simultaneous and covered by the rules for Simultaneous actions. Those are a real thing, and apply in this case.
Skittering Assault is Simultaneous, presumably every bit as much as fireball.
I don't see anywhere where it describes the assault as breaking space time or that the creature in question is anywhere near that fast.
So no, I don't care if it's raw or rai.
It's unintuitive to the point that lots of players will run it incorrectly because at no point will they question it because the incorrect interpretation *makes more sense*.
That is an issue, and why this aspect of the summoner needs clarification and cleaning up.
I don't see anywhere where it describes the assault as breaking space time or that the creature in question is anywhere near that fast.
You could make the same "real life logic" claim about fireball damage not being Simultaneous because the expanding ball of heat and gasses doesn't contact everyone at the same time - but no one here will, because real life logic doesn't apply.
Unless a Dev clarifies that "Simultaneous" doesn't actually mean Simultaneous, the Strikes from Skittering Assault actually affect every target Simultaneously - or at least as much so as the damage from a fireball, which also lacks your "breaking space time" standard language you're asking for for Skittering Assault.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its literally Simultaneous and covered by the rules for Simultaneous actions. Those are a real thing, and apply in this case.
No it isn't [at least not as you are describing them]: "The gogiteth Strides three times. Once per Stride, it can attempt a leg Strike against a creature in its reach at any point during the Stride"
You LITERALLY make 1 Stride and make a Strike THEN make another stride and Make an attack then do that one more time. Each strike is done and finished with an action in between the next.
Activities" "usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect."
skittering assault is an activity and the actions of activities "must be spent in succession" and not simultaneously.
Simultaneous Actions
"You can use only one single action, activity, or free action that doesn’t have a trigger at a time." In game, Simultaneous Actions doesn't mean all actions happen in the same instant but that you can't break up the action/activity with other actions unless said action has a trigger.
Simultaneous Actions
"You can use only one single action, activity, or free action that doesn’t have a trigger at a time."In game, Simultaneous Actions doesn't mean all actions happen in the same instant but that you can't break up the action/activity with other actions unless said action has a trigger.
Alternatively, Simultaneous Actions is written the way it is because its waaaaay more practical than asking people to resolve Simultaneous actions all at once... resolving them in sequence is the only practical way to resolve actions that are actually Simultaneous.
I mean, consider a hypothetical ability that said, "You Strike three different targets simultaneously, at exactly the same time."
You'd still resolve them in sequence because that's the sane way to do it.
THAT is why Simultaneous actions is worded the way it is, IMO.
Theyre still functionally Simultaneous... theyre even labeled as such. And the subordinate actions section gives good cause to say all the damage is ultimately from a single effect.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theyre still functionally Simultaneous
I disagree that they are simultaneous. You do not have to declare targets before hand and if you kill target, you don't have to keep hitting it.
For example, Triple Shot: a Simultaneous Action that allows you 3 strikes. If it was truly as you say, you'd have to state first what you are targeting, something I've never seen done. Instead you make 1 shot and resolve it, make your second and resolve it then make your last one and resolve it" all as Simultaneous Actions says, "spent in succession".
I mean, consider a hypothetical ability that said, "You Strike three different targets simultaneously, at exactly the same time."
There isn't any reason you can't deal with them simultaneously: roll 3 1d20's add your bonuses and check the AC then roll your damage. But this isn't even close to what is described in skittering: there are moves between each target making simultaneous a physical impossibility as it's not a single action/subordinate action causing the damage.
So in this case the ability is neither simultaneous in description or in how it's resolved. So not, IMO, "functionally Simultaneous" at all. Simultaneous Action in game is bundling actions into a activity package that you can't break up with other actions NOT that the individual actions inside it literally happen in the same instant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing about terminology and RAW could go on forever.
I'm saying that if you arguing about verisimilitude instead, that's already somewhat broken by the fact that an explosion that is hitting two bodies is not effectively damaging both.
It's an abstraction that you have to make; it's not too hard to make a similar one for Skittering Assault, or other stuff that shouldn't hit the same target twice. Simultaneous or not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing about terminology and RAW could go on forever.
I'm saying that if you arguing about verisimilitude instead, that's already somewhat broken by the fact that an explosion that is hitting two bodies is not effectively damaging both.
It's an abstraction that you have to make; it's not too hard to make a similar one for Skittering Assault, or other stuff that shouldn't hit the same target twice. Simultaneous or not.
The assault hits the eidolon, the rogue and the summoner.
But the assault only does damage it hitting two targets
So the summoner is somehow immune to being hit the same turn if the eidolon was hit first and vice versa, but only if what caused the damage was a single activity.
So that makes very little sense ok.
So instead is the summoner in this interaction just an invalid target?
That still makes no sense.
So the assault does damage to the eidolon and then later to the summoner but still within the same round? That makes sense and is consistent with what the skill should be compared to. Hitting something and running and hitting another something. Not a fireball.
Ahh but despite this obvious and logical thought process, it is wrong. Because of weird rule interactions that are poorly displayed and then more poorly explained in regards to this class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an abstraction that you have to make
I really don't have to... I'm MORE than willing to see it as it is: Strikes that happen at different times in two different locations isn't like an explosion that affects an area.
For me, when the Summoner ability says "In any case, if you are both subject to the same effect, you take the effects only once (applying the worse effect, if applicable) this is applied to the individual subordinate actions in Skittering.
Checks
Source Core Rulebook pg. 443
Pathfinder has many types of checks, from skill checks to attack rolls to saving throws, but they all follow these basic steps.
Roll a d20 and identify the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply.
Calculate the result.
Compare the result to the difficulty class (DC).
Determine the degree of success and the effect.
