| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In any case. People want to play pathfinder because it gives them options. Asking for the Eidolon to lose all of its options is the opposite of why people want to play the game.
You have options with the new Summoner. All sorts of them, and not just narrative ones.
11-12 base types. 4 spell lists. Any combination of at least 9 attack variants, with any description you wish, and the ability to customize by adding traits. A wholly unique skill set that matches the Summoner. 10 different class feats, all of which have at least one option for modding your eidolon or how it interacts with your summoner.
That is a crapton of options, with more likely on the way - and no one is opposed to more options. Not me or anyone else.
As I understand it, you simply don't like the form in which those options are presented - which your prerogative.
But don't claim options dont exist here, or that people are against them - because that is factually untrue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, to reply to ArchSage20, I am definitely going to play it.
It's probably the only other class ( apart from the champion ) I'd really like to play ( because of mechanics ).
Even if all they did was add 7-8 more base types and fix the combat math issues, I'd likely have a hard time playing anything else.
I'm hopeful we'll get more than that - Summoning, maybe a bonus evolution feat or similar, combat "maneuver" feats - but the chassis is already a ton of fun to play when its at its strongest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if all they did was add 7-8 more base types and fix the combat math issues, I'd likely have a hard time playing anything else.And, to reply to ArchSage20, I am definitely going to play it.
It's probably the only other class ( apart from the champion ) I'd really like to play ( because of mechanics ).
You really think they're going to add that many base types, given how much space they take?
That's one of the downsides of the lack of customization outside of feats; they've established each base form as having three attacks that are unique to that base form. Which means each form takes up most of a column/page all by itself.
If they ship with 7-8 base forms total, I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe a couple more in a year or two, but even that seems unlikely.
If they went with what Temperans suggested in a different thread, and the base form was something like "Quadruped" instead of "Dragon", that might give them enough room, as they wouldn't need to repeated the chassis each time; just the attacks.
I'm hopeful we'll get more than that - Summoning, maybe a bonus evolution feat or similar, combat "maneuver" feats - but the chassis is already a ton of fun to play when its at its strongest.
I also don't see why you would be. You've been the strongest banging the drum that the Summoner is close to on target as it is; any options they add to the chassis is going to take away something else like spellcasting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You really think they're going to add that many base types, given how much space they take?
That's one of the downsides of the lack of customization outside of feats; they've established each base form as having three attacks that are unique to that base form. Which means each form takes up most of a column/page all by itself.
If they ship with 7-8 base forms total, I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe a couple more in a year or two, but even that seems unlikely.
I'm just going by the list of those explicitly mentioned in the playtest. I think there's good reason to expect them to deliver on the ones specifically mentioned, giving us a range that at least somewhat resembles the range available for Sorcerers.
I also don't see why you would be. You've been the strongest banging the drum that the Summoner is close to on target as it is; any options they add to the chassis is going to take away something else like spellcasting.
I've not been the least bit inconsistent in my expectations or hopes for the class. While I think fixing the math issues is the most important thing, I've also been quite clear that I'm hoping for a big list of feats and options. "More options" is probably on every single list of desires for the Summoner. As well, communication from Mark established pretty clearly that they were well aware of the list of evolution options still uncovered, and what it would take to close that gap.
I'll be as disappointed as anyone if they fail to close that gap - but I have every reason to believe they're aware of the demand, and to respond appropriately.
Do I think that's an utterly new and expensive list of options on top of what we already get? No way. But is there room in the chassis for a bonus evolution feat or some sort of extremely limited spell slot expansion?
I can see that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've not been the least bit inconsistent in my expectations or hopes for the class.
I didn't say you were inconsistent. I was wondering why you would hope for more when you think it was almost there. But that is mostly down to your phrasing.
Do I think that's an utterly new and expensive list of options on top of what we already get? No way. But is there room in the chassis for a bonus evolution feat or some sort of extremely limited spell slot expansion?
This is quite a bit different of a set of expectations than what I was responding to:
I'm hopeful we'll get more than that - Summoning, maybe a bonus evolution feat or similar, combat "maneuver" feats - but the chassis is already a ton of fun to play when its at its strongest.
Your phrasing made it seem like we should expect ALL of it, on top of what we already have and separate from the class feats.
Now that it is clear what you mean, I'm no longer confused, but that was what prompted my comment.
As far as the additional forms, I think they'd like to as well, but I doubt they will actually deliver on them, simply due to the page space I mentioned. Especially given how many new evolution feats they'd need to add and if they add any other rules or class feats into the chassis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the additional forms, I think they'd like to as well, but I doubt they will actually deliver on them, simply due to the page space I mentioned. Especially given how many new evolution feats they'd need to add and if they add any other rules or class feats into the chassis.
I think its worth remembering that Animal Companions are Familiars get their own page space, and in this particular aspect (page count budget) I think its possible that Eidolons may be similar - Bloodlines are ~3 pages in the core rulebook and Animal Companions and Familiars are 5.
In the playtest, each base form is just over half a page - meaning that an ~7-8 page budget would be almost perfect for fitting in 11-12 base forms.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean ACs and Familiars in Core were compatible with Druid, Champion, Gnome, Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger, Alchemist, and anyone that MCDs into any of those.
That's a lot more than a single creature.
