Welcome to the Summoner Class Playtest!

[Temperans]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

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.

Yes I have never liked the mechanics because I don't think they fit the thematic of the class, and I don't think that the current rules properly show what an Eidolon is.

That however has nothing to do with whether the rules are super complicated for no actual benefit other than "oh look its different". That is were you and I disagree. You are accepting all of the playtest as if it has no problems and trying to justify all the stuff in the playtest one way or another. No matter how weird or out of theme it is. Meanwhile, I am looking at it from a position that I need to say what I don't like and be as honest with my opinion as possible. No sugar coating and trying to justify things that I don't think make any sense.

There is also the very different opinion you and I have on how to properly showcase the Summoner and Eidolon in a way that makes sense with the other classes and the history/lore of the class. While you are denouncing everything that made the class fun and loved to the point that Paizo decided to reprint it in PF2. I am trying to support all of those things, and hoping from the bottom of my heart that Paizo keeps the feel of Summoner the same in PF2 as in PF1.

That is the most important part: The class needs to feel like the Summoner, not just something that is called "Summoner".

* Is the Eidolon an independent creature that does not share the same HP and actions as the Summoner? Not in this version.
* Does the Eidolon have a wide array of customization option to make the creature you want both in mechanics and look? Current that is not the case.
* Is the Eidolon a summoned creature? Not in this case.
* Does the Summoner have the number of spells need to act a support caster as needed? Not in this version.
* Does the Summoner have a way to cast Summon Creature spells up to and including Gate multiple times a day? Not in this version.
* Does the Summoner have any way to cast Summon Creature spells better than any other class? Not in this version.
* Does the Synthesist support the blending of the Eidolon and Summoner in a near seamless manner? Not in this version.
* Does the Summoner get anything to justify any of the above questions? No.

[Vallarthis]

OrochiFuror wrote:

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?

I contend that the opposite is the way to go. The to-hit bonus is the crown jewel of the fighter class, and if the eidolon matches it there will definitely be some hurt feelings. Perhaps more importantly, having few abilities means they will get boring fast. NPC monsters with few abilities are great because you fight them once or twice, see them do their schtick, and then fight something else. If you fought cyclopes for an entire adventure, you would be entirely sick of cyclopes by the end. On the other hand, more abilities is more room for customization, and more opportunity to make the eidolon feel monstrous or bizarre.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

...You are accepting all of the playtest as if it has no problems and trying to justify all the stuff in the playtest one way or another...

...While you are denouncing everything that made the class fun and loved to the point that Paizo decided to reprint it in PF2...

Ah, its to be massive misrepresentation of the opposition again, is it?

The playtest is far from perfect - but its also far from the broken mess you're portraying it as.

Your personal position on what made the 1E Summoner "fun and loved" is one thing, and is shockingly consistent with all rhe reasons I never got to play one for more than a session - which the class a broken unplayable mess, imo.

Not mention the most banned "base" class in any rpg im aware of, ever.

Was open customization nice? Sure, it was fun to play around with... and then you got to the table, and you were the only one playing "that game" on that "level" and your character was essentially just more than anyone elses.

That's a problem that needed to be fixed every bit as much as bad wording on hp sharing. And it was not, as some people would like to believe, limited to combat math and the availability of pounce.

[OrochiFuror]

Vallarthis wrote:

I contend that the opposite is the way to go. The to-hit bonus is the crown jewel of the fighter class, and if the eidolon matches it there will definitely be some hurt feelings. Perhaps more importantly, having few abilities means they will get boring fast. NPC monsters with few abilities are great because you fight them once or twice, see them do their schtick, and then fight something else. If you fought cyclopes for an entire adventure, you would be entirely sick of cyclopes by the end. On the other hand, more abilities is more room for customization, and more opportunity to make the eidolon feel monstrous or bizarre.

I'm not so sure of that. If your Eidolon was just from any of the summon spells, add the Eidolon template to it (share hp, skills, actions, etc) and then add in abilities from feats, would that not be interesting?

