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.
Yeah like, i think 2e gives us the opportunity to trim a lot of the fat 1e Summoner had that not many people care for.
.........Notice how not a single person has chimed in or cared about the fact 2e Summoner doesn't have Aspects anymore?
Almost nobody played with or cared about the Aspects lmao
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aspects is a part of being a summoned creature. I have cared and called it out but others not so much.
But most people are treating manifesting as summoning. Even if they are in no way shape or form the same. Outside well creating a body.
Oh have you actually wanted 2e Summoner to have Aspects still?
My bad man lmaoNo yeah, manifesting isn't summoning; not in traits, rule restrictions, minion rules, or anything. Like it's only summoning in flavor and even that is debatable.
I, personally, don't have much vested interest in arguing that with people though since i'm sure Summoner will get actual summoning-related options in the finalized release.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As we begin to wrap up the playtest period, one thing I'd like to toss out as an option for the eidolon that I've not seen is the choice to have give the eidolon either Str 14 and Dex 18 or vice versa at 1st level, in addition to the 16/16 option, as well as making its unarmed attacks finesse (maybe at the price of reducing the primary damage die down to a d6 - not sure if that's needed if you're already looking at having to lower Strength in order to get the Dex bump). It's possible or even likely this was already on the table somewhere and I just haven't seen it. If so, consider this a vote in favor.
As we begin to wrap up the playtest period, one thing I'd like to toss out as an option for the eidolon that I've not seen is the choice to have give the eidolon either Str 14 and Dex 18 or vice versa at 1st level, in addition to the 16/16 option, as well as making its unarmed attacks finesse (maybe at the price of reducing the primary damage die down to a d6 - not sure if that's needed if you're already looking at having to lower Strength in order to get the Dex bump). It's possible or even likely this was already on the table somewhere and I just haven't seen it. If so, consider this a vote in favor.
The only thing I'd note is that if 18 dex is on the table, it makes expert unarmored at level 1 less "appealing" from the balance perspective. Currently, there's a period where Eidolon AC is "very good" by virtue of being tied with a monk (18 dex, expert unarmored) - but this is limited, which mitigates any potential bad feels coming from rhe Eidolon having above average AC for a martial. Expanding that period could be a complication.
But a level one Eidolon with 14 dex and only trained unarmored would be EXCEPTIONALLY terrible.
So thats something to consider when looking at 18/14 or 14/18 str/dex splits at level 1.
|
|
As we begin to wrap up the playtest period, one thing I'd like to toss out as an option for the eidolon that I've not seen is the choice to have give the eidolon either Str 14 and Dex 18 or vice versa at 1st level, in addition to the 16/16 option, as well as making its unarmed attacks finesse (maybe at the price of reducing the primary damage die down to a d6 - not sure if that's needed if you're already looking at having to lower Strength in order to get the Dex bump). It's possible or even likely this was already on the table somewhere and I just haven't seen it. If so, consider this a vote in favor.The only thing I'd note is that if 18 dex is on the table, it makes expert unarmored at level 1 less "appealing" from the balance perspective. Currently, there's a period where Eidolon AC is "very good" by virtue of being tied with a monk (18 dex, expert unarmored) - but this is limited, which mitigates any potential bad feels coming from rhe Eidolon having above average AC for a martial. Expanding that period could be a complication.
But a level one Eidolon with 14 dex and only trained unarmored would be EXCEPTIONALLY terrible.
So thats something to consider when looking at 18/14 or 14/18 str/dex splits at level 1.
While it definitely affects what I'm suggesting here, I think the AC question is separate enough that it would be a different discussion. My preferred fix to that is kind of out of the mainstream (and heavily impacts reinforce eidolon) so I didn't go into it, but the game already has a means by which you can alter Dex scores without impacting total AC, and I think it could be applied usefully in the context of the eidolon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it definitely affects what I'm suggesting here, I think the AC question is separate enough that it would be a different discussion. My preferred fix to that is kind of out of the mainstream (and heavily impacts reinforce eidolon) so I didn't go into it, but the game already has a means by which you can alter Dex scores without impacting total AC, and I think it could be applied usefully in the context of the eidolon.As we begin to wrap up the playtest period, one thing I'd like to toss out as an option for the eidolon that I've not seen is the choice to have give the eidolon either Str 14 and Dex 18 or vice versa at 1st level, in addition to the 16/16 option, as well as making its unarmed attacks finesse (maybe at the price of reducing the primary damage die down to a d6 - not sure if that's needed if you're already looking at having to lower Strength in order to get the Dex bump). It's possible or even likely this was already on the table somewhere and I just haven't seen it. If so, consider this a vote in favor.The only thing I'd note is that if 18 dex is on the table, it makes expert unarmored at level 1 less "appealing" from the balance perspective. Currently, there's a period where Eidolon AC is "very good" by virtue of being tied with a monk (18 dex, expert unarmored) - but this is limited, which mitigates any potential bad feels coming from rhe Eidolon having above average AC for a martial. Expanding that period could be a complication.