They are likely to be restricted to the same amount of space as Sorcerer Bloodlines IMO, and that would definitely require them using that space more efficiently (if you're going to repeat 90% of the stat block, might as well just use the one stat block).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean ACs and Familiars in Core were compatible with Druid, Champion, Gnome, Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger, Alchemist, and anyone that MCDs into any of those.
That's a lot more than a single creature.
They are likely to be restricted to the same amount of space as Sorcerer Bloodlines IMO, and that would definitely require them using that space more efficiently (if you're going to repeat 90% of the stat block, might as well just use the one stat block).
I'm not psychic, and I dont know what they'll ultimately do.
But when setting out with Summoner, I really hope that Paizo set out with the understanding that it was a "Big" class with extra needs in the area of required page space.
Any way the class is designed, its going to require a bit "more" than most other classes in terms of page count to make really satisfying.
If they were going to be restricted to the same page count as a Sorcerer, then yes, the current base type entries are too bulky.
I have some degree of faith though that theyre on top of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the whole "it can't be balanced" was disproved by me. A system with a lot more customization that takes up considerably less space 100% possible. But you refuse to even consider it. You straight up dismissed a system that gave you the strong boring eidolon you wanted and still let me have something that was customizable with plenty of choices for utility.
Open customization of the sort you describe - especially since your example included ability score mods and therefore combat math - leads directly back to the fate of the 1e summoner.
The internet hivemind identifies The One True Build, which is superior to all others and probably looks silly - but enough people value combat math that this happens, and it happens quickly.
Heaven help us if there's actually some OP combo or option that makes it through testing.
Then this build actually makes it to play and comes up at home tables and Organized Play, GMs perceive the class as catering to powergamers, and regardless of whether the class is actually OP its right back to being the most banned class in Pathfinder.
Thats not theory, thats more or less exactly what happened in PF1E and lead to the exact "base type" setup occurring in PF2e in the Unchained Summoner - which was still banned at many tables, because it still had the "powergaming" evolution point system.
Open Customization is a problem. I'm not theorizing, I'm not quoting just people I know or my home table, I'm making an observation of something that actually happened.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, exactly. That's how game design works. "Some OP combo or option" does make it through testing occasionally. That's why you have Mountain stance Monks with Alchemist dedications running around chugging Drakeheart Mutagens. The whole point of good game design is to try and minimize how many of these slip through the cracks, but no game designer can be expected to remember every possible rules interaction. Especially when they open it up to lots of different rules (like through point buy) or to rules from different classes (such as through Dedications.)
A GMs best defense against this kinda shenanigans has always been "No, that backstory you gave to try and justify (insert OP combo here) doesn't make any sense and/or goes against the theme of the campaign."
But it's alot harder to say that when the op combo is A. Baked right into the class & B. Comes from a creature that literally comes from the characters imagination.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
but no game designer can be expected to remember every possible rules interaction.both of these are mutually exclusive. You realize that, right?
Oof. I don't even always remember how code that I wrote works along down the line always, sometimes I have to refresh myself. Surely we can understand that Devs aren't writing the entire game together right? They understand paradigms of the systems and most of the rules, but every interaction?
I don't think that's a reasonable standard. Not everyone has eidetic memory and its hardly a requirement for making a good game.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the whole "it can't be balanced" was disproved by me.
You did no such thing.
As for page count concerns, look at what all was allotted to the APG and its 4 classes. SoM only has 2 classes so it’s not completely unreasonable to think they might be allotted more pages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the whole "it can't be balanced" was disproved by me.You did no such thing.
As for page count concerns, look at what all was allotted to the APG and its 4 classes. SoM only has 2 classes so it’s not completely unreasonable to think they might be allotted more pages.
I can't remember what Mark said, but somewhere around here you'll find a comment from him where he says something like" there's still more room for pages but it's getting close"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So just to make sure I understand. The whole of Summoner needs to fit in something like 10-13 pages if it follows the same as other classes?Nope, we have a little more extra space for it than that. But the one in the playtest is already almost 13 pages long (I'm not counting the focus spells because they go in the spells section).
^Here we go
| 2 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...
Just because people don't agree with your opinion doesn't make them wrong. 5e is the poster child even if in your opinion it's not the best at it, because it's the most popular. As for everything else you have said, can be chalked up to a bad, wrong, fun DM. Nothing more. (Sorry if you keep running into this issue)
2e is a middle point between 1e's crunch and dnd 5e's ease of use. But 2e also places mechanical balance before narrative fluff when they must and they have done this repeatedly.
Thus 2e is mechanics first, narrative bows to it by raw. Everything else is DM fiat and that's fine.
But I'm sure I'll get a biased narrow POV post about how it's somehow the opposite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean.. it's all right in front of you...
but no game designer can be expected to remember every possible rules interaction.both of these are mutually exclusive. You realize that, right?
Oof. I don't even always remember how code that I wrote works along down the line always, sometimes I have to refresh myself. Surely we can understand that Devs aren't writing the entire game together right? They understand paradigms of the systems and most of the rules, but every interaction?
I don't think that's a reasonable standard. Not everyone has eidetic memory and its hardly a requirement for making a good game.
Dunning-Kruger effect.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you ignore everything else I said. There's another one off the checklist.
And yes, birds do get flight at level 1. But y'know what they don't get? everything an eidolon gets.
Like, a bird can't even open a door, never mind breathe fire.
Are you saying every character should get flight at level 1, just because a bird does?
That's a very poor comparison.