My fights right now are already reinforce+shield with act together and then move+attack or draconic frenzy, just trying to not get crit every hit and to hopefully land one hit, not very interesting.

Either way, even if we get a dozen or so new types and a hundred or more new feats, the class seems to promise nearly anything you can dream up but mechanically it may not be able to deliver with how things are built right now. I hope Mark can secure the page space to get the number of feats needed to be able to make your own monster, we would need a fair amount of free evolution feats as we level though, from an Eidolon focused sub class sorta thing (as has been suggested).
There's also the issue of how strong should the class be and where do people think it is now compared to others? Not just the super combo of Druid+AC, but every class. Right now my summoner is just the punching bag that the cleric dumps heals into because there's not much else for me to do, I body block with enhanced size and just try to do a small amount of damage. I just hit 13 and now my Eidolon and summoner both have the same AC, not looking forward to the next fight, unless it can be outside in the open for once.

[Physicskid42]

It seems everyone is coming at this subject from a very mathematical , white room combat perspective.

I think that the value of customization comes from role playing and utility. I don’t want my eidolon to be invisible so I get + 2 to hit or whatever. I want it so my Eidolon can assist in my snake oil scheme.

And before anyone talks about breaking the story, I think “breaking“ the Story is kind of the point of role playing.

[Rysky]

It's not. In the slightest.

Also there's a ritual for a year long Unseen Servant if you're just wanting an invisible huckster buddy.

[graystone]

Rysky wrote:

It's not. In the slightest.

Also there's a ritual for a year long Unseen Servant if you're just wanting an invisible huckster buddy.

Sure if you can find an uncommon ritual, have an entire day to do the ritual AND you make the rolls AND never leave the 100'x100'x20' area... What grift could be easier to set up... :P

[Rysky]

Uncommon characters have uncommon components.

And it wouldn't be that far out there to have it cast on a carriage or wagon.

[graystone]

Rysky wrote:

Uncommon characters have uncommon components.

Only by DM fiat: it's not a guarantee in any game. It sure isn't the same as something baked into a class.

Rysky wrote:

And it wouldn't be that far out there to have it cast on a carriage or wagon.

Again it's be Dm fiat and even if that happens, it's be limited TO said "carriage or wagon", the mobile area, IMO and not the full area as you'd be limiting yourself to where you anchor it which would limit usefulness.

[Rysky]

graystone wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Uncommon characters have uncommon components.

Only by DM fiat: it's not a guarantee in any game. It sure isn't the same as something baked into a class.

And you thought innate invisibility was going to be baked in without GM Fiat?

Graystone wrote:

Rysky wrote:

And it wouldn't be that far out there to have it cast on a carriage or wagon.

Again it's be Dm fiat and even if that happens, it's be limited TO said "carriage or wagon", the mobile area, IMO and not the full area as you'd be limiting yourself to where you anchor it which would limit usefulness.

Yep.

[graystone]

Rysky wrote:

And you thought innate invisibility was going to be baked in without GM Fiat?

It was a talk about what an Eidolon should/shouldn't have and you suggested something outside of the class; I was commenting on that discrepancy and not of what should or shouldn't be available to the Eidolon. When did I suggest my thoughts on invisibility, innate or otherwise?

Edit: the Eidolon can pick up invisibility through greater magical evolution.

[Rysky]

Once per day for the normal duration at 8th level.

And you suggested it when you responded to my response with "that requires DM fiat", yeah, so does the "story breaking" the original poster was asking for.

[Martialmasters]

Anyone can justify anything story wise if you have a nice DM.

So I don't care about the rp elements of the class as they don't negatively impact my gameplay.

[graystone]

Rysky wrote:

Once per day for the normal duration at 8th level.

Rysky wrote:

And you thought innate invisibility was going to be baked in without GM Fiat?

I'm don't get these together: You asked if I thought the Eidolon was going to get "innate invisibility' and then I point out that it already can... How does my comment alter what you asked or what the other poster commented on [invisibility for utility]?