But a level one Eidolon with 14 dex and only trained unarmored would be EXCEPTIONALLY terrible.
So thats something to consider when looking at 18/14 or 14/18 str/dex splits at level 1.
I mean, you could absolutely go a route similar to having your array tied to having Eidolon "archetypes" that effect your stat array.
"Beefy" eidolons have 18 Str, 14 Dex to start with a +3 item bonus to AC and a max dex bonus of 2, with a d8 and d4 agile attacks.
"Finesse" Eidolons have an 18 Dex, 14 Str, +1 item bonus to armor and max dex of 4 and d6 finesse and a d4 finesse agile attacks.
And in either case, you delay unarmored proficiency increases to be in line with every other martial class, putting Eidolons firmly into Medium armor progression from level 1 onward.
I dont think thats awful, I was just noting that once you tweak starting dex, you have to consider AC progression impacts comprehensively.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. Once you start moving dexterity, you start having the same trouble the nimble companion has over the savage companion. The nimble companion is far superior because it's damage is only a few 4 points worse, while it's AC is 4 to 6 points better than savage. The boosted AC is far more valuable than the damage for survivability on top of the much higher reflex saves. If you make the eidolon attacks finesse, then you have very little disadvantage other than a few points of damage and athletics for more AC, reflex saves, and higher acrobatics and stealth.
Most optimizers would likely go for the dex-based eidolon because of the high AC and reflex saves with only a moderate reduction in damage.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s a non-argument. Familiars can pick abilities so other things should get it just because without thought?
Be the same as claiming Familiars should get class feats.
Your argument, is again, fallacious.
The system has been tried, tested, and works.
Rysky's argument is not the one that is fallacious.
Eidolons are not familiars. They do not resemble familiars in form or role. Things that are true for familiars do not extend to Eidolons, logically or intuitively.
You cannot even claim they are similar because they are both minions, because one is designed specifically to avoid a "master-minion" relationship.
Eidolons are a completely distinct game subsystem from Familiars, and there is good reason to suspect that what is good for one has nothing to do with what is good for the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bestiary/monster version of things like Constrict.That's one thing we all have to take into consideration here: According to some data I have, summoner is a class whose high concept is extremely attractive to brand new to RPG players (or it was in PF1), but then the complexity of building them caused some issues. That wasn't immediately obvious to an options junkie of a player like me who just wants to make lots of different decisions at every step, but whatever the final method of building winds up being, it needs to be simple but powerful, allowing as much depth as well as narrative customization and variety of options for your eidolon's story, thematics, and visuals as we can without too much complexity.Just to be this guy....
So much this. I run with 9-12 year olds. And the party is half druids. Once they find out you can have an animal friend, and be an animal and have a talking plant friend and cast magic?
Nothing but druids. So many stat blocks. So many powers, so many times they run into weird interactions (they turn into a squirrel and then can’t cast spells, they turn into a bear stride into a mass of enemies and have no actions left to attack, they don’t have magic fang, they shapechange and don’t have a focus point to heal their animal).
I think I can pull off the kids with a pet dragon, or Pokémon. But it’s not a help if it’s complex. PF2 is good when it’s simple.
Save my brain.
5e dnd is where they should start
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s a non-argument. Familiars can pick abilities so other things should get it just because without thought?
Be the same as claiming Familiars should get class feats.
Your argument, is again, fallacious.
The system has been tried, tested, and works.
Rysky's argument is not the one that is fallacious.
Eidolons are not familiars. They do not resemble familiars in form or role. Things that are true for familiars do not extend to Eidolons, logically or intuitively.
You cannot even claim they are similar because they are both minions, because one is designed specifically to avoid a "master-minion" relationship.
Eidolons are a completely distinct game subsystem from Familiars, and there is good reason to suspect that what is good for one has nothing to do with what is good for the other.