Each strike check causes it's own effect [damage] and the pair only ever take that effect once per strike, it's just that multiple strike cause individual effects to them with skittering.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It took all of us players a month to find the weird interactions. Doesn't stop the weird interactions from being bad and weird.
You've been against the mechanic for the first three weeks of the playtest, well before any issues were really brought up.
Plus, your solution seems to be "scrap it entirely", as opposed to "add the two to three lines of clarification it would take to resolve essentially all of the identified issues", which is a heck of a coincidence considering you started off crusading against the mechanic because it was bad-wrong in your opinion because it was different from 1E.
Everyone here wants clarification added to resolve these items - no ones against that.
But some of the people raising these concerns seem to be inflating their severity and the difficulty of fixing them, and there seems to be a correlation between those folks and people who didn't like the very concept from the beginning.
We're absolutely here to find issues... but we're also here to find ways to make concepts work, not scrap them at the first issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
watch paizo's 3 lines of clarification result in the summoner taking damage twice from skittering assault :P
watch paizo's 3 lines of clarification result in the summoner taking damage twice from skittering assault :P
Do you think anyone here would consider that a bad thing?
It would absolutely influence my feedback on my Survey that the class is unfairly impacted by AOE abilities since they excluded these sorts of abilities from the "only suffer damage once" effect, but any clarification would be appreciated.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
watch paizo's 3 lines of clarification result in the summoner taking damage twice from skittering assault :PDo you think anyone here would consider that a bad thing?
It would absolutely influence my feedback on my Survey that the class is unfairly impacted by AOE abilities since they excluded these sorts of abilities from the "only suffer damage once" effect, but any clarification would be appreciated.
its not an aoe ability, its 3 seperate attacks on 3 seperate entitites with move actions between.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its not an aoe ability, its 3 seperate attacks on 3 seperate entitites with move actions between.watch paizo's 3 lines of clarification result in the summoner taking damage twice from skittering assault :PDo you think anyone here would consider that a bad thing?
It would absolutely influence my feedback on my Survey that the class is unfairly impacted by AOE abilities since they excluded these sorts of abilities from the "only suffer damage once" effect, but any clarification would be appreciated.
Its 6 subordinate actions (stride/strike x3) that are part of one single activity.
Its quite clear in subordinate actions that subordinate actions are not equivalent to the normal action they function as.
You're ignoring the fact that the Summoner rule that limits damage from AOEs isn't some logical "makes sensey" ability, its a mechanical protection to limit their exposure to attacks (including aoe spells) that target both the eidolon and summoner.
Who cares if its two strikes? One effect (Skittering Assault) targeted them both, the idea is that a Summoner is more vulnerable than one player but less vulnerable than two.
Your interpretation violates the apparent intent of the rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
its not an aoe ability, its 3 seperate attacks on 3 seperate entitites with move actions between.watch paizo's 3 lines of clarification result in the summoner taking damage twice from skittering assault :PDo you think anyone here would consider that a bad thing?
It would absolutely influence my feedback on my Survey that the class is unfairly impacted by AOE abilities since they excluded these sorts of abilities from the "only suffer damage once" effect, but any clarification would be appreciated.
Its 6 subordinate actions (stride/strike x3) that are part of one single activity.
Its quite clear in subordinate actions that subordinate actions are not equivalent to the normal action they function as.
You're ignoring the fact that the Summoner rule that limits damage from AOEs isn't some logical "makes sensey" ability, its a mechanical protection to limit their exposure to attacks (including aoe spells) that target both the eidolon and summoner.
Who cares if its two strikes? One effect (Skittering Assault) targeted them both, the idea is that a Summoner is more vulnerable than one player but less vulnerable than two.
Your interpretation violates the apparent intent of the rules.
so the cool thing about your intent argument, is its a subjective argument, its what you think, not what i think, so until it is clarified by a DM, it will remain in a subjective state.
here is hoping they do clarify though.
and i dont care about your explanation, i get it, i can say that its possible thats the intention.
but i disagree with it, because it makes no sense even if that is how it is intended to function.
so, as i said, until it is clarified, it wont be how its ran, and it wont be how its ran for many players simply because of how convolutedly stupid it is that they wont ever question the notion that skittering assault wouldnt be capable of hitting and doing damage to both of them seperately *because its 2 seperate attacks*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cool, everyone knows it's an issue now, next order of bussiness.
I wonder if Summoners filled the same type of power as dual class characters, would that be totally broken? If we assume yes it's over the power curve, then by how much? With limits to MAP and action economy and distance, what other limits would be needed to allow you to build an Eidolon far closer to the power of martials, or even monsters a level or two under you while having the summoner have casting at least at its current level if not higher?
If it played more like a monster, high stats and few abilities, would that step on the toes of other party members? If your Eidolon had at least as much + to hit as a fighter, but no shield block, lunging stance, power attack, etc, could you balance that?
Could we find a way to use the monster creation rules to make balanced Eidolons?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who cares if its two strikes? One effect (Skittering Assault) targeted them both, the idea is that a Summoner is more vulnerable than one player but less vulnerable than two.
The rules care actually: each roll resolution ends by resolving the effect of the roll. As such, each Strike has an individual effect. This is different from a fireball for example as that is a single effect damaging multiple creatures [you only roll once for the effect (damage)].
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What happens if an enemy uses whirlwind strike and both the Summoner itself and an Eidolon are side by side and thus hit?
Would said creature make a strike against both the Eidolon and the Summoner separately to roll for hit? Would the damage only apply once? What if both rolls to hit succeed?
Whirlwind Strike specifies that it is making multiple attacks and not just one attack, although i can understand if due to flavor people get confused and believe it is the same as an AoE.