Rysky wrote:

And you suggested it when you responded to my response with "that requires DM fiat", yeah, so does the "story breaking" the original poster was asking for.

Physicskid42 wrote:

I don’t want my eidolon to be invisible so I get + 2 to hit or whatever. I want it so my Eidolon can assist in my snake oil scheme.

How is his suggestion a "story breaking" thing?

[Rysky]

They literally said as such, read the post.

Physicskid42 wrote:

And before anyone talks about breaking the story, I think “breaking“ the Story is kind of the point of role playing.

[Temperans]

Breaking the story is the point of roleplaying.

If the players are doing exactly what the GM wants then to do its not a game. Its people reading a script.

Its the whole debate about whether railroading is good. A lot of people including me are of the opinion that the best stories are those that don't go as expected. But from what you have said all you want is for everyone to just do what the GM says.

[graystone]

Rysky wrote:

They literally said as such, read the post.

Physicskid42 wrote:

And before anyone talks about breaking the story, I think “breaking“ the Story is kind of the point of role playing.

I read what he said, but I don't see what was "story breaking" in his suggestions so I was asking YOU to literally tell me what was "story breaking".

[Physicskid42]

Rysky wrote:

They literally said as such, read the post.

Physicskid42 wrote:

And before anyone talks about breaking the story, I think “breaking“ the Story is kind of the point of role playing.

Perhaps, I should clarify. It seems that when people talk about the "story" what they mean is the linear set of encounters between players and the goal.

fight the troll, disarm the pendulum, save the princess...etc.
That is functional and balanced but kinda boring. ideally players should be trying to unbalance encounters. poison the kobolds, get the cultist to confess to a crowed, put on a mustache and join the dark lord, those sort of things.

in order to facilitate this players need flexible tools that can be used creativly like invisabilty.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

Breaking the story is the point of roleplaying.

Creating and telling stories is the point of roleplaying.

Breaking the story is just causing trouble for others at the table, because if it weren't you'd describe it some other way than 'Breaking', which almost always has destructive implications.

[Temperans]

If you dont want players to break the story dont let them roleplay. That way there is no way the story can be broken.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

If you dont want players to break the story dont let them roleplay. That way there is no way the story can be broken.

Yes, thats definitely the solution I was promoting.

OR, alternately, you can provide them the tools to work with the story, and shape it without fundamentally breaking or derailing it.

Just because you can't derail the plot doesn't mean you can't influence it and have fun.

[Shisumo]

Has it been made clear yet whether the eidolon exists while it is not materialized? Effects on it continuing, that sort of thing?

[Temperans]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Breaking the story is the point of roleplaying.

Creating and telling stories is the point of roleplaying.

Breaking the story is just causing trouble for others at the table, because if it weren't you'd describe it some other way than 'Breaking', which almost always has destructive implications.

"Breaking" also refers to sudden changes, interrupting the flow, and in places like the theater good luck (break a leg).

It has a negative connotation when looked only as a way to destroy. But its also important for creating new things and changing them.

[Temperans]

Shisumo wrote:

Has it been made clear yet whether the eidolon exists while it is not materialized? Effects on it continuing, that sort of thing?

PF2 has made it so that eidolons are not creatures until the Summoner creates them. And similarly, because the Summoner is just manifesting them with them having no home plane, they are more like figments created by the Summoner.

When I said that Eidolons are like figment familiars but with less customization I was not kidding.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Has it been made clear yet whether the eidolon exists while it is not materialized? Effects on it continuing, that sort of thing?

PF2 has made it so that eidolons are not creatures until the Summoner creates them. And similarly, because the Summoner is just manifesting them with them having no home plane, they are more like figments created by the Summoner.

When I said that Eidolons are like figment familiars but with less customization I was not kidding.

P2 hasn’t made that at all.

[Kuroko-chan]

Temperans wrote:

PF2 has made it so that eidolons are not creatures until the Summoner creates them. And similarly, because the Summoner is just manifesting them with them having no home plane, they are more like figments created by the Summoner.