And that’s without pointing out that “works” is debatable, since most cases I’ve heard from familiar users is “do I pick the cool thing or more Focus pew pew” and most picking Focus.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
5e dnd is where they should start
Telling people that Pathfinder 2E is not for them is in direct conflict with the inclusiveness that is part of Pathfinder at its core - and which is described in the 2E rulebook. The system is designed from the ground up to support players of all skill levels, from those new to the hobby to veterans.
Page 485 says "Gaming is for everyone. Never let those acting in bad faith undermine your game or exclude other players."
Perhaps you should consider not trying to drive off new players, just because you personally dont like the idea of a system simple enough to be accessible even to newbies to RPGs in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that’s without pointing out that “works” is debatable, since most cases I’ve heard from familiar users is “do I pick the cool thing or more Focus pew pew” and most picking Focus.
Don't forget familiars with Manual Dexterity and Valet for Alchemists - among other interactions, those are so good for alchemists as to make familiars practically mandatory just for the utility of those two abilities. Want something else? Shooting yourself in the foot...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play PF2e because I love crunch. I do not play D&D 5e because it lacks crunch. I do not want PF2e to become like D&D 5e.
I feel like maybe you haven't played sufficient 5e. It's not this narrative haven you seem to imagine- its a badly balanced straight jacket that encourages power gaming and extreme gameism, because they didn't bother to make a system with intelligible progression or in which you can design encounters that are predictably difficult.
Its every bit as crunchy as pathfinder, with none of the depth or flexibility or intelligence of design.
It absolutely does not support narrative play as well as PF2E.
The mythical game system which is "simple" and narrative you keep referring to may exist, but its not the mess that is DnD 5e.
Stop trying to drive people away from Pathfinder 2E by insisting it only works the way you personally envision it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be this guy....
So much this. I run with 9-12 year olds. And the party is half druids. Once they find out you can have an animal friend, and be an animal and have a talking plant friend and cast magic?
Nothing but druids. So many stat blocks. So many powers, so many times they run into weird interactions (they turn into a squirrel and then can’t cast spells, they turn into a bear stride into a mass of enemies and have no actions left to attack, they don’t have magic fang, they shapechange and don’t have a focus point to heal their animal).
I think I can pull off the kids with a pet dragon, or Pokémon. But it’s not a help if it’s complex. PF2 is good when it’s simple.
Save my brain.
It's exciting to hear you're running games for young kids and they're having that much fun. A full Druid party sounds like a blast!
I think there's a way to give the Eidolons so more definition without overloading the rules.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A "Hide User" button for these forums would be a great quality of life improvement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: gawd. Thought I was in the general board for the playtest not summoner. This explains so much.
LOL Don't worry about it buddy, I do it all the time: it's easy to miss where you are when switching between threads. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A "Hide User" button for these forums would be a great quality of life improvement.
Might I suggest the Paizo Campaign Tools extension for Chrome.
Yeah like, i think 2e gives us the opportunity to trim a lot of the fat 1e Summoner had that not many people care for.
.........Notice how not a single person has chimed in or cared about the fact 2e Summoner doesn't have Aspects anymore?
Almost nobody played with or cared about the Aspects lmaoAspects?
Had to look it up. It was just forgetable.
Temperans was a fan of Aspects, apparently; i also thought it was a pretty forgettable class feature and i guess so did the devs in 2e lol
It probably could've been cool but 1e didn't do too much with the concept, except for maybe tag-team builds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Temperans was a fan of Aspects, apparently; i also thought it was a pretty forgettable class feature and i guess so did the devs in 2e lol
It probably could've been cool but 1e didn't do too much with the concept, except for maybe tag-team builds.
The aspect class feature was cool, but all the things I used to want from them in theory are now available as parts of ancestries.
Things like claws and wings for a tiefling that allow flight... I can just get those If I want them.
I have no idea why people don't remember the Aspect abilities because they are honestly awesome.
Because they were a 10th level ability. I played PF1 from the beginning and I've played exactly one character who ever made it to tenth. Most never got past sixth. I find it much easier to level in PF2 then I ever did in PF1.
Edit: And aspects were never a really eye-catching "Oh hey that's awesome! Let's build my whole character around this!" kinda power either.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bonded Accuracy is the worst balance mechanic to ever be put into a role playing rules system.
Yes, worse than anything in 4th edition. (other than only having one class copy and pasted into many)
So, this summoner class, with everything that has been commented on, do you think it can be improved and "fixed" for the printed version in the book?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's not directly about the summoner. I'll mention my stance on 5e,pf1e and pf2e.