When I said that Eidolons are like figment familiars but with less customization I was not kidding.

Ok, did you actually read anything about the Eidolon that is in the playtest, or did you just make up some headcanon to be angry about? The basic description lists whatever plan a certain Eidolon is native to, such as Astral plane for Dragons. One of the 20th level feats not only gives you a 1/Day free teleport to your Eidolon's native plane (their exact wording) but you also automatically get a free critical success on Commune rituals with any native creature that your Eidolon is friendly with. It exists separately from you.

Look, you can hate this incarnation of Summoner all you want, but blatantly lying makes your position and argument borderline worthless. The Eidolon has a native plane. That is an objective fact. In every case presented by the playtest, it existed before you made a contract with it and exists independently from you when not summoned.

At the very least if you're going to lie to make a point, do it in a way that isn't so easily disproven.

[KrispyXIV]

Shisumo wrote:

Has it been made clear yet whether the eidolon exists while it is not materialized? Effects on it continuing, that sort of thing?

Its strongly implied that it does, though its not clear in what form.

Probably something to include in your survey.

PERSONAL TAKE - Currently, if we were to get no clarification I'd rule for my players that it exists in whatever its 'native' form is on its home plane, which may not resemble its form when summoned as an Eidolon. That helps further the idea that the Eidolon is absolutely a True Angel, but that it can't use its True Power until the Summoner can support it.

[graystone]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Has it been made clear yet whether the eidolon exists while it is not materialized? Effects on it continuing, that sort of thing?

Its strongly implied that it does, though its not clear in what form.

I'd say the eidolon is in the same place when not summoned as the Summoner goes when they use synthesis.

[Temperans]

Kuroko-chan wrote:

Temperans wrote:

PF2 has made it so that eidolons are not creatures until the Summoner creates them. And similarly, because the Summoner is just manifesting them with them having no home plane, they are more like figments created by the Summoner.

When I said that Eidolons are like figment familiars but with less customization I was not kidding.

Ok, did you actually read anything about the Eidolon that is in the playtest, or did you just make up some headcanon to be angry about? The basic description lists whatever plan a certain Eidolon is native to, such as Astral plane for Dragons. One of the 20th level feats not only gives you a 1/Day free teleport to your Eidolon's native plane (their exact wording) but you also automatically get a free critical success on Commune rituals with any native creature that your Eidolon is friendly with. It exists separately from you.

Look, you can hate this incarnation of Summoner all you want, but blatantly lying makes your position and argument borderline worthless. The Eidolon has a native plane. That is an objective fact. In every case presented by the playtest, it existed before you made a contract with it and exists independently from you when not summoned.

At the very least if you're going to lie to make a point, do it in a way that isn't so easily disproven.

I read the playtest and I read the eidolon. There are exactly 2 places were "planes" are talked about: The very long description of each eidolon, and the level 20 feat.

In the entire playtest there are exactly two places were "plane" shows up, and neither one of those says the Eidolon lives. You have the "home plane" line, but all that tells you is how to treat it for conditions that care for it (like the level 20 feat). It has 0 relevance in any matter about the Eidolon.

* The Eidolon does not return there when it dies or is banished.
* The Eidolon does not come from there when summoned.
* Nothing about what happens to the sense when they are in different planes.
* Nothing about what happens to the linked HP or actions when they are in different planes.

Those two short blips for which you are calling me a lier are nothing but token gestures. They dont tell me that the Eidolon is a summoned creature, much less an actual creature. Because they are that a token. Just like the rest of the class just being a token that only has the label and no sustance.

[Temperans]

graystone wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Has it been made clear yet whether the eidolon exists while it is not materialized? Effects on it continuing, that sort of thing?

Its strongly implied that it does, though its not clear in what form.

I'd say the eidolon is in the same place when not summoned as the Summoner goes when they use synthesis.

I dont think it even goes to a different plane.

Quote:

They must remain within 100 feet of you at all times and can’t willingly go beyond that limit. If forced beyond this distance, or if you’re reduced to 0 Hit Points, your eidolon’s physical form dissolves, and you need to use Manifest Eidolon to manifest them again.

As it stands when it hits 0 or demanifested it just disappears until you call it back.

The synthesist feat directly says that your body becomes that of the Eidolon

Quote:

using your own body as a vessel, taking on their form.

so in that case your body is effectively taken over by the Eidolon. And looking at how you can only use the demanifest activity, you are effectively being possessed by the Eidolon much like how the Mask possesses Jim Carey. He might be in there, but he has no control over what the mask does.

[Verzen]

IMO the synthesis really needs to be a merger.

[Shisumo]

So... that's a "no" then.

[ShadowFighter88]

Temperans wrote:

You have the "home plane" line, but all that tells you is how to treat it for conditions that care for it (like the level 20 feat).

Then how do you account for the commune-related part of that 20th level feat?

Eidolon's Avatar, final paragraph, emphasis mine wrote:

If you conduct the commune ritual to contact entities from your eidolon’s plane that are friendly to your eidolon, you don’t have to pay any cost and you automatically get a critical success.

That suggests that it's referring to specific individuals on that plane that the eidolon is friendly with. Or at least that's the impression I get.

Besides which; even if the game doesn't say the eidolon exists when not manifested, there's nothing saying the eidolon doesn't exist either. There's nothing proving or disproving either end of the argument so the GM and player can work together for whichever they prefer (and Golarion's design means that both could be canon, with some summoners calling forth an eidolon that lives on another plane, and others manifesting one that doesn't).

[Temperans]

As it stands, the idea is that they are supposed to be creatures, because PF1 Eidolons were creatures.

However, the implementation of the class as it is prevents them from ever being creatures for the reasons I have stated.

Its similar to how Mutagenist Alchemist gave you unarmed strike, but everyone already gets unarmed strikes, or how the Investigator Playtest had no use for Int while it was supposed to be its key stat. The idea was there but the implementation was wrong. The same thing is happening again, where lore and mechanics are not matching up.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

However, the implementation of the class as it is prevents them from ever being creatures for the reasons I have stated.

The "reasons" being incorrect assumptions you're drawing from what material we have at present.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

However, the implementation of the class as it is prevents them from ever being creatures for the reasons I have stated.

Its similar to how Mutagenist Alchemist gave you unarmed strike, but everyone already gets unarmed strikes, or how the Investigator Playtest had no use for Int while it was supposed to be its key stat. The idea was there but the implementation was wrong. The same thing is happening again, where lore and mechanics are not matching up.

No, this really isn't true.

First and foremost because you're still failing to disconnect the narrative and world (relevant to the Characters) from the mechanics (relevant to the Players).

As a Player (including the GM), you are responsible for adapting the interaction between the narrative and the mechanics to determine how it works... not just to complain that it doesnt.

Roleplaying Games require you to use some imagination.

[Temperans]

Who said I am not using imagination? I just want my imagination to actually mean something.

This is why I hate 5e which is just one huge abstraction with no real customization. I want Pathfinder to be better than 5e, not worse. Specially because Pathfinder 2 is supposed to be about being able to have both.

Why is it that wanting mechamical options upsets you 2 so much?

[Rysky]

It doesn’t, you’re taking us disagreeing with you and putting forth an extreme stance that no one is saying.

I love mechanical options, that’s why I play Pathfinder over anything else. That doesn’t mean I want every bit of customization and flavor ground down into mechanical options.

You don’t need mechanical weight for your imagination or role play to mean anything, that’s what’s so great about it.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

Why is it that wanting mechamical options upsets you 2 so much?

I'm against mechanical optioms for things that don't need them, and which have the potential to upset the careful balance established in PF2E.

PF2E is great, but thats partially because its fair.

Summoner should follow that trend, not avoid it.

[Temperans]

But you are actively saying that more mechanical options are bad or impossible. That is not something I have made up. Its what you have been saying the entire playtest.