Pf1e felt bogged down in combat and had terrible balance.
5e quickly became too simple with very little mechanical customization to be made. Even feats were optional and not always ran. Plus a lot of the time you were better served taking the asi over the feat even if the feat was more fun. So by level 3i was often done with my decisions to be made about my characters progression unless I had spell slots to play with. And the games balance was poor.
At no point have I, anyone I've interacted with, and until now on this forum, have I seen anyone argue that 5e is all mechanics. They heavily implies you didn't play 5e. So much of that game is narrative fiat up to the DM.
5e is the poster child for narrative fiat in place of mechanical rules. And has very little customization progression if you are not a caster.
So it's not insulting to tell someone 5e is where they should be if 2e, the next step up on the mechanics supported rpg, is giving headaches due to rules knowledge.
Sorry if people got triggered by the use of the word dumb though.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
5e is the poster child for narrative fiat in place of mechanical rules. And has very little customization progression if you are not a caster.
Its not even close to the poster child for narrative systems.
FATE and its derivatives are narrative systems.
Savage Worlds is a narrative system.
Narrative systems are systems that give players agency, and the ability to make decisions with that agency that shape the scene and story as you go.
5e has none of that. Its a mechanics driven system that neglected to include mechanics for a lot of things, and thus the GM is required to houserule it on the fly. 5e gives little to no agency in how that works to the players. Its narrative unfriendly in that regard. GM fiat like that is antithetical to a narrative rpg system.
Pathfinder 2E is designed as a well thought out mechanical framework with depth, and elements of narrative design worked into its core. It provides mechanics for players to adapt to fit what they want to do with their characters, including encouraging players to come up with new Exploration and Downtime activities that fit existing frameworks. The system added Hero Points as a core mechanic, with benefits up to and including recounting character death as it happens to ensure players can participate in the game. And 2E "took back" elements like control of player assets like animal companions and familiars for players, making the default assumption that the player/character controls them (and providing a framework for how) and specified when the GM determines their actions, as opposed to them being NPCs who the players only had direct control of if the GM allows.
The system is designed from the ground up to allow and encourage players and GMs to design characters and narrative elements, with both strong mechanics and controls on both ends of the spectrum. There are clear rules built into the core of the system to allow GMs to set boundaries via rarity, while encouraging players to work with the system to build what they want within the framework set by the GM.
Which brings us to the Summoner - the Playtest class as it is written is an amazing example of the sort of mechanical/narrative fusion that 2E is best at. It has strong and simple mechanics, heavy on crunch and streamlined in execution, clearly designed to provide some flavor but ensure that the rigid balance that is core to the 2E system is maintained.
Alongside the solid mechanics, which have flavor elements to differentiate eidolons along their essential lines (dragons get breath weapons and the iconic dragon attack routine) players are given explicit free reign to design and describe their eidolon. At level 1.
The class then provides a range of options for fulfilling the mechanical aspirations of your design over time as you level, but it does so by asking the player to embrace the mechanical framework of 2e and bend it to your purposes. If you want elemental attacks, you can get them - and you use the already established and balanced means of doing so. It's balanced, efficient, and consistent with the rest of the system.
The Summoner, as designed in the playtest, is absolutely consistent with the already established design of Pathfinder 2e - a crunchy mechanics driven system with narrative friendly elements given strong mechanical backbones to work with.
Pathfinder 2Es flexibility is what makes it amazing. Its mechanics allow for players to tell great stories, with characters that develop over time and grow in power. The mechanics are flexible and efficient. But the system achieves this through embracing narrative design and philosophy.
Elements of this that are most immediately transparent are things like the change in NPC design philosophy, where only Player characters work like player characters and the rest of the world just works as it narratively should, only adding numbers where they are absolutely required. NPCs only get the stats they need to function, ranging from no stats at all, to level and description, to a stat block for foes, and only to a characrer level stat block for rare and unusual foes (and even then, most only receive a fraction of the abilities of a player character).
You can play Pathfinder 2E like a tactical wargame if you like, but its really not designed to be that at its core. Its designed to be an efficient and intelligible story telling engine, with a massive focus on developing the players and their role in the story beyond all else.
Its absolutely a "narrative" system in that aspect of its design.
The Summoner is slightly unusual in that its mechanical and narrative elements are fairly "naked" and exposed, in that it asks you almost straight out to seperate these elements when you design your character. The Mechanics are X, and the narrative you design is Y. But its absolutely "2E consistent" in how it is designed and functions.