Many players have asked to fix the lack of customization or that weird bound up HP/Actions. While you have said they are good because they are interesting, or because other options are "too hard".

So we are an at a point were we fundamentaly disagree on how to implement the Summoner. Your side saying that the current options are fine because imagination. While those of us who want more mechanics find it to few to properly represent our Eidolons.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

While those of us who want more mechanics find it to few to properly represent our Eidolons.

You dont get to define "properly represent" any more than I do.

I just know that I dont have any issues creating any eidolon I want as it stands, and have no problem not having Flight as a mechanic early on because I understand how that affects the GM and other players at the table.

This isnt a single player game. I understand why my character is limited to ensure that I dont have additional mechanical or narrative power over everyone else.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

But you are actively saying that more mechanical options are bad or impossible.

The options you put forth are disliked. Not any. Not all.

Learn the difference.

[AnimatedPaper]

ShadowFighter88 wrote:

Temperans wrote:

You have the "home plane" line, but all that tells you is how to treat it for conditions that care for it (like the level 20 feat).

Then how do you account for the commune-related part of that 20th level feat?

Pretty simple really. My interpretation is that the Eidolon is literally composed of the raw essence of their home plane, manifesting through the summoner. That is consistent with how other summons work in PF2, as well as the initial description of Eidolons:

Playtest Doc wrote:

You have a connection with a powerful and otherworldly entity called an eidolon, and you can use your life force as a conduit to manifest the eidolon into the mortal world. An eidolon is a being formed of ephemeral essences— typically mind, life, or spirit—that needs your body and connection to this world to manifest.

Now, I will grant that the first sentence of that paragraph, taken in isolation, does somewhat imply that the Eidolon is a separate creature that was just chilling until you got its number. The second sentence implies the opposite though, and to me changes the meaning of the first to be that the Eidolon is an entity that only exists at all through your connection.

It would be remiss for me to not mention the descriptions of the Angel and Draconic Eidolons do imply (or state) that at least the intelligence behind your Eidolon is coming from some separate creature. So perhaps the correct interpretation is that your Eidolon is both: it is an entity separate from you, and it is a manifestation of raw essence given form through your will and training.

If this is in fact the correct conclusion though, I would prefer that they change the wording of "home plane" to be "source plane", or something similar. Make it more clear that you are tapping the raw essence of those planes to bring your Eidolon into being.

[Temperans]

Rysky wrote:

Temperans wrote:

But you are actively saying that more mechanical options are bad or impossible.

The options you put forth are disliked. Not any. Not all.

Learn the difference.

I have placed 1 version of the rules. Some people said they disliked it other liked it but wanted changes.

After that there have been many other versions suggested by other people and you have rejected them. I am only saying what I see, and what I saw is you defending the playtest with tooth and nail.

[Katrixia]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I'm against mechanical optioms for things that don't need them, and which have the potential to upset the careful balance established in PF2E.

PF2E is great, but thats partially because its fair.

Summoner should follow that trend, not avoid it.

I'm in agreement with this, i don't believe me imagining my Demon-type Eidolon as a Red-skinned and horned Japanese Oni or a friend imagining it as a Red-skinned and fur-legged goat-hooved hellspawn should carry some mechanical distinction; i think we just have different views on what is fair and careful balance.

I will say that i completely understand people's views on wanting more mechanical customization and diversity is very valid.

I don't see a reason that can't be offered in the form of at least being able to choose your Eidolon abilities (Phantom having Dedication Aura and Dragon having Dragon's Breath; it'd be nice to be able to choose that a future Undead-type Eidolon can breathe green spectral fire by taking the Dragon's Breath ability to support my imagination)

If something rewrites most of the CRB, i would consider that adverse to 2e's design goals though.

But i think Summoner definitely has a place to be a rich and fulfilling class to play that doesn't need to do so, it's just a bigger challenge because you need to balance for 2 creatures; the best place to look at balance is in comparison to the Animal Druid and see what kind of power balance that class gets.
As is, the current Summoner has nowhere near the same raw spellcasting power of the Druid, and the Eidolon is stronger than an Animal Companion for sure.

As well as talking about Synthesist, i think the best comparison should be the Wildshape Druid which...as is, does much, much more than the Synthesist currently can; the current balance is not what i would call fair for a Synthesist. Although, i believe everyone is in agreement already that Synthesist needs much more than what is currently offered and most of all of the divisiveness is to be found in the relationship the Regular Summoner has with the Eidolon.

[KrispyXIV]

-Poison- wrote:

I don't see a reason that can't be offered in the form of at least being able to choose your Eidolon abilities (Phantom having Dedication Aura and Dragon having Dragon's Breath; it'd be nice to be able to choose that a future Undead-type Eidolon can breathe green spectral fire by taking the Dragon's Breath ability to support my imagination)

I'd love to see this as an option for Evolutions - I doubt there's anyone who doesn't.

That said, this may be covered by the hypothetical Eidolon focus spells already, so it may be a non issue.

-Poison- wrote:

But i think Summoner definitely has a place to be a rich and fulfilling class to play that doesn't need to do so, it's just a bigger challenge because you need to balance for 2 creatures; the best place to look at balance is in comparison to the Animal Druid and see what kind of power balance that class gets.
As is, the current Summoner has nowhere near the same raw spellcasting power of the Druid, and the Eidolon is stronger than an Animal Companion for sure.

A LOT stronger than an animal companion... both as a combatant, and as a utility piece.

Basic capabilities aside, its hard to beat true telepathic communication over the "empathic" link familiars get.

-Poison- wrote:

As well as talking about Synthesist, i think the best comparison should be the Wildshape Druid which...as is, does much, much more than the Synthesist currently can; the current balance is not what i would call fair for a Synthesist. Although, i believe everyone is in agreement already that Synthesist needs much more than what is currently offered and most of all of the divisiveness...

I think the Synethesist is probably technically slightly "better" at combat, but in general this is a hard comparison.

Synthesist has less limits on availability, but currently give up even more "in form" than a wild shaper. If they get to use their own mental stats or spellcasting, synthesis probably takes a solid lead.

[Temperans]

-Poison- wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

I'm against mechanical optioms for things that don't need them, and which have the potential to upset the careful balance established in PF2E.

PF2E is great, but thats partially because its fair.

Summoner should follow that trend, not avoid it.

I'm in agreement with this, i don't believe me imagining my Demon-type Eidolon as a Red-skinned and horned Japanese Oni or a friend imagining it as a Red-skinned and fur-legged goat-hooved hellspawn should carry some mechanical distinction; i think we just have different views on what is fair and careful balance.

I will say that i completely understand people's views on wanting more mechanical customization and diversity is very valid.

I don't see a reason that can't be offered in the form of at least being able to choose your Eidolon abilities (Phantom having Dedication Aura and Dragon having Dragon's Breath; it'd be nice to be able to choose that a future Undead-type Eidolon can breathe green spectral fire by taking the Dragon's Breath ability to support my imagination)

If something rewrites most of the CRB, i would consider that adverse to 2e's design goals though.

But i think Summoner definitely has a place to be a rich and fulfilling class to play that doesn't need to do so, it's just a bigger challenge because you need to balance for 2 creatures; the best place to look at balance is in comparison to the Animal Druid and see what kind of power balance that class gets.
As is, the current Summoner has nowhere near the same raw spellcasting power of the Druid, and the Eidolon is stronger than an Animal Companion for sure.

As well as talking about Synthesist, i think the best comparison should be the Wildshape Druid which...as is, does much, much more than the Synthesist currently can; the current balance is not what i would call fair for a Synthesist. Although, i believe everyone is in agreement already that Synthesist needs much more than what is currently offered and most of all of the divisiveness...

My point of view is that Imagination is the skin and look of the character. Its has an impact on choices and how others react. But otherwise has 0 mechanical effect outside rule of cool and GM fiat.

Mechanics on the other hand are the back bones. Without mechanics the character is meaningles and no better than something imaginary.

Pathfinder tries its hardest to satisfy both by making rules that are complex and deep enough to work for both sides. But the current implementation is only supporting the ones with imagination. But I am treated as the bad one for wanting both.

In the end you dont need rules for imagination. But you need rules to implement mechanics. And right now the eidolon has few mechanics.

[Katrixia]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I think the Synethesist is probably technically slightly "better" at combat, but in general this is a hard comparison.

Synthesist has less limits on availability, but currently give up even more "in form" than a wild shaper. If they get to use their own mental stats or spellcasting, synthesis probably takes a solid lead.

Wildshaping Druid has better accuracy, more tankiness (better AC+temp HP on transformation), better damage, better attack versatility, and 10th level full spellcasting.

The only hang-ups are "availability" (which has never been an issue for Wildshape Druid) and you can only use your 10th level full spellcasting outside of Wildshape.

Availability is fixed as a high-level feat option (which again, never was an issue) and if the only thing i have to do as a Summoner to get full 10th level spellcasting with legendary proficiency is be limited to only use it outside of being Synth'd, i'll take that; 100%, that's an easy trade.

Again, i think it is important to compare the Synth to a Wildshape.

I will say that i think Synths using their own mental stats is over-rated in 2e, i think the few people who have recommended it are largely over-valuing using your own mental stats; Eidolons already get the ability boosts to their stats which has massively lessened MAD problems, i can already make my Eidolon good at want i want in it's mentals.

[Katrixia]

Temperans wrote:

...

Like i agree with you, mechanics matter and rules matter, but just talking about the topic of "Eidolon customizability" i think it's important to ask what is tedious to have as a mechanic and what is not.

Damage resistance to a type of damage? Mechanics, absolutely, if Paizo gives us some Electro-elemental Eidolon give me Electric-resistance 10, electric-immunity, or something. Don't just tell me my Eidolon is some force of electricity and it still take damage to electric attacks like normal, the mechanics should support the themes and flavor.

But things like how in 1e there were 6 different evolutions for attacks like bite, claw, tentacle, etc.? That's kinda tedious don't you think? Having to spend evolution feats for such specific attacks that you need specific body parts for?
Just give me the 1d8/1d4(agile) and let me modify that attack in different ways, mechanically (B/P/S, elemental damage, weapon traits, etc) instead. It's less tedious if i can just make my attacks how i want them instead of having to choose between 6 or 7 different types of attacks like in 1e.

I don't think it'd a bad idea to lose the mechanical requirement of needing specific body parts, no; i like that i can just flavor my attacks to be a bite, claw, tentacle, or whatever attack.

[Temperans]

-Poison- wrote:

Temperans wrote:

...

Like i agree with you, mechanics matter and rules matter, but just talking about the topic of "Eidolon customizability" i think it's important to ask what is tedious to have as a mechanic and what is not.

Damage resistance to a type of damage? Mechanics, absolutely, if Paizo gives us some Electro-elemental Eidolon give me Electric-resistance 10, electric-immunity, or something. Don't just tell me my Eidolon is some force of electricity and it still take damage to electric attacks like normal, the mechanics should support the themes and flavor.

But things like how in 1e there were 6 different evolutions for attacks like bite, claw, tentacle, etc.? That's kinda tedious don't you think? Having to spend evolution feats for such specific attacks that you need specific body parts for?
Just give me the 1d8/1d4(agile) and let me modify that attack in different ways, mechanically (B/P/S, elemental damage, weapon traits, etc) instead. It's less tedious if i can just make my attacks how i want them instead of having to choose between 6 or 7 different types of attacks like in 1e.

I don't think it'd a bad idea to lose the mechanical requirement of needing specific body parts, no.

Oh I agree that importing the PF1 evolutions 1 to 1 is impossible. That would never work. But the base system of, "you have X points to get Y abilities take your pick" works fine.

From the start I have wanted a version that was tuned to PF2 while removing all the unneeder